Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

"F*ck the EU": neocons show EU its real place and endanger the US national security

Victoria "f*ck the EU" Nuland  appointed a neoliberal Ukrainian prime minister and organized coup d'état to install him in power

( Making Ukraine "Khaganate of Nuland"; "Khaganate of Nuland" is an apt amalgam of khanate and Kagan, a hint on Victoria's notorious neo-con husband Robert Kagan by Asia Times ).

Future Prime Minister – Arseniy Yatsenyuk (rechristened to “Yats”) with his patron Victoria Nuland. Two statists -- Taygibok (Co-founder of far right Socialist-National Party, later renamed into Svoboda party) and Klitschko (leader of pro-Germany, Merkel-financed Udar Party who was just thrown under the bus) are present

News Neoconservatism as a US version of Neoliberalism Recommended Links Predator state The Deep State Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA
Disaster capitalism Predator state Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Ukraine debt enslavement Greece debt enslavement
Color revolutions Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy Diplomacy by deception Anatol Leiven on American Messianism
From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss EU-brokered agreement on ending crisis To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooter belong? SBU raid on Kiev Batkivshchina office Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 Mariupol, May 9 events
February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014
Suppression of Russian language and culture in Ukraine Accession of Crimea to Russia Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17 ? The Far Right Forces in Ukraine Russian Ukrainian Gas Wars Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism
Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Media-Military-Industrial Complex Who Rules America The Iron Law of Oligarchy Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite The attempt to secure global hegemony
American Exceptionalism Robert Kagan Machiavellism New American Militarism Russian Jokes about Neoliberal Fifth Column and Color Revolutions Etc

Due to the size an introduction was converted to a separate page State Department neocons show EU its real place


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013

[Oct 09, 2017] MH17 is indeed the very best example of ad nauseam western fake news that pushes people to look elsewhere for alternative reporting, if possible backed by tangible facts.

Oct 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

Muzzledagain -> Jacob Schønberg, 9 Oct 2017 10:22

the very best example is when their soldiers shot down the malaysian plane NH17 over Donbass in Ukraine!

This is indeed the very best example of ad nauseam western fake news that pushes people to look elsewhere for alternative reporting, if possible backed by tangible facts.
Jacob Schønberg , 9 Oct 2017 09:57
Fake news go back a very long time! The sovjet block developed it to perfection. Now Russia still use it. the very best example is when their soldiers shot down the malaysian plane NH17 over Donbass in Ukraine! The FSB (Secret Russian Police) made up so many strange explanations and their agents spread so many fake facts, that it was very easy to understand that the Russian Buk missile did the deed! such desperation - later https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17 / found all the evidense and Russian misinformation is 100 % exposed

[Sep 25, 2017] With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it

Notable quotes:
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."

Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev.

The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it.

Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

[Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
consortiumnews.com

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA.

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA. In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

[Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Notable quotes:
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA.

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA. In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

[Sep 18, 2017] Americas Deadliest Export -- Democracy - The Truth about US Foreign Policy and Everything Else by Gary Corseri

Notable quotes:
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
Amazon.com

William Blum's "Cri de Coeur", February 9, 2013

William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York, 2013.)

(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):

In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an audiotape, declaring:

"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State."

Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, in which he had mused:

"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling Age.

America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"

Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!" concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic and emetic!

Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ... is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of higher understanding.

Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:

  1. Why they hate us;
  2. America means well;
  3. We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the world;
  4. We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture and war--to achieve the above idea.

Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."

In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?" He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy which puts people before profits."

America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought, Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:

"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers, "Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.

"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."

Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'

Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"

Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics, junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy and moral rectitude.

Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch, Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: gary_corseri@comcast.net.

[Sep 18, 2017] Down With Western Democracy !

Notable quotes:
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
Aug 02, 2014 | CounterPunch

A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving our entire planet.

As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism. Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist bigots as terrorists.

By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of extremism.

German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'.

And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom.

An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some, and plundering others, or both.

The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God. It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy and rebuild as it wishes.

This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.

This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.

This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language.

***

In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:

"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its basic workings are invisible."

But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives (not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.

Democracy!

All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.

"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular explosions.

"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States of America.

"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their 'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).

So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered face – the lady whose name is Democracy?

***

It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia), that means "rule of an elite".

'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.

People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.

Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful, that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean Europe.

That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet. It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity" government kicked out of power.

Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade, made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."

And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.

But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and preferably never criticized.

Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.

There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people' in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.

After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.

There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and predictability.

The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954), or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments. Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.

From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves' through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and therefore unacceptable.

While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques of the societies that were forced into submission.

In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly', bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party anywhere in the world, to power.

The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism and imperialism openly and passionately.

East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.

The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western powers – a crime punishable by death.

The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia, instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?

There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship. The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.

On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!

Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those companies?

***

Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for protection?

Unthinkable!

A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.

The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.

It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained. The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.

It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.

This is how 'democracy' works.

I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them, that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.

The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is unity and determination to fight, if necessary.

***

While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of democracy'.

In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature, some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.

This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices only when the result serves the interests of the regime.

Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:

Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.

She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions, against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.

Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive movements and parties.

These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold teeth.

Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.

Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during the WWII.

So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire), many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision of the United States and Europe.

As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:

"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments."

In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger and his clique.

But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.

In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup, which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.

What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.

But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.

Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world, to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.

It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision at the worst.

***

As Noam Chomsky pointed out:

Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole where it belongs.

Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"

The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?

***

After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent, on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.

Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.

There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."

Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.

Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).

Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the professorial staff:

"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save your nation?"

Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.

***

As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent: the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work

And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing" people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.

As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France and other colonial powers.

Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.

Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII. So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.

Democracy! People's power!

If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII, the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.

But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement, was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated on, and then thrown into gutter.

But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move on!

The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.

Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy? It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda

Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed, intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.

Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.

Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first. Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.

Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to their nation.

Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called 'democracy'!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky On Western Terrorism is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

[Sep 18, 2017] A Foreign Enemy is a Tyrants Best Friend

Notable quotes:
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Jul 28, 2015 | Antiwar.com

Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away

The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country. It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late last year.

Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.

That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.

This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.

Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan." Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable "guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on? Don't you know we're under siege?"

Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.

Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime.

The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.

The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.

Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam, both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.

Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.

Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.

All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond. Disastrously, it is being unheeded.

Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular than ever.

And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:

"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor, the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.

A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."

[Sep 01, 2017] Putin statements and MH17

Now this start resembling JFS assassination story... This exchange is mainly rehash of old disinformation (Matt, Drutten) and mostly known counterarguments (marknesop). But there some new things about Putin interview and dismissal of some high ranking Russian commanders in 2015 (one year after the events, so it might not be connected).
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding "Carlos", I tracked him down a few years ago and if I recall correctly, it was a bizarre story involving a Spaniard living in Romania ..."
"... This, once evident to Moscow, led to a lot of drama within the Russian military echelons and ultimately led to the sudden dismissal of Colonel General Sidorov of the Western Military District in late 2015 (on direct orders by Vladimir Putin), together with a heap of other dismissals of high-ranking military officials in the regions bordering Ukraine. ..."
"... The radar unit cannot be left out if the Buk missiles are to actually hit their targets with any reliability. What would be the point of supplying the rebels such an ineffective system. (No the radar on the Buk launcher is not enough for precision tracking). ..."
"... As with any crime scene, physical evidence is vital. The Buk missile will not produce holes identical to 30 mm guns deployed on many fighter jets, including the ones in the vicinity of MH17: ..."
"... There's plenty of proof of Russian supplies to the Donbass. Don't be silly. It is also perfectly possible to determine when exactly these started occurring, namely in June 2014. Prior to that, the rebels had been relying on captured stock. ..."
"... What do fighter-bombers carry 30mm cannons for if the idea of their being able to shoot down a plane is 'laughable'? What's going to happen to an airliner if you shoot up the cockpit and kill the flight crew? Or would 30mm rounds just bounce off plexiglas? I'm not a proponent of the SU-25 theory, although it is not as impossible as some try to make you think. But let's not stray off too far into fantasy. ..."
"... (1) Ukraine claimed that its military destroyed all the air defense systems it had to leave behind as it retreated. So the rebels did not get a Buk system from the Ukrainian Army, unless it is lying. ..."
"... (2) The Bellingcat tale of a smuggled single SA-11 TEL unit into Ukraine, which precisely and efficiently shot down MH-17 without any supporting equipment and then raced back across the border to Russia via a circuitous route which includes at least one geographical feature the system could not have easily passed, is suspect at best and full of possibilities for tampering; and, ..."
"... (3) Russia had no motive for doing such a thing and every reason not to. ..."
"... But the most convincing thing is the western campaign of covering up for Ukraine. Ukraine has to be a suspect – has to – considering the incident occurred over Ukrainian territory, out of reach for Russia from its own territory, and Ukraine possesses the same weapons system. Yet the western reaction is to put Ukraine in charge of the disciplinary investigation, and give it cover. The west makes all sorts of conclusions based on no evidence, and will not produce evidence it says it has. ..."
"... ME, don't let this liar and his lying sources establish any false truths to frame the debate. Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section of a decommissioned IL-86 if there was any sort of doubt in Russia about the most affected area. In particular, why would Putin be less informed about the MH-17 than the average, credulous western sap who is told that Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun. ..."
"... "Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section." ..."
"... A Buk is the whole system, not the missile, although that is a minor point. The missile is the SA-11, and it goes where the system on the ground guides it, attacking the center of mass. It likely hit the cockpit – if it was an SA-11 – because it was leading the target slightly – algorithms in the guidance radar would be sending the missile to a point the aircraft would reach at a future moment in time if it remained on the same course and speed. ..."
"... I don't know why Putin would say the tail was hit, but he's not a retard and he knows the difference between active homing and IR guidance, and the engines of a 777 are on the wing roots , not in the tail. Nobody with any brains launches a heat-seeking missile in a head-to-head presentation; there's no heat trace in front of a plane. ..."
Aug 31, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 1:38 pm

Hello again, my friends.

Something very interesting has happened: Putin's thoughts about MH17 have been revealed, from the full-length interview text from the Stone interviews. A few things were omitted from the documentary and they are . quite extraordinary.

Apparently, Putin believes in the "Carlos the ATC" story. Not only that, but he claims MH17 was hit at the "tail" end, which is absolutely false. The cockpit was hit.

Now, I don't know when exactly he said his. Maybe he believed his media's own propaganda and maybe he said this very early on (interviews were filmed over a few years), before the JIT released its initial report. Still, pretty interesting:

!!!!!!!!-

"As far as I know, right after this horrible catastrophe, one of the Ukrainian flight dispatchers, I think he is of Spanish origins, said he had seen a fighter in the commercial plane's flight path," Putin reportedly told Stone.

"There could only have been a Ukrainian fighter jet there. That, of course, demands clarification," Putin is cited as saying by Dozhd.

In his comments to Stone, Putin also repeated previous claims that the Boeing was hit in its tail.

!!!!!!!–

Original source: https://tvrain.ru/news/pravda_vyjdet_naruzhu-443523/

Also, since we're on the subject: Mark, I just noticed your reply to a post of mine that was caught in the spam filter for a few days/weeks. The post was made sometime, I think, in June or July. You gave me some links to comments by another post here, from a few years ago, who discussed Carlos. I am sorry for the late response, but I was unable to get a notification for that comment, since I don't check this email. Anyway, I have read that commentator's posts and it seems obvious that Carlos was pretty clued-in to what the rebels were doing. My theory is, since he was an anti-maidan protester, he perhaps had links to the rebels and was privy to their information. You remember the transcript/video from the Australian news site I provided? It showed the rebels were initially confused and thought they'd shot down an SU-25 which shot down MH17. Maybe Carlos was able to get immediate access to his information, distorted due to the confusion, and repeat it on Twitter, perhaps instructed to pretend he was an ATC. At least, that's my theory.

Drutten, August 31, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The interview in question was made on the 4th of July, 2015, and indeed at that stage it seems like Russian intelligence knew next to nothing about what actually occurred, or if they did they didn't inform the President. Instead, it's all the internet rumors, and nothing beyond those.

Regarding "Carlos", I tracked him down a few years ago and if I recall correctly, it was a bizarre story involving a Spaniard living in Romania.

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Oh, and yes, the DSB findings were published on October the 13th, 2015. The JIT report came yet another year later, on September the 29th, 2016.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Ah, Drutten, I believe it is your old posts that Mark pointed me to, a few months ago. Were you able to timestamp Carlos' initial MH17 post and compare it with MH17's shootdown? If it can be proven that he instantly knew of the shoot down, then that lends credence to the theory he was in on the rebels' communications and/or was part of Russian intelligence. He was, earlier, an anti-Maidan protester. And he clearly lied.

Have you viewed/read the video/transcript of the rebels speaking right after MH17's crash? It was released by an Australian news site on the 1st anniversary of MH17's crash.

It seems you can access the page, but only if you access it from google, instead of going directly to it. Try this link and click on the first search result, from couriermail. com.au:

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Background:+They+decided+to+do+it+this+way,+to+look+like+we+have+brought+down+the+plane.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8qahWeObBbTj8Aepk4GwBQ

The above is a leaked video/transcript of the immediate aftermath. Notice how the rebels keep saying there was a "Sukhoi" that crashed. They claim they shot the Sukhoi down and that the 2 pilots who parachuted out had to be found.

First issue: no Sukhoi's wreckage has ever been found there, or any pilots. This means the rebels shot at something they thought was a Sukhoi, and something came down. But since it wasn't the Sukhoi, it could only be one thing: MH17. Also, if they tried shooting down the Sukhoi, they definitely had a long-range AA weapon. A MANPAD can't reach a Sukhoi. So what could they have used? A BUK TELAR system.

There we have it then. Now we know where the SU-25 story from the Russian government comes from: it was from the mistaken belief of the rebels that they were shooting down a Sukhoi with a BUK, but actually shot down a Boeing.

What I find extremely interesting are their claims that an SU-25 actually crashed and two pilots jumped out via parachutes. This obviously never happened, but where did they get this misinformation from anyway? Also, towards the end they claim "Five parachutes jumped off this plane. Five people jumped off this plane on the bird site." Are they talking about the passengers of MH17 now? Because 5 people can't fit in an SU-25 and they only mentioned two people with regard to that.

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 2:26 pm
By the way, my very own theory is that as the rebels started running out of captured equipment and other "local" things and Russia started to provide the rebels with weapons and vehicles sometime in June of 2014 (going by OSINT), certain folks in the Western Military District of Russia went a tad further and instead of just sticking to the general supplies of Soviet-era warehouse materials (that while quite obviously from Russia still seemed innocent enough on the whole and perhaps could pass as "plausible deniability" if done right), they decided to let go of some way more potent things as well.

This, once evident to Moscow, led to a lot of drama within the Russian military echelons and ultimately led to the sudden dismissal of Colonel General Sidorov of the Western Military District in late 2015 (on direct orders by Vladimir Putin), together with a heap of other dismissals of high-ranking military officials in the regions bordering Ukraine.

This damage control and the subsequent ditto has been quite chaotic overall. Also, in the immediate aftermath of the MH17 disaster, Russia intervened directly, in a series of pinpoint bona-fide Russian military operations followed by very swift withdrawals starting August 2014 and ending in February 2015. Probably just as much of a "clean-up" of the mess they realized that Sidorov et al caused, as it was about saving the rebels from the Ukrainian onslaught at that time.

The Stone interview took place right in the midst of this drama, and Putin says the following:

There are two principal versions. The first version is that this plane was shot down by a Buk air defense system of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The second version has it that the same system, the Buk system (produced by Russia) was employed by the separatists. First and foremost, let me say that in any case, it was a true catastrophe.

This in the same paragraph as the later musings that TV Dozhd relays. So it all adds up, in my opinion.

kirill , August 31, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Your attempt to give NATzO half a point in this propaganda smear does not cut it. All that was ever produced as "proof" of Russian equipment in the Donbas was the single Buk launcher without any of the critical support vehicles (it is also not clear from any of the photos and videos that it is even the same launcher). Are you going to say that Russia supplied the rebels with just this one component which would have greatly reduced the value of the Buk complex? The radar unit cannot be left out if the Buk missiles are to actually hit their targets with any reliability. What would be the point of supplying the rebels such an ineffective system. (No the radar on the Buk launcher is not enough for precision tracking).

If the rebels ever had any Buk component in their possession it was the launcher they obtained from one of the Ukrainian air force bases they took over. This base only had the launcher component without any of the other pieces needed to make it properly functional. The only evidence produced so far is at best consistent with this. All of the attempts to make it like the Buk launcher was "returned" to Russia are BS. It never came from Russia in the first place.

As with any crime scene, physical evidence is vital. The Buk missile will not produce holes identical to 30 mm guns deployed on many fighter jets, including the ones in the vicinity of MH17:

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm
There's plenty of proof of Russian supplies to the Donbass. Don't be silly. It is also perfectly possible to determine when exactly these started occurring, namely in June 2014. Prior to that, the rebels had been relying on captured stock.

They still received heaps of arms from Ukraine after that too, by the way (by capturing, or even buying it straight from the Ukrainian Armed Forces), but a huge amount of equipment that could only have come from Russia showed up during the aforementioned period.

There is also plenty of proof of the Russian direct interventions in August 2014 and January-February 2015. And these guys disappeared as soon as their narrow tasks were completed, so they weren't left there or anything. Some equipment lingered on though.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:38 pm
There are some who still don't believe Russia helped the rebels militarily? Wow. kirill continues to surprise.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:14 pm
You slightly contradict yourself. You first claim the rebels stole a BUK, but then claim that the holes are from 30 mm machine gun fire, a laughably absurd claim. Machine gun fire is not enough to cause such enormous explosions mid-air, especially considering the holes are in front of the cockpit. Further, no rounds from the machine gun have been found.

The reality is that the holes are from the BUK's pellets, released when the missile flies in front of the cockpit, as it's designed to do. You can watch the JIT's animation or even Almaz-Antey's live tests for evidence of these holes and the release of the pellets.

And the shape of the holes can be easily deformed due to heat. It's not like in cartoons or anything.

marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:56 pm
What do fighter-bombers carry 30mm cannons for if the idea of their being able to shoot down a plane is 'laughable'? What's going to happen to an airliner if you shoot up the cockpit and kill the flight crew? Or would 30mm rounds just bounce off plexiglas? I'm not a proponent of the SU-25 theory, although it is not as impossible as some try to make you think. But let's not stray off too far into fantasy.
marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 6:51 pm
Well, here's what we know.

(1) Ukraine claimed that its military destroyed all the air defense systems it had to leave behind as it retreated. So the rebels did not get a Buk system from the Ukrainian Army, unless it is lying.

(2) The Bellingcat tale of a smuggled single SA-11 TEL unit into Ukraine, which precisely and efficiently shot down MH-17 without any supporting equipment and then raced back across the border to Russia via a circuitous route which includes at least one geographical feature the system could not have easily passed, is suspect at best and full of possibilities for tampering; and,

(3) Russia had no motive for doing such a thing and every reason not to.

But the most convincing thing is the western campaign of covering up for Ukraine. Ukraine has to be a suspect – has to – considering the incident occurred over Ukrainian territory, out of reach for Russia from its own territory, and Ukraine possesses the same weapons system. Yet the western reaction is to put Ukraine in charge of the disciplinary investigation, and give it cover. The west makes all sorts of conclusions based on no evidence, and will not produce evidence it says it has.

Those are all facts, and they add up to a very perplexing picture.

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:32 pm
Apparently, Putin believes in the "Carlos the ATC" story. Not only that, but he claims MH17 was hit at the "tail" end, which is absolutely false.

Does Putin's belief in something that is apparently false therefore make him mendacious, not to be trusted, false per se -- or does this false belief of his simply make him fallible, as are we all?

Patient Observer , August 31, 2017 at 4:58 pm
Mark Lane was paid by the KGB? I did waste some time researching that claim. The most negative comments about his work that I located was from the Washington Post commenting on his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mark-lane-gadfly-lawyer-author-who-promoted-jfk-conspiracy-theory-dies-at-89/2016/05/14/9e87ce5c-1921-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.c4518c7c7966

They accused him of this outrage: Mr. Lane alleged that members of the U.S. military committed countless war crimes in Vietnam.

Against my better judgment, I ask you (Matt) the basis of your claim that the KGB was funding Mark Lane.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 6:18 pm
Mark Lane was an American leftist who in 1966 produced the bestseller Rush to Judgment, alleging Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing American group. Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that the KGB indirectly sent Mark Lane money ($2,000 and more), and that KGB operative Genrikh Borovik was in regular contact with him. He also published A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Lane had intensively traveled abroad to preach that America is an "FBI police state" that killed its own president.

The below book is one of 5 or so written jointly by the original leaker of the Mitrokhin archives and Christopher Andrew, the only historian allowed to see the archives. Thus, the above book is basically a primary source.

Unfortunately, some of the pages about this are omitted, but start from that page and read the next six or so pages:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tiNqCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT391#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you want to jump directly to the info about Mark Lane, use this link:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tiNqCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT394#v=onepage&q=mark%20lane&f=false

Interestingly, Mark Lane represented a certain Victor Marchetti in a defamation lawsuit, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who has written some critical things about the CIA. In 1978 he published an article about the JFK assassination in the far-right newspaper of the Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight. Marchetti claimed that the House Select Committee on Assassinations revealed a CIA memo from 1966 that named E. Howard Hunt in the JFK assassination.

One issue: this memo is a confirmed KGB forgery. In 1975, a note addressed to "Mr. Hunt," dated Nov. 8, 1963, and signed by Oswald, turned up in the U.S. In 1975, the name of the CIA's E. Howard Hunt was well known from the Watergate affair, which is why the KGB chose his name and mailed three photocopies of the note from Mexico to conspiracy buffs in the United States. The Mitrokhin Archive shows that the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter had been forged by the KGB to implicate the CIA in Kennedy's assassination. The forged note was twice checked for "authenticity" by the KGB's Technical Operations Directorate, or OTU, and approved for use. KGB rules allowed only photocopies of counterfeited documents to be used, to avoid close examination of the original. So Howard Hunt sued Marchetti for defamation (since he was innocent) and Mark Lane was Marchetti's lawyer.

Interesting guy, this Lane character.

Note that I'm not saying he knew he was being paid, but why would the KGB send funds to this guy, starting in the 1960s, if he wasn't spreading information convenient to them? This guy wrote no less than a half dozen books on JFK-assassination-related issues. The Mitrokhin archives are without dispute. I mean, they ousted some of the Soviet Union's most valuables spies, from decades ago. If the archives show the KGB paid Mark Lane, then I believe them.

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:48 pm
And your own country's propaganda, do you believe it? Or has your country no propaganda: does it always make truthful statements, which you believe?
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm
I am not the PM of Canada. Your comparison, therefore, is invalid.
Patient Observer , August 31, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Since you could not truthfully answer without confirming ME's point you resorted to being silly and obtuse.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 5:46 pm
You misunderstood the context of my comment. I said "I am not the PM of Canada", because I found ME's question to not properly address the argument. I was making the argument that this is interesting precisely because Putin, as leader of Russia, believed his own country's media lies. When ME asked me that question, it was a random, pointless one, because I am not the leader of a nation, hence the point he was making was irrelevant to refuting what I said.

Regardless, I wasn't being "silly and obtuse". That's a false accusation.

And when it comes to "truthfully answering" ME's question, I don't read much news from Canadian sources. And when it comes to Venezuela, I sure as HECK don't believe the government's news!

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:50 pm
More to the point: does Putin still believe in this falsehood? Do tell! Please!
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:03 pm
I don't know. But he surely knows by now about his government's various lies.
marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet of 'his government's lies'. I know you say the Russian government is telling lies. I say they're not. And even if they were – so what? The exceptional nation has been caught in lie after lie after lie, red-handed and frequently by its own admission. Yet it believes it is an example for the world. That's true, but it believes it is a good one.
kirill , August 31, 2017 at 2:44 pm
ME, don't let this liar and his lying sources establish any false truths to frame the debate. Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section of a decommissioned IL-86 if there was any sort of doubt in Russia about the most affected area. In particular, why would Putin be less informed about the MH-17 than the average, credulous western sap who is told that Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun.
Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Indeed, that illustrates exactly my point too – Almaz-Antey's own tests were conducted in October 2015, and focused on the cockpit area and the shrapnel spread there. Already in June of 2015, Almaz-Antey published a report, before the live tests of the Buk missile, and even at that stage (prior to their own widely covered live tests, prior to the DSB and JIT reports, and crucially – prior to this particular Oliver Stone interview session in question) they illustrated AA missile shrapnel focusing on the cockpit area.

Thus, going by what he relays to Stone, Putin was not in the know at that stage of the details, in July. Most likely, he'd been busy with other things over all this time, and the rest of the Russian military-intelligence establishment was busy trying to figure out what actually happened on June 17th the previous year so they hadn't presented him with a rundown just yet.

I'd say Putin became privvy to all of it later that fall (2015), and then came the mass firings.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm
"Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section."

It's simple. A BUK targets the cockpit of a plane. It then explodes, releasing many tiny pellets. That's how it's designed. The reason Putin claimed the "tail" was hit is clear: an SU-25's heat-seeking missiles would have aimed for the engines, not the cockpit. Thus, he was using this "alternative fact", to use modern lingo, in order to give further credence to the SU-25 theory.

And if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll notice I don't believe "Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun." I believe it was an accident by the rebels.

marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:51 pm
Oh, what horseshit.

A Buk is the whole system, not the missile, although that is a minor point. The missile is the SA-11, and it goes where the system on the ground guides it, attacking the center of mass. It likely hit the cockpit – if it was an SA-11 – because it was leading the target slightly – algorithms in the guidance radar would be sending the missile to a point the aircraft would reach at a future moment in time if it remained on the same course and speed.

But it does not 'target the cockpit', or any other physical feature of the plane, instead seeing it as a whole and as a moving object.

I don't know why Putin would say the tail was hit, but he's not a retard and he knows the difference between active homing and IR guidance, and the engines of a 777 are on the wing roots , not in the tail. Nobody with any brains launches a heat-seeking missile in a head-to-head presentation; there's no heat trace in front of a plane.

kirill , September 1, 2017 at 8:15 am
Regarding the MH17 story, the Mig 29 comes with a 30 mm cannon. Russian radar tracking indicated more than one jet fighter in the vicinity of MH17. So the Su-25 and its altitude limit is a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

The photo I posted has a "line" of circular 30 mm holes nearly equally spaced and linear at the left edge of the cockpit section. This looks nothing like the damage from random scattered Buk missile metal shrapnel. I doubt the rebels faked these holes since the photograph is from a short period after the crash before the gun strafing theory even showed up.

The angle that Pukeraine thought that Putin was flying on a civilian jet similar to the MH17 at the same time and the same region and decided to take him out is probably the only one that is relevant in this case. A chance "score" by the rebels is not credible and the notion that the same vintage launcher from Russia would make the rebel chances to shoot down any aircraft at that altitude more likely are simply nonsense (show us the dedicated radar unit and we have more to discuss).

Pukrainian jets buzzing around in close vicinity of MH17 is basically a confirmed fact. The criminal clowns probably thought they were taking down Putin's plane. They used both 30 mm gun fire and air to air missiles to bring down the jet. The rest is ass covering propaganda history.

https://www.rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/

[Aug 26, 2017] MH17 inquiry receives additional Russian radar data

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , August 25, 2017 at 2:23 am

Flight Global: MH17 inquiry receives additional Russian radar data
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh17-inquiry-receives-additional-russian-radar-data-440581/

The Dutch national prosecutor's office had previously expressed irritation that Russian-supplied radar data had not been provided in the internationally-accepted 'Asterix' format developed by Eurocontrol.

But the office states that, following a supplementary request for assistance, the additional radar information "should now be" in the required format, and will be "examined in depth" by the joint investigation team
####

Irritated Dutch Syndrome (IDS)? There's a pill for that.

[Jul 20, 2017] Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

Jul 20, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34

Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/

[Jul 17, 2017] Russias anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet eras by Michael Birnbaum

Is not this a blowback of Washington neocons organized Kiev coup d'état of February 22, 2014 ?
Neocons sowed the teeth of dragon. Now wait...
Notable quotes:
"... The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia. ..."
"... The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost" of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's soldiers. ..."
"... "The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves. ..."
"... Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq, NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged. ..."
"... The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else." ..."
"... Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in return. ..."
Mar 08, 2015 | The Washington Post

After a year in which furious rhetoric has been pumped across Russian airwaves, anger toward the United States is at its worst since opinion polls began tracking it. From ordinary street vendors all the way up to the Kremlin, a wave of anti-U.S. bile has swept the country, surpassing any time since the Stalin era, observers say.

The indignation peaked after the assassination of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov, as conspiracy theories started to swirl - just a few hours after he was killed - that his death was a CIA plot to discredit Russia. (On Sunday, Russia charged two men from Chechnya, and detained three others, in connection with Nemtsov's killing.)

There are drives to exchange Western-branded clothing for Russia's red, blue and white. Efforts to replace Coke with Russian-made soft drinks. Fury over U.S. sanctions. And a passionate, conspiracy-laden fascination with the methods that Washington is supposedly using to foment unrest in Ukraine and Russia.

The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia. And it is a marker of the limits of their ability to influence Russian decision-making after a year of sanctions. More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking those views in 1988.

Nemtsov's assassination, the highest-profile political killing during Vladimir Putin's 15 years in power, was yet another brutal strike against pro-Western forces in Russia. Nemtsov had long modeled himself on Western politicians and amassed a long list of enemies who resented him for it.

The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost" of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's soldiers.

"The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves.

"They treat us all in the same way, threatening not only world stability but the existence of every human being on the planet," Mikheev said.

Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq, NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged.

Putin cranked up the volume after protest movements in late 2011 and 2012, which he blamed on the State Department. It wasn't until last year, when the crisis started in Ukraine, that anti-Americanism spread even among those who once eagerly hopped on planes to Miami and Los Angeles.

Fed by the powerful antagonism on Russian federal television channels, the main source of news for more than 90 percent of Russians, ordinary people started to feel more and more disillusioned. The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread faster and wider.

The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else."

... ... ...

Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in return.

"Starting from about 1989, we completely reoriented toward the West. We looked at them as a future paradise. We expected that once we had done all that they demanded, we'd dance for them and they would finally hug and kiss us and we would merge in ecstasy," said Evgeny Tarlo, a member of Russia's upper house of parliament, on a Russian talk show last year. Instead, he said, the West has been trying to destroy Russia.

The anti-Americanism makes it harder for American culture to make inroads through its traditional means - soft-power routes such as movies, music and education. Last year, Russian policymakers ended a decades-old high school exchange program that offered their nation's best and brightest the chance to spend semesters at U.S. schools. Few Western artists now perform on Russian soil.

Western diplomats also say privately that they find themselves frozen out of speaking engagements and other opportunities to explain their countries' positions to Russian audiences. And Russians who work for local outposts of Western companies say their friends and neighbors increasingly question their patriotism.

... ... ...

Even McDonald's, long an embodiment of Russian dreams about the West, was targeted for supposed health violations in the fall. Some of its most prominent locations were forced to shut down temporarily. When they reopened, McDonald's started an advertising campaign emphasizing its local ties and its 25-year history in Russia, playing down the Golden Arches' global significance as a bright beacon of America.

Last week, one McDonald's billboard in the heart of Moscow read: "Made in Russia, for Russians."

Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.

[Jul 10, 2017] We need to, as a society, start throwing these neocon criminals their co-conspirators right where they belong in a jail cell post haste

Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Silverado , July 14, 2015 at 10:47 pm GMT

@Kiza

After reading, listening to and watching so much of the information about the shooting down of MH17 I put forward the most likely scenario and some important related points.

1) If the Ukrainians shot it down, then it would have been a deliberate and planned act; if the Separatists did it it would have been a totally stupid mistake. Shooting down a plane which even falls onto their territory was definitely not in their interest.
2) If MH17 was shot-down by the Ukrainians then nobody would believe that the West was not involved in this act, therefore the West has a strong incentive to defend its Ukrainians even if it knows that they have done it.
3) It is possible that the US neocons knew of the plan to shoot down a passenger plane, but it was unlikely that this was known within the wider US Administration
4) The Prime Minister of Australia one Tony Abbott, was screaming his head off against the Russians about 7 hours after the shoot-down; he reduced rhetoric later, but how did he know who did it so quickly?
5) It is not impossible but it is not easy to shoot down a passenger plane flying at almost 11,000 m and at a high speed from the ground. When the USS Vincennes downed the Iran Air Flight 655, this plane was still climbing up. Other examples of shootdowns were mostly by military jets, not by Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs).
6) Therefore, most likely the MH17 was shot down by a military jet, because nobody saw a very visible plume from a BUK missile.
7) It is extremely unlikely that the US does not have satellite imagery, where is it?
8) Who directed a civilian jet over a small conflict area (50km x 80km)?
9) Why the black boxes were never analysed and sound of the last few seconds played in the media, as it usually happens?
10) What about news that the Ukrainian Government was given the right of veto over the investigative report's content? This would make this report totally compromised and worthless.

In conclusion - most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining. That reminds me of an old neocon joke I re-heard the other day that goes like

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain are all flying over New Orleans in a Blackhawk, surveying the progress that has been made in rebuilding the city and the levees. As they fly over the Ninth Ward, Cheney looks out the window, grins, and says, "You know, I could throw a thousand-dollar bill out the window right now and make one of those poor bastards very happy."

Bush says, "Well, I could throw ten hundred-dollar bills out the window right now and make TEN people very happy."

Not to be outdone, McCain chimes in, "Oh yeah? Well, I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a HUNDRED Americans very happy."

Hearing this, the copter pilot rolls his eyes and says, "Man, I could throw all three of you out the window and make 300 million Americans very happy."

We need to, as a society, start throwing these neocon criminals & their co-conspirators right where they belong – in a jail cell post haste

[Jul 10, 2017] MH17 The Blaming Putin Game Goes On by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... According to some sources, the U.S. intelligence community disagrees over the likelihood of the alleged Russian role and has suggested as much privately to the Dutch. Some analysts who have looked at all the considerable body of information that has been collected relating to the downing actually believe that the most likely candidate might well be the then governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch billionaire who is an Israeli-Ukrainian dual national. Kolomoisky is known to employ Israeli mercenaries as advisers and has personally organized and paid for militias fighting the Russian separatists. He would have been strongly motivated to create an incident that could plausibly be blamed on the Russians or their surrogates and he had the means to do so. The government in Kiev acting independently also had the resources and motive to shoot down the plane and blame it on Moscow. ..."
"... It is a return to a Manichean view of the world as "them" and "us" with the implication that intelligence professionals are willing to restrain their dissent on an important issue if it serves to advance the current war of words with Russia. ..."
"... If Russia is indeed to blame for the airplane shoot down it should be held accountable, but it is up to the U.S. government to put its cards on the table and be clear about what it does and does not know. The original claims that Russia was involved were based on snap judgments based on bits of information that had been obtained immediately after the event, little of which has been subsequently corroborated through either satellite imagery or electronic and signal intercepts. ..."
"... In conclusion – most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining. ..."
"... The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system. They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun. ..."
"... Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc. But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media. ..."
"... The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians. ..."
"... "Our" fatal flaw is what Phil has described as the political warping of the intelligence agencies, in which objective truth is superseded by spin. Michael Morell is prime example of why "we" are losing the real and the propaganda wars; the professionals are managed by the amateurs. (I wish Michael Scheuer would weigh in on Morell's self-inflating "The Great War of our Time", which unwittingly illustrates this divide.) ..."
"... Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services. ..."
"... Really disappointed that there isn't any attempt to employ standard material science techniques to determine the composition and providence of the projectiles, based on projectile smearing on the penetration points). Why haven't these dutch idiots contacted a decent laboratory to conduct WD-XRF (1) , GDMS and even ion-trap-MS (2) ..."
"... It is obvious that that blind, deaf and speechless are employed to ensure the investigation gets nowhere. ..."
"... In what way do you suppose Kolomoisky to be any worse than the lying scoundrels who make up the Kiev junta? In my experience, following the Ukrainian situation for the past 18 months, Kiev hardly ever says anything that is true. Moreover, Kolomoisky or any other oligarch acting on his own account would lack the callous brutality and the utter certainty of impunity that marks the US government's little "projects". ..."
"... Media consolidation has produced an astonishingly monolithic and compliant press. Correct. The level of suspicion and disrespect towards MSM is so high among sane people, that the propagandizing scoundrels exploit a relative trust that people have towards non-MSM sources of information. The exhibit one is one Mr. Higgings (UK) that pretends to be an independent amateur journalist posting his investigative "discoveries" on his blog Bellingcat. His "information" was quoted by the US government spokespersons as the evidence against Russian Federation re MH17 tragedy and US/RF conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... However, it was revealed that Mr. Higgins is no lonely and nerdy fighter for truth but a well-connected person enjoying financial help from the private (Soros) and governmental (USAid) organizations. ..."
"... "USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins. ..."
"... Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what appeared to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014. ..."
"... Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted." ..."
"... The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering. ..."
"... PanAm 103 is a great example of CIA media control and coverup. It took over two decades but the evidence was so overwhelming that the British released the "terrorist mastermind" convicted of blowing up this aircraft. I wrote about his in 2007 and the article can be read here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm The March 28th entry. Here is part: ..."
"... I personally do not believe that anyone was trying to shoot-down Putin's plane, I believe that the shooting down of MH17 was a carefully planned act, not dissimilar to Maidan sniper shootings and similar false flags employed before. The circle of people involved in this act was small, but now the whole Western establishment: the politicians, the MSM and the heads of intelligence services have a strong interest to defend the perpetrators and little cost of doing so. ..."
"... The Russian military have made public some of their info, this was on the activity of four Ukrainian ground based anti-aircraft units on the day of the shootdown. But the Russians never said that those units launched any missiles on the day, only that their targeting radars were active. The Russians asked why when the Separatists had no aircraft. Whilst the rotating surveillance radars are on all the time (unless the enemy has launched a radar-honing missile), the targeting radars are turned on only for an aircraft (practice or real attack). There must have been some target for the targeting radar to be turned on. Could it be that these Ukrainian targeting radars were tracking an unknown military jet which was in the general vicinity of MH17? If the shootdown was a secret action, the military jet's flight would not have been announced to the Ukrainian air defense and the military brass may have suspected it was an enemy (Russian) military jet. ..."
"... But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established: (1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown, (2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence" (3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... MH17 Most Likely Shot Down by Air-to-Air Missile: "The data that the Russian Investigative Committee possesses, confirms the testimony of Evgeniy Agapov, a witness from Ukraine who served as a mechanic in the First Squadron Brigade of Tactical Aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force In December, a former Ukrainian airbase employee, whose name at the time was not disclosed, said he saw a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 combat jet carrying air-to-air missiles taking off, on the day of the tragedy, from an airbase in eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and later seeing the same plane return without any missiles." ..."
"... Finally, MH17 route would have taken it through a short dimension of the Separatist's territory: 50km wide. An intercontinental passenger jet at cruising speed takes a little more than three minutes to cross it. For the plane to fall-down into this 50km x 80km ellipse, it would have had to be targeted by BUK whilst well inside a Kiev controlled territory. Based on its fly route, MH17 would not have been suspicious to the Separatists because it was not coming from the zone where the Ukrainian military airports are and it was flying way too high to be any kind of threat. ..."
"... In short, a mistake, drunken or sober, makes no sense, although it is theoretically possible. This is why my most probable explanation is a planned neocon act, a continuation of the Maidan sniper deception. It is a logical next step and what happens when you do not capture the Maidan sniping perpetrators – 298 people paid for this ..."
"... Regarding the RT report of Russian intercepts of Ukrainian SAM tracking radar transmissions - I completely missed this. And I follow the Ukrainian situation closely; not just RT, but Cassad, Gleb Bazov, Saker and the other side (BBC, Guardian, Kyivpost etc). ..."
"... The "CW terminal guidance mode" is the final phase in the complex operation of a targeting radar, when it illuminates the target to be destroyed with the so called, Continuous Wave, just like shining a flashlight at a shooter's target. The detection of such radar emission mode by US or Russia would have been solid proof that a SAM shot down MH17, either Kiev's one or Separatist's one. When I wrote "even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets" I meant that the US never presented such elementary evidence from its expensive sigint and it would have been impossible to miss. Thus Giraldi's "Somebody knows" in the title is justified. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

July 14, 2015

At this point, the United States, which together with other interested parties has been reviewing a copy of the report in draft, does not intend to present its own findings but will instead go along with the Dutch conclusions. Among former intelligence, military and Foreign Service officers there has been considerable discussion of the significance of Washington's standing on the sidelines regarding the findings. To be sure, there are a number of rumors and allegations circulating relating to what is actually known or not know about the shoot down.

According to some sources, the U.S. intelligence community disagrees over the likelihood of the alleged Russian role and has suggested as much privately to the Dutch. Some analysts who have looked at all the considerable body of information that has been collected relating to the downing actually believe that the most likely candidate might well be the then governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch billionaire who is an Israeli-Ukrainian dual national. Kolomoisky is known to employ Israeli mercenaries as advisers and has personally organized and paid for militias fighting the Russian separatists. He would have been strongly motivated to create an incident that could plausibly be blamed on the Russians or their surrogates and he had the means to do so. The government in Kiev acting independently also had the resources and motive to shoot down the plane and blame it on Moscow.

The dominant narrative that is still circulating widely suggests that either a direct or enabling Russian role is a given based on the claimed origin of the Buk missile, technical analysis of the plume and trajectory, and the military units that were known to be in place or moving at the time. And there was also the apparent separatist bragging on communications intercepts about shooting down a transport plane. This was the explanation that surfaced shortly after the downing, that was heavily promoted by the Ukrainian government and the media and that has been much favored by the international punditry ever since.

The third option of how to explain the shoot down is, of course, the Dutch approach: we think it was the Russians but we can't prove it. That is an easy choice to make as it really says nothing, which is possibly why it is being favored by the White House.

But if it is actually true that there has been considerable dissent on the findings, the tacit acceptance of a possibly unreliable and essentially unsustainable report by the White House will have significant impact on relations with Russia. It constitutes a disturbing rejection of possibly accurate intelligence analysis in favor of a politically safe alternative explanation. It recalls the politicization of intelligence that included Robert Gates' Soviet assessments of the 1980s, John McLaughlin's tergiversation regarding Iraq, and, most recently, Michael Morell's over the top hyping of the threat posed by political Islam. It is a return to a Manichean view of the world as "them" and "us" with the implication that intelligence professionals are willing to restrain their dissent on an important issue if it serves to advance the current war of words with Russia.

To be sure, deep sixing intelligence assessments that contradict policies that the White House is intent on pursuing anyway buys congenial access to the President and his advisers but it comes at the cost of diminishing the ability of the intelligence community to provide objective and reliable information in a timely fashion, which is at least in theory why it exists at all. Producing honest intelligence will, on the contrary, strengthen both the reputations and credibility of all involved.

If Russia is indeed to blame for the airplane shoot down it should be held accountable, but it is up to the U.S. government to put its cards on the table and be clear about what it does and does not know. The original claims that Russia was involved were based on snap judgments based on bits of information that had been obtained immediately after the event, little of which has been subsequently corroborated through either satellite imagery or electronic and signal intercepts. Since that time the German BND intelligence service has expressed its doubts that the missile used in the shoot down could have been supplied by Russia and has also claimed that photos provided by the Ukrainian government as part of the investigation had been "doctored." There have also been reports regarding a Ukrainian fighter plane being in the area of the airliner as well as the nearby presence of Ukrainian ground to air missile units. Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services. Presumably U.S. intelligence has also taken a long and hard look at all the evidence or lack thereof but it is being quiet regarding what it has determined.

It is important to get this right because the potential damage goes far beyond the role of intelligence or even who might have been responsible for the downing of an airliner one year ago. As the relationship with Russia is of critical importance and should be regarded as the number one national security issue for the United States, it is essential that the Dutch conclusions be aggressively challenged if there is even the slightest possibility that Russia is blameless.

One does not have to be a fan of Vladimir Putin to appreciate that the nearly continuous efforts being promoted within mostly neoconservative circles to both delegitimize and confront him and his regime do not serve any conceivable American national interest. In an Independence Day phone call to President Obama, President Putin called for a working relationship with the United States based on "equality and respect," which should, under the circumstances, be a given. Americans have been lied into intervention and war more than once over the past fifteen years and it should be clear to all that any contrived crisis based on an erroneous conclusion regarding a shot down airliner that develops into an armed conflict with Russia will have unimaginable consequences. A skeptical American public and international community must demand that any MH-17 report should reflect a full assessment, to include any dissent from its conclusions registered by the United States intelligence community. Any information at variance with the conventional view, particularly anything that suggests that there might be other interested parties who had both the means and compelling interest to shoot down a civilian airliner, must become a part of the discussion.

Kiza , July 14, 2015 at 6:00 am GMT

After reading, listening to and watching so much of the information about the shooting down of MH17 I put forward the most likely scenario and some important related points.

  1. If the Ukrainians shot it down, then it would have been a deliberate and planned act; if the Separatists did it it would have been a totally stupid mistake. Shooting down a plane which even falls onto their territory was definitely not in their interest.
  2. If MH17 was shot-down by the Ukrainians then nobody would believe that the West was not involved in this act, therefore the West has a strong incentive to defend its Ukrainians even if it knows that they have done it.
  3. It is possible that the US neocons knew of the plan to shoot down a passenger plane, but it was unlikely that this was known within the wider US Administration
  4. The Prime Minister of Australia one Tony Abbott, was screaming his head off against the Russians about 7 hours after the shoot-down; he reduced rhetoric later, but how did he know who did it so quickly?
  5. It is not impossible but it is not easy to shoot down a passenger plane flying at almost 11,000 m and at a high speed from the ground. When the USS Vincennes downed the Iran Air Flight 655, this plane was still climbing up. Other examples of shootdowns were mostly by military jets, not by Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs).
  6. Therefore, most likely the MH17 was shot down by a military jet, because nobody saw a very visible plume from a BUK missile.
  7. 7) It is extremely unlikely that the US does not have satellite imagery, where is it?
  8. Who directed a civilian jet over a small conflict area (50km x 80km)?
  9. Why the black boxes were never analysed and sound of the last few seconds played in the media, as it usually happens?
  10. What about news that the Ukrainian Government was given the right of veto over the investigative report's content? This would make this report totally compromised and worthless.

In conclusion – most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining.

jimmyriddle , July 14, 2015 at 8:57 am GMT

The Dog That Didn't Bark in the MH17 case is ELINT.

The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system. They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun.

Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc. But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media.

The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians.

Mr. Creosote , July 14, 2015 at 2:40 pm GMT

Since we all know that anything in Ukrainian airspace is tracked by not only the Uke air-traffic control and military and by Russia and the United States via satellite, then it 's simply a matter of reviewing radar tracks and sat-imaging.

One glaring unanswered question is why only that particular flight out of the many other previous flights was diverted East over the dangerous contested territory and not in established safe air traffic lanes? Why would a commercial airliner fly at a lower than usual altitude unless so directed by the State ATC?

So far there has been a thundering silence from the Ukes and the US while Russia has released information about fighter jets following MH-17 and testimony from an employee at a Uke airbase that witnessed a Uke SU-25 return without missiles.

This would account for the holes in the cockpit fuselage that are consistent with 30mm cannonfire entering and exiting that rescue workers observed in the wreckage that have no other explanation and cannot be made by large BUK missile fragments.

The silence seems to indicate that the rush to frame the Separatist East Ukrainians and, by proxy, Russia has failed and the evidence will clearly show that.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1702285/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17/

Jeff Albertson , July 14, 2015 at 3:44 pm GMT

@jimmyriddle The Dog That Didn't Bark in the MH17 case is ELINT.

The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system.

They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun.

Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc

But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media.

The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians. The dog that didn't bark is not quite the exact analogy; the pack of wildly baying hounds that suddenly went mute is more appropriate. Of course both US and Russian analysts had detailed sigint and high-res coverage of every square inch of Ukraine at the time, and it was only when the empire knew what the Russians knew that the fake hysteria came to an abrupt halt.

Spycraft is fascinating, but even if you pay very close attention, the layman can only speculate on the meaning of the shadows of the quickly-passing invisible men. I believe the Russians have a distinct advantage, because Putin understands the process and our leaders do not. What they all share is the necessity of obscuring every bit of truth.

"Our" fatal flaw is what Phil has described as the political warping of the intelligence agencies, in which objective truth is superseded by spin. Michael Morell is prime example of why "we" are losing the real and the propaganda wars; the professionals are managed by the amateurs. (I wish Michael Scheuer would weigh in on Morell's self-inflating "The Great War of our Time", which unwittingly illustrates this divide.)

Ronald Thomas West , Website July 14, 2015 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Hepp

Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services.
The attached link does not provide any evidence that is the case. In fact, a Vice reporter went and talked to one of the separatists on the tapes, and he admitted it was him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYEH6Tfzouo&index=14&list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zuC7Uwyv76h7R

The problem is that all the information we get on this case comes from governments, so it can't be reliable. But this is the closest thing to third party confirmation that at least one piece of evidence released by one side is correct.

The problem is that all the information we get on this case comes from governments, so it can't be reliable

You think VICE is reliable? Probably not the best judgment

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/vice-founder-famous-for-truth-telling-has-history-of-lies/

considering a VICE founder's personal history (never mind he chums with such stellar 'truth-tellers' as Rupert Murdoch.)

Very little commercial media (probably none in actuality) could be considered 'reliable.' Some is better than others, depending on the subject matter, the geography covered, the political slant of management and often out and out personal prejudices (not to mention commercial news outlets being highly valued targets and consequent coveted assets of intelligence agencies.)

What VICE news and The Intercept (Right & Left of the spectrum respectively) share in common is anti-Russia bias due to either management or owner-bankroller geopolitical alignment. Management hiring and assignment policies will reflect those bias and you often will get fed lines of BS accordingly or outright false stories.

krollchem , July 14, 2015 at 10:57 pm GMT

It seems that the "international" investigators only have rudimentary puzzle solving skills necessary to figure out how the parts fit together. From what I have read many of the critical parts were even left back at the crash site to ensure failure.

Really disappointed that there isn't any attempt to employ standard material science techniques to determine the composition and providence of the projectiles, based on projectile smearing on the penetration points). Why haven't these dutch idiots contacted a decent laboratory to conduct WD-XRF (1) , GDMS and even ion-trap-MS (2)

(1) Rigaku, ZSX Primus II Wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (WDXRF)

(2) Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry : Trace Element Determinations in Solid Samples: http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ms/articles/1061_a.pdf . Such GDMS systems are even commercially available: http://www.eag.com/documents/glow-discharge-mass-spectrometry-gdms-services-TN102.pdfag.com

To get really fancy, a magnetic sector ICP-MS system could be used to identify the source and even batch of the munitions based on isotopic abundances.

It is obvious that that blind, deaf and speechless are employed to ensure the investigation gets nowhere.

Seraphim , July 14, 2015 at 11:41 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh "My take is that the Americans know that Kolomoisky is heavily involved".

In what way do you suppose Kolomoisky to be any worse than the lying scoundrels who make up the Kiev junta? In my experience, following the Ukrainian situation for the past 18 months, Kiev hardly ever says anything that is true. Moreover, Kolomoisky or any other oligarch acting on his own account would lack the callous brutality and the utter certainty of impunity that marks the US government's little "projects". Kolomoisky was not worse than the rest of the gang. But he was more "representative". He was too upfront with things that the others try to keep under wraps:

"Kolomoyski is a prominent supporter of Ukraine's Jewish community and the president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine. In 2010 he was appointed as the president of the European Council of Jewish Communities after promising the outgoing president he would donate $14 million, with his appointment being described as a "putsch" and a "Soviet-style takeover" by other EJCJ board members. After several ECJC board members resigned in protest, Kolomyski quit the ECJC and, together with fellow Ukrainian oligarch Vadim Rabinovich, founded the European Jewish Union." (Wikipedia)

"Oleg Rostovtsev, a spokesman for the Jewish community, which has 50 000 parishioners, supports the renaming of Dnepropetrovsk to Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper:
"Jerusalem for residents of Dnepropetrovsk is a city of peace, not conflict. Many of us have already visited Jerusalem, worshiped the holy places, came back and said: here it's almost the same – next to the synagogue stands a mosque, and nearby there are churches and monasteries. We also respect our different traditions". @ http://fortruss.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/dnepropetrovsk-could-be-renamed.htm

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 1:23 am GMT

@Bill Jones One huge difference between Tonkin and now is that during Vietnam, some within the mainstream media asked inconvenient questions.

Media consolidation has produced an astonishingly monolithic and compliant press. Correct. The level of suspicion and disrespect towards MSM is so high among sane people, that the propagandizing scoundrels exploit a relative trust that people have towards non-MSM sources of information. The exhibit one is one Mr. Higgings (UK) that pretends to be an independent amateur journalist posting his investigative "discoveries" on his blog Bellingcat. His "information" was quoted by the US government spokespersons as the evidence against Russian Federation re MH17 tragedy and US/RF conflict in Ukraine.

However, it was revealed that Mr. Higgins is no lonely and nerdy fighter for truth but a well-connected person enjoying financial help from the private (Soros) and governmental (USAid) organizations.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16d_1432796866#JldcQrCqq6bWwLzF.99

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 1:30 am GMT

@annamaria Why the US govt' spokespersons like quoting one Mr. Higgins (of Bellingcat notoriety).

"USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what appeared to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.

Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted."

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

Carlton Meyer , Website July 15, 2015 at 2:19 am GMT

@Biff My guess is when October comes we will find little to nothing new about MH17, if history is any guide.

Take PamAm flight 800 for example which occurred in 1996, and it is still up for debate:

The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580

PanAm flight 103 is still awash in conspiracy theories being blamed on either the Libyans or the Iranians depending on who is doing the blaming:

As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings.

In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. guided missile cruiser) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster.

PanAm 103 is a great example of CIA media control and coverup. It took over two decades but the evidence was so overwhelming that the British released the "terrorist mastermind" convicted of blowing up this aircraft. I wrote about his in 2007 and the article can be read here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm The March 28th entry. Here is part:

..A 1993 book Trail of the Octopus offers details on how Iran downed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.[2] Iranian leaders were furious at the "accident" in which their Airbus was destroyed. Blowing up an American 747 would be ideal revenge. Through their contacts with the Beirut PFLP-GC revolutionary group, they were told a bomb could be placed on an American 747 if the price was right.

Beirut is a traditional transit point for illegal narcotics, and a major station for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The PFLP-GC was also in the drug business. The DEA had arrested one of its drug couriers as he arrived in New York by air. He cut a deal for a lesser sentence and continued to smuggle heroin to New York City so the DEA could track its distribution and destroy this network. To ensure their drug mule got to New York safely, agents of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) carried his checked baggage past security in Cyprus. The DIA is a little known U.S. intelligence agency that has almost no Congressional oversight or restrictions because it is part of the Defense Department.

The PFLP-GC learned of this betrayal about the same time the Iranians were shopping for a way to down a 747. The solution was simple. Place a time delayed/altitude triggered bomb in the bag of the drug courier. This would explode on its final leg to New York when it was mostly full of Americans, killing the snitch as well. The plan worked perfectly, killing nearly the same number of innocents that the USS Vincennes claimed. As an added bonus, they selected a flight with four U.S. intelligence officers on the passenger list: Matthew Gannon, the CIA's deputy station chief in Beirut, Major Chuck "Tiny" McKee, a U.S. Army officer assigned to the DIA in Beirut, and two other CIA officers.[3] It seems reasonable that Major McKee was onboard to ensure the courier didn't slip away.

Needless to say, the DIA was in panic after Pan Am 103 blew up. They had never bothered to search the suitcase to ensure it only had heroin as they smuggled the bomb through security and on the Pan Am flight . This blunder was not good for careers, America's image, or foreign policy. In addition, the U.S. Government would be humiliated if Iran were credited for revenge with the aid of duped American agents. It would also threaten to expose the truth behind the USS Vincennes shoot down, which Newsweek exposed four years later. Finally, the U.S. Government would find it difficult to explain why Captain Will Rogers, the man responsible for the deaths of 259 Iranian pilgrims on the Airbus flight to Mecca, and thus indirectly responsible for the retaliatory bombing over Lockerbie, was not in prison, but had been awarded a medal and a hefty U.S. Navy pension.

This is why Libya was blamed for Lockerbie. The U.S. Government hated Libyan leader Gaddafi. This Sandhurst trained "madman," had overthrown Libya's Anglo-American puppet king, kicked the USA out of Wheelus Air Force Base, its premier Mediterranean air training base, and began buying Soviet equipment rather than American weapons. Worst of all, he wasted his nations oil wealth improving the lives of Libyans rather than investing profits in Western corporations ..

Kiza , July 15, 2015 at 5:50 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz Another balance to strike is between the probability of a careless or illinformed or drunk or stupid rebel making a disastrous mistake and a professional air force pilot being sent up to shoot down a foreign passenger airliner and actually carrying it out. One need to know a little about ground based air defense to make such a cliched conclusion: "a drunk separatist". Shooting down a fast moving plane at 11 km altitude does take quite a bit of skill, attention, effort and even a bit of luck.

But, a Russian separatist drank two bottles of vodka and then he leaned on the missile launch button would not be much worse than the majority of other stories that the West has put forward so far. This emphasizes that so far, the West has put forward only the rhetoric/stories and almost no evidence at all.

I personally do not believe that anyone was trying to shoot-down Putin's plane, I believe that the shooting down of MH17 was a carefully planned act, not dissimilar to Maidan sniper shootings and similar false flags employed before. The circle of people involved in this act was small, but now the whole Western establishment: the politicians, the MSM and the heads of intelligence services have a strong interest to defend the perpetrators and little cost of doing so.

I wrote when it happened a year ago – "We will never know the real truth for certain" and I maintain this. The shooting down of MH17 has joined the realm of conspiracy theories (which thrive when the "official explanation" is poorly supported by facts) : Kennedy assassination, 911 and so on.

Kiza , July 15, 2015 at 6:41 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz jimmyriddle is obviously a professional or someone with a very good knowledge of sigint (signals intelligence). Essentially, every anti-aircraft radar costs a lot of money and there is a limited number of them in the World. All militarily advanced countries of the World, especially former USSR and US, have always collected electronic signatures of each radar. This has many uses but I do not want to digress. It is practically impossible to shoot down a plane from the ground or from air without using a radar, at least during some part of the action. It is totally impossible that neither Russia nor US have monitored electronic emissions in a conflict zone in which both had their special forces . None of this sigint is very secret, where is the US sigint from the day? Neither satellite images, nor sigint info have been made public, nada, zilch, zero.

The MH370 loss is not comparable because this plane was not lost in the hottest military zone on Earth – Eastern Ukraine.

The Russian military have made public some of their info, this was on the activity of four Ukrainian ground based anti-aircraft units on the day of the shootdown. But the Russians never said that those units launched any missiles on the day, only that their targeting radars were active. The Russians asked why when the Separatists had no aircraft. Whilst the rotating surveillance radars are on all the time (unless the enemy has launched a radar-honing missile), the targeting radars are turned on only for an aircraft (practice or real attack). There must have been some target for the targeting radar to be turned on. Could it be that these Ukrainian targeting radars were tracking an unknown military jet which was in the general vicinity of MH17? If the shootdown was a secret action, the military jet's flight would not have been announced to the Ukrainian air defense and the military brass may have suspected it was an enemy (Russian) military jet.

But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established: (1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown, (2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence" (3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine.

jimmyriddle , July 15, 2015 at 6:57 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz As I said this is a point worth following up but, when you think about it, there may even be a stronger argument of opposite import. Wouldn't the Russians be at least as likely to be monitoring minutely everything going on within a few kilometres of the Russian border where fighting is taking place and Russians, in whatever capacity, are involved (or, if you like, just pro-Russian rebels are involved)? "Wouldn't the Russians be at least as likely to be monitoring minutely everything going on within a few kilometres of the Russian border"

Not necessarily. Russia isn't the USSR. Its ability to maintain EORBATS is limited – for example, Russia's satellite-based missile early warning system is currently out of operation. Until recently Ukrainian air defence systems would not be a priority as conflict with Ukraine would have been considered unthinkable. So, while it seems likely that Russian ELINT/ESM systems would have detected the tracking radar, they wouldn't necessarily have had the historical EORBAT required to prove that the system was Ukrainian-controlled.

Tom Welsh , July 15, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT

@Biff My guess is when October comes we will find little to nothing new about MH17, if history is any guide.

Take PamAm flight 800 for example which occurred in 1996, and it is still up for debate:

The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580

PanAm flight 103 is still awash in conspiracy theories being blamed on either the Libyans or the Iranians depending on who is doing the blaming:

As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings.

In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. guided missile cruiser) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster.

"The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet".

Another obvious, transparent, utterly brazen lie. Is there anyone so naive as to believe any part of this for even a moment? The Aegis missile ships were designed from the ground up to protect American carrier task groups from swarms of incoming Soviet missiles and/or aircraft. How the hell could they do that if they couldn't tell the difference between an attacking jet fighter of US manufacture (hence extremely familiar) and a civilian airliner ascending along its planned and well-known flight path? Aegis was designed, I repeat, the handle dozens of incoming supersonic missiles! Yet when presented with the simplest imaginable situation – a single relatively slow, lumbering airliner (going even slower than cruising speed while it climbed) the technically expert crew and its battery of powerful computers supposedly mistook this airliner for an attacking F-14?

This is as if to say that an expert veteran big game hunter shot dead a prize cow, at point blank range, because he mistook it for an attacking lion!

I understand that subsequent examination of the Vincennes' computer records showed that the computers were never deceived for a moment: they identified the Iranian Airbus as an Iranian Airbus. So presumably the crew were so pathetically panicky or staggeringly incompetent that they misread their own displays in their single-minded determination to believe they were being attacked.

At the very least, the US government was utterly guilty of shooting down the Iranian airliner. A plea of "mistaken identity", as well as being almost unbelievable, would also fail in principle. Someone who deliberately programs computers and sets up an elaborate weapons system is clearly responsible for all harm done by that system, faulty or not.

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 10:59 pm GMT

MH17 Most Likely Shot Down by Air-to-Air Missile: "The data that the Russian Investigative Committee possesses, confirms the testimony of Evgeniy Agapov, a witness from Ukraine who served as a mechanic in the First Squadron Brigade of Tactical Aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force In December, a former Ukrainian airbase employee, whose name at the time was not disclosed, said he saw a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 combat jet carrying air-to-air missiles taking off, on the day of the tragedy, from an airbase in eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and later seeing the same plane return without any missiles."

http://sputniknews.com/world/20150715/1024676143.html

from comments section: "Putin was actually supposed to fly that same route only an hour or so prior, but the route Putin's jet took was altered. If you ask me, it was a case of mistaken identity. Kiev was gunning for Putin, and instead shot down the passenger jet."

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 2:58 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

I am not surprised that you have a problem understanding people as you either don't pay careful attention to what people say or have a deeper problem with language and logic (maybe, it occurs to me, a limited vocabulary). Your Humpty Dumpty attitude to usage is exemplified by the use of "tantrum" in reference to my "Knave or Fool?". But you really are beyond the pale of intelligent conversation if you can read what I write, especially about events in the Ukraine, and suppose that I am other than an agnostic of contrarian habit. You mention Cambridge but I don't think you ever had the benefit of the Oxbridge tutorial system. which would have required you to justify your essays against questions testing your facts, logic and precision of language. A pity. Still it might not be too late for "mature" age entry if some sort of affirmative action could be justified. At least a balanced, emotional-free and focused comment from you. Now we can discuss without calling each other fool, knave and the like.

Do not worry about my education, I have had plenty of it, Internet is my biggest teacher now.

If you are interested why I asked you if you were from another planet, it is because of this: "Oh btw a drunk person can use a laser or other homing device once fuxed on a target".

Since you are an Australian (from another planet), your comment reminded me of the news in the Sydney Morning Herald of some Bogan shining a green laser pointer at the planes taking off and landing at Sydney Airport, trying to blind pilots and cause a crash. The police said they would catch him/her and he/she would get 20 years in the cooler just for shining. Maybe this was your idea of a tipsy person shooting down a passenger plane using a laser (yes, I am putting a funny spin on your tipsy/drunken shootdown comment).

BUK missile battery is a 60-ties technology weapon, it is not a computerized modern phased-array system, it takes a minimum of three people to operate and normally five (all drunken or tipsy, of course). There is no way in the world that the Separatists (farmers and factory workers) would have been able to get one from Russia or capture one from the enemy and then use it at all, let alone successfully within days. If Russia gave it, then Russia would have had to send a whole trained crew (not impossible). The Ukrainian planes shoot-down before were shotdown using MANPADS (shoulder-fired self-honing missiles), which even a farmer can learn to use in a few days. The way AA defense works, is that most military jets, large and small, fly below 10km because they have little business to do above and their small wings do not offer efficient lift, unlike the huge wings of passenger jets. The old AA defense (that BUK belongs to) was optimized for targets at altitude below 10km where military jets spent most time attacking ground targets and fighting other planes. Only the newest AA systems now aim for lower orbit (100 km) to catch ballistic missiles. Fighter jets and bombers now spend most time between 5km and 10km (or they hug the terrain at a very low altitude), because MANPADS can reach up to 5 km and they usually use passive sensors instead of radar, which means they are more difficult to recognize (which is why they are so very dangerous, as proven against the Russians in Afghanistan).

Finally, MH17 route would have taken it through a short dimension of the Separatist's territory: 50km wide. An intercontinental passenger jet at cruising speed takes a little more than three minutes to cross it. For the plane to fall-down into this 50km x 80km ellipse, it would have had to be targeted by BUK whilst well inside a Kiev controlled territory. Based on its fly route, MH17 would not have been suspicious to the Separatists because it was not coming from the zone where the Ukrainian military airports are and it was flying way too high to be any kind of threat.

In short, a mistake, drunken or sober, makes no sense, although it is theoretically possible. This is why my most probable explanation is a planned neocon act, a continuation of the Maidan sniper deception. It is a logical next step and what happens when you do not capture the Maidan sniping perpetrators – 298 people paid for this .

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 3:37 am GMT

@jimmyriddle But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established:
1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown,
2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence"
3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine.

Nail on the head.

Regarding the RT report of Russian intercepts of Ukrainian SAM tracking radar transmissions - I completely missed this. And I follow the Ukrainian situation closely; not just RT, but Cassad, Gleb Bazov, Saker and the other side (BBC, Guardian, Kyivpost etc).

The timings of these intercepts would be crucial. It would also be of interest if the Fire Dome (NATO designation) radar entered its CW terminal guidance mode. Hello Jimmy. This is one article about the activity of the Ukrainian targeting radar on the day: http://rt.com/news/173784-ukraine-plane-malaysian-russia/

BTW, in 2001, Ukraine shot down a Russian airliner with 78 passengers and crew at a lower altitude, by using a 1980s system S-200 (the last one from the Soviet Union) during military exercises. Russia produces a new generation SAM system about every 15 years since the SU:

But I never considered that the Russians were saying that the Ukrainian radar was involved in the shooting down, just that it was tracking a suspicious aircraft. If an unannounced flight was indicated by surveillance radar, an air defense battery would have been activated to be ready to shoot it down, and this may have been the plane which shot down MH17 with one or more AA missiles and (maybe) the 30 mm gun. Therefore, I do not believe that Ukranian radar ever got to the "CW terminal guidance mode" and the Russians never said so, to my knowledge.

The "CW terminal guidance mode" is the final phase in the complex operation of a targeting radar, when it illuminates the target to be destroyed with the so called, Continuous Wave, just like shining a flashlight at a shooter's target. The detection of such radar emission mode by US or Russia would have been solid proof that a SAM shot down MH17, either Kiev's one or Separatist's one. When I wrote "even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets" I meant that the US never presented such elementary evidence from its expensive sigint and it would have been impossible to miss. Thus Giraldi's "Somebody knows" in the title is justified.

Avery , July 16, 2015 at 4:18 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz Well that all hangs together which makes it an unusual comment here but I repeat my incredulity at the idea that Putin's plane was ever scheduled to be flying over Eastern Ukraine. Coming from where? Istanbul?

Now here's another possibility.... Both for Putin's actual security and to smoke out the Ukrainians (or CIA or whoever) the flight was scheduled to fly over the Eastern Ukraine - or at least the appearance was given that this was so - but it was never intended to happen.

Now one has to keep thinking and ask what the Ukrainians who were able to order the hit would have calculated what would happen if they murdered the Russian president. Think about it! Even if the name of Gavril Prinzip didn't come to mind they must have forseen catastrophe. I agree with you.

The notion that President Putin's security detail would allow his jet to overfly a conflict area where false-flag units can fire a long range anti-aircraft missile and blame it on somebody else makes no sense.

If FSB leaked the alleged route over Ukraine, they had a very good reason and a purpose.
They would never actually allow Putin's jet to take such a dangerous route.
FSB may be many things, but they are not stupid.
And neither is Putin.

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 11:17 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz In brief I wonder how so much attention got focused on chemical effects on the brain out of all the 100 improbable causal explanations for an accident or crime that are still current. Bearing in mind the drugs and alcohol that have been used by world leaders (Churchill e.g.) it might not be particularly unlikely that some bottle friendly strong personality said "FFS, it will be gone in 30 seconds: just fire the fucking thing". We can only guess at how that rates against an air force pilot deliberately shooting down a foreign passenger plane. An older man would know he could well end up as the scapegoat. So do we suppose it was a rookie who has been sold a lot of confusing BS?

I am reminded of a very good "Big Ideas" address on the ABC''s Radio National by Cordelia Fine on what is now known about male and female brains. Her salient conclusion was that for all the many ways male and female brains differ for genetic and epigenetic reasons, all these average tendencies didn't allow prediction of precise behaviours or behaviour patterns. The best that we can do in our attempts at minute analysis of the vast complex of facts, assertions and arguments on MH17 is likewise to refine our examination to the point where some of the myriad possibilities are reduced to a negligible level of probability. At least we can probably set aside altogether that Russians deliberately destroyed an airliner. Except of course if they were as wicked and clever as Mossad they could have set up the Ukrainians to appear to be trying to false flag the Russians (and did you know Osama bin Laden hired Indians for 9/11 to cover his tracks?)..... Sorry, I lost you again. What does drug taking have to do with MH17 shootdown?

But your supporter, Avery, makes a wrong assumption and then draws conclusions from it. I never read that Putin's plane was supposed to overfly the Separatists' controlled conflict zone. The claim of some Russians was that Putin's plane was supposed to fly in the vicinity of the conflict zone around the same time. There is no doubt that many in the West would gladly take credit for a Putin's "accidental end", but I never found this theory of the Russian yellow press for the MH17 shoot-down plausible.

Yet, as a final comment on this topic I would like to explore the possibility that the separatists, that is the Russians, shot down this plane. As stated before, there is almost no chance that untrained separatists would have been able to operate a BUK without Russian help and shoot down a plane at such high altitude. I have actually once in my life worked on an old Russian military radar and it was definitely not user-friendly, although it was amazingly sturdy and reliable (it was a surveillance, that is a rotating, radar not a targeting radar). There is a small possibility that the Separatists could have assembled an impromptu radar crew from the civilians who did national service in air defense, but this is quite a remote possibility.

Also, there are some Uki claims and counter claims that the Separatists had captured a BUK battery, but such claim is a bit strange because the first duty of an officer is to damage vital equipment before surrender.

Therefore, the key scenario of a rebel shoot-down is that BUK came from Russia, with a Russian crew and was returned to Russia after (what the Uki intelligence claims). How would a professional Russian AA crew be able to mistake a civilian airliner at a high altitude for a military transport plane which can never reach such altitude is difficult to understand. 20 years ago when the Russian military were in disarray – maybe, now – hard to imagine. Also, where are the US satellite images of this movement?

Finally, why would the US and UK keep any evidence of the Russian guilt? In international politics this is not unusual – one keeps one's aces to deliver them at a most opportune moment, when they can have maximum effect. The West has convinced 90% of its own population through fact-free propaganda, that is through semi-mad MSM screaming, so any evidence kept secret would be useful only for the rest of the world: BRICS etc, to badly embarrass Russia in front of its current trading partners.

As the US intelligence professionals have written in their open letter – it is impossible that US has no SIGINT/ELINT and satellite intelligence from Ukraine, so where is it?

Therefore, the zero US evidence on MH17 can mean only one of two things:
1) either they are waiting for the best moment to put in the public domain, or
2) this evidence implicates the wrong side – their own side.
Thus, if the US presents no evidence on the activity of targeting radars within another year or so then it becomes highly likely that this evidence is not opportune.

Rurik , July 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm GMT

just a recap

this is the cockpit section of MH17

http://mil.cnr.cn/jstp/201407/W020140724477193189283.jpg

it is riddled with bullet holes

http://niqnaq.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/14749781785_221e3fb040_o.jpg

as are so many other parts of the plane

http://www.zetatalk.com/ning/09ag001.jpg

Surface to air missiles don't target a cockpit with bullet holes, they target the engines (heat) and cause massive, immediate catastrophic damage with shrapnel and with the force of the explosion. Not the kind of damage where passengers have time to put on oxygen masks as they did in MH17.

The only ones that could have shot down MH17 with air to air machine gun bullets were the Ukrainian Air force, (with or without the coordination of Kolomoisky's mercs operating in the theater).

The bullet holes tell the whole story. All the rest is lies and subterfuge, but it's amazing to see the width and breath of the power of the Zio/anglo/banksters as they compel all the western governments to lie in the service of their agenda. Just like they did with their lies about Saddam's WMD.

All military and weapons experts who look at those pictures know exactly what they're looking at.

30mm cannon fire

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/2492807620_234da08723.jpg

and what the damage looks like

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/damaged-but-functional-a-10-thunderbolt.jpg

All the rest are imposed lies from diplomats and war mongers

Here is Victoria Nuland's sister in law

Kimberly Ellen Kagan (born 1972) is an American military historian. She heads the Institute for the Study of War and has taught at West Point, Yale, Georgetown University, and American University. Kagan has published in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Weekly Standard and elsewhere.[1] She supported the surge in Iraq and has since advocated for an expanded and restructured American military campaign in Afghanistan.[2] In 2009 she served on Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team.[2]

This is what Wiki says about her Institute for the Study of War :

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a think tank founded in 2007 by Kimberly Kagan. ISW describes itself as a non-partisan think tank providing research and analysis regarding issues of defense and foreign affairs, but has been described by others as "a hawkish Washington" group[1] favoring an "aggressive foreign policy".[2] Though it had produced reports on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, "focusing on military operations, enemy threats, and political trends in diverse conflict zones",[3] it first gained widespread public attention in the aftermath of the Elizabeth O'Bagy scandal in which it was involved. The non-profit organization is supported by grants and contributions from large defense contractors,[2] including Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.[4] It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.[5]

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

here's her husband

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Frederick-Kagan-2013-PC.jpg

He's another chicken hawk of the first order. It's for people like these that this young mother (and so many thousands of others) lost her life

**warning**

http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mother-and-child-allegedly-killed-in-donetsk-shelling.jpg

that's what I have to say about all this

Bill , July 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Good points but slightly off target for the most part. What I pointed out was that a state actor not controlled by an Idi Amin would calculate the potential pluses and minuses consistently with the calculation that Russia - equally - wouldn't have brought down the airliner with a view to blaming the Ukrainian air force.

Here the calculation would have to have been that Russia could be blamed for providing the means by which the rebels (with or without attached Russians) caused an appalling disaster by mistake. Not enough in that surely as some of your examples of the unpunished serve to show.

And your examples of the (eventually) caught out but unpunished are from technologically more primitive times (and when there were e.g. Cold War reasons for things remaining obscured).

Kolomoisky I have already indicated could be more promising to investigate. Not a state actor so little can be presumed.

Generally, the technological advances alone since the Tonkin Gulf lies would be enough to make any rational calculation include the likelihood of recordings of just about anything you can imagine and a post Cold War Wikileaks inspired whistleblower as well.

Libya, Iraq etc are not comparable although you are indeed right in saying they are unpunished follies, crimes or misjudgments. But the calculations involved were not in the same category as the one I posited. OK, we can analyze this in the short run, if you like. The problem with that is that, right now, we don't know who did it. At least not in a public and politically relevant way. I'd be willing to place a small bet that it was the Kiev junta, possibly at the suggestion of some neocon maniacs. Kolomoiski's Nazi stormtroopers would be second. But we don't know for sure. We are not likely to know until either the US, Russia, or some other power releases the relevant satellite and/or coms intelligence. This is a problem for your argument.

Much of the advantage to blaming Russia happened. MH 17 appeared to be quite useful to the US in galvanizing Euro support for our policy. The disadvantage to getting caught out has not happened, to anyone. It may not happen for years more. Both Russia and the US presumably know what happened. Therefore, one or both of them is/are holding information adverse to their adversary because they see an advantage in it. I don't see any possibility that the information is neutral. It was separatists, the Kiev junta, or a warlord.

If the info is adverse to Russia, why is the US holding it? Our strategy is propaganda-centric in this conflict. Even I could be convinced that Russia did it by actual evidence, and this would change my view of the conflict. There must be plenty of people not buying the US line who would buy it with evidence. I doubt, for example, that any of the European governments buy our/their own BS on the Ukraine. It would be highly useful to the US if Russia actually was violently threatening and was perceived to be so by non-morons.

If the info is adverse to the US, it is easy to see why Russia would hold it. It is valuable to us to be seen, at least domestically, to be both the good guys and the winners. When Kennedy was offered utter defeat in the Cuban missile crisis in exchange for appearing to win, he jumped at it. The Russians either are getting or believe they will be getting something for not telling.

This theory also explains a lot of the strangeness which occurred right after the downing. Our side actively prevented any investigation from occurring and excluded Russia from the "investigation" which did occur. Russia signaled that they were holding aces pretty promptly after the downing. Pretty soon thereafter, the controlled media lost interest in the whole thing and now only refers to it in passing.

At best, it was Kolomoiski. More likely, it was the Kiev junta. Least likely is an accident by the separatists. The behavior of the principals just doesn't make sense to me on the theory that the separatists did it and everyone knows. Unless, of course, there was some deal made (very quickly) by the US not to tell in exchange for something, and everything since is theater. But who made the deal on our side? State is full of retards these days. And it is all just so much not our style.

Bill , July 16, 2015 at 5:54 pm GMT

@gruff What's missing in your analysis is a motive. Why would the Ukrainians or the CIA or whoever take the gigantic risk of being caught falseflagging in such a despicable manner?

Let's say the Ukes did it. What have they gained? Responsibility is still being disputed by many, so it hasn't been unequivocally been pinned on the Russians. And there was no massive international swing against Russia in the aftermath, nor a sudden large Uke assault to take advantage of the confusion. Months later, the whole situation is still a quagmire, only now with a frosting of Dutch corpses.

There is no answer to cui bono here. It makes no sense for the Ukes, or the Russians, to have shot down MH17. It looks like a stupid mistake, therefore most likely the rebels were responsible.

The guy who pressed the button is probably already dead. Because it is not a gigantic risk. If caught, they would just brazen it out. They control the dominant media. They would blow smoke. They would have their lackies go on TV and repeat a constantly shifting barrage of lies. They would accuse Putin of framing them. They would have someone, somewhere in the world stir up a "crisis" and point the media at it.

How often do you hear about the USS Liberty? They brazened that one out just fine. The official story of Osama bin Laden's death is obvious BS. They've brazened that out just fine, too. The government tells great whopping obvious lies all the time and gets away with it.

If brazening it out failed (fat chance), they would offer up a scapegoat. The scapegoat would have been chosen beforehand, would have been peripherally involved in the plan, and the bad guys would either have something on him to threaten him with to keep him quiet or they would Jack Ruby him.

It's implausible, you say. But in the hypothetical where the US planned and executed this, we are talking about people who are willing and able to slaughter hundreds of innocents to forward their plans. That they are willing to slaughter one more is not the least bit implausible.

There is no answer to cui bono here. It makes no sense for the Ukes, or the Russians, to have shot down MH17.

Are you insensate? The shoot-down of MH 17 has been extremely useful to the US. We don't need to engage in speculative fantasies about who might have thought what about cui bono. We *know* the US and the Kiev junta bono-ed.

Max , July 19, 2015 at 5:14 pm GMT

Also interesting–

http://www.rt.com/news/310082-mh17-video-another-aircraft/

Note pilot found wandering in village near crash site (second plane downed, additional to the airliner)

Andy Popov , July 25, 2015 at 2:30 pm GMT

Some new information about malaysian airliner MH-17 crash.
After 12 months of the investigation we have no even one Ukrainian eyewitness who had seen the smoky trail of a launched missile "Buck" in heaven although such launching may be heard from 5 miles and may be seen from 20 miles!

Journalists from several television stations conducted a survey of residents of several villages in the crash site. Next day after crash the correspondent BBC Olga Ivshyna visited the crash area and took interview from local dwellers. And a lot of them saw the military airplane near passenger airliner before the crash. Many residents saw the plane falling, but no one witness saw the smoky trail of a rocket "Buk" launched, although the day was a little cloudy!
And if there is no even one confirmation of the missile launching from the Earth, from local dwellers eyewitnesses – the version about the destruction of the airliner from missile "Buk" – crumbles to dust. Also we have the statement made by military representatives of Russia next day after catastrophe, which discovered the warplane near Boeing by radar on the day of the crash.

President USA Mr. Barack Obama promised all last year to publish the photos from American military satellite where we can see the situation. But his promise still is not performed! One unknown American specialist has sent such the photo from American satellite to Moscow last year. We can see on this photo the military jet launching the militant rocket into the passenger airliner.

One mechanics from Ukrainian military airport Evgeniy Agapkin arrived in Moskov on December 2014 and he told the next story. This story was published in Russian newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda". Ukrainian pilot Vladislav Voloshenko lifted in military-plane SU-24 from airdrome under Dnepropetrovsk city 17 July 2014 year and launched the rocket into the passenger airliner MH-17. When Vladislav returned to airdrome and left cabine of airplane he has said: "It was wrong airplane!" President Ukraine Peter Poroshenko has awarded pilot Voloshenko on 19 July 2014 with medal "for the courage" for killing euro-passengers in euro-airplane If Ukraine is not guilty then why Ukrainian artillery was shooting all the time the area crash in order to prevent investigation???

Why Ukrainian artillery could not be silent in July and August 2014 when commissions of air-specialists attempted to reach the crash place?

[Jul 09, 2017] The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in mccarthyism-ville by Robert Parry

this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.

MSM, Still Living in Propaganda-ville By Robert Parry

As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed Russia.

This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as well.

Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.

For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the assertion "true." But it was never true.

It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he issued a statement last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began touting.

However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a 17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.

But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election – and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office), not 17.

Lacking Hard Evidence

The report also contained no hard evidence of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best. However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies" refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as true?"

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."

The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear.

On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment.

Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."

After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian "meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.

This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17 agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be detected.

For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal correction.

A Belated Correction

Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected."

When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.

So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal" had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.

The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a "certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply move on as if nothing had changed.

That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference, stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence." Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations.

Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.

Relying on Outsiders

You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.

If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation? And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is "some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?

But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.

Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and out of step.

For instance, James Holmes of Esquire was stunned on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the "17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have been sadly mistaken.

But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.

Hating Putin

This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.

But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin reached new heights after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain.

Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this thing."

Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.

When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion." But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had occurred.

However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of disseminating Russian "propaganda" – or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were saying.

Trump Meets Putin

So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.

In a July 3 editorial , The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt.

"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths.

But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.

In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future revelations.

As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.

With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Sanctions on Russia Will Remain Until Crimea Is Returned

"Until Crimea is returned" is a sign of neocon foreign policy
Jul 07, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Assured Ukraine Sanctions Against Russia Won't Change

Jason Ditz Posted on April 24, 2017 Categories News Tags Crimea , Russia , Tillerson , Ukraine Hopes that the US sanctions against Russia would be quickly rolled back when President Trump was elected in November didn't pan out, and the latest comments from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggest that the administration has no intention of removing the sanctions at all.

Speaking with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over the weekend, Tillerson reported told him that the US sanctions on Russia will remain wholly in place " until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. " Needless to say, Russia isn't going to do that.

Crimea was an autonomous oblast within Ukraine until 2014, when they held a referendum and seceded. After that secession, they sought and gained accession into the Russian Federation, which the US doesn't recognize. US officials have repeatedly presented this as Russia "invading Crimea" or "taking Crimea by force," though the peninsula's ethnic Russian majority was able to effectively secede outright without anything nearly so dramatic happening.

Nobody seriously expects Russia to "give back" Crimea, even if there was a mechanism by which they could conceivably do so, which there isn't. Conditioning sanctions relief on that is tantamount to announcing the sanctions as a permanent feature of US policy, a stance which will likely suit the many Russia hawks in Congress and across Western Europe quite well.

[Jul 07, 2017] Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vyrEujl75tk

Published on 6 Jul 2017

Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

et Al , July 7, 2017 at 6:03 am

Words are much cheaper than actions

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at best, at worst – murdered.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:32 am

Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.

[Jul 07, 2017] Whose BUK Dutch Researchers Discuss MH17 by Eric van de Beek

This idea about paint transmission via explosion of the warhead is probably fake: the rocket was to far for any paint transmission. Also the denail that it can be a fighter jet is inconvinsing. I remeber the article that mentioned the existence of Israeli air-to-air rocket with similar shape off fragments.
The theory that Russia smuggled in a single component of the BUK system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again (despite all the eyes of USA, German, Polish and Ukrainian intelligence services, who have their agent networks in the area) – is frankly crazy and makes no sense.
Both persons who were interviewed are very suspect:
Any person who mentions even skeptically about the version of events that Valentin Nalyvaichenko pursue, other than a definite disproval of any possibility that this version can be true, is a complete idiot. In case of MH17 any such person is simply imbecile.
Anybody who claims " I'm 100 percent convinced that someone from the Russian army has pushed the button." is stooge of the forces that want to implicate Russia. Because the question of "cue bono" should be answered first. How one can be 100% convinced in the case were powerful forces want a particular conclusion, no matter what is the evidence.
The question from whom those two guys get money for living also deserves to be answered. "Up to last year Max van der Werff earned a living as a corporate investigator for a German company. He now sells electric bikes to German delivery services for a Dutch company." sounds somewhat suspicious. The same is true for "Marcel van den Berg is an independent IT specialist. He advises his clients in the field of cloud computing and server virtualization." -- it is difficult to make living in thsi fied unles you are very very good or have very very good connections. Almost impossible. So the question of "alternative source of income" is a valid one for both.
Notable quotes:
"... I immediately realised: MH17 is used to frame Russia as an inhumane regime which shoots down civilian aircraft without a thought. And as it took longer for evidence to come out, my curiosity grew. ..."
"... MAX: I was accused by some Dutch journalist of being a Kremlin Troll. ..."
"... MAX: I have explained it on my blog. I dedicated an article to it, 'Why I'm a Troll.' ..."
"... In addition, Malaysia Airlines was so naive to fly over the area without verifying if it was still safe to do so. On the question if the Dutch state is to be blamed, I'm not sure. There were airliners that had stopped flying over the area, perhaps because they were indirectly warned by intelligence services. ..."
"... MAX: Airplanes shouldn't have been allowed to fly over the area. You can blame Ukraine for that. But until now I haven't seen any evidence the weapon that took down MH17 came from Russia. Such evidence was not presented by JIT, in fact by no one. At the same time I don't exclude the possibility. It is still open to me. ..."
"... MAX: It has most likely been an accident. But if MH17 was taken down to put the blame on another, then the guilty party must have been Ukraine, or a faction of the private army of Igor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian oligarch. But that's a hypothesis. There is no proof. ..."
"... Valentin Nalyvaichenko, former head of the Ukrainian secret service, SBU, claimed MH17 was shot down intentionally. The Russians planned to bring down one of their own Aeroflot planes, so that they could blame the Ukrainians and would have a justification to invade Ukraine. But the Russians screwed up their own false flag by hitting the wrong plane. ..."
"... This story of Nalyvaichenko is so exotic that it makes me laugh out loud. ..."
"... MAX: One month before MH17 was taken down, Elena Kolenkina, widow of rebel leader Motorola, reported that a Ukrainian fighter jet hid behind a passenger plane. According to her, this happened with the intention to trick the separatists into hitting a passenger plane, so that Kiev could use this in its propaganda war against the separatists. ..."
"... But this shield theory makes perfect sense. Imagine there are no civil aircraft in the area. Then the people of the air defence do not need to take into account something they see flying could be an airliner. Because they know for sure: 'Everything that flies is military.' So imagine there are civilian aircraft flying over the area. Then you'll have a factor of uncertainty. The air defence crew will have to think twice before they start shooting at every object they see flying. 'Is it civil or is it military? If we doubt, let's not shoot.' In this sense, Ukraine has used passenger aircraft as a shield. They consciously haven taken the decision not to close the airspace. ..."
"... MAX: Ukraine had two other motives to keep its entire airspace open. First of all: The traffic rights amounted to a few thousand euros per airliner. Secondly, they just didn't want to admit that they lost control of the territory. It would have been a disgrace. ..."
"... MARCEL: 100 percent. The damage to the plane could not have been caused by anything other than a BUK rocket. If MH17 had been hit by an air-to-air missile, fired from a fighter jet, we would have known. Almost all air-to-air missiles contain 'rods', a kind of metal strips like bullets. They leave a clear fingerprint, a certain kind of holes not found on MH17. ..."
"... The JIT has also found parts of a BUK rocket in the plane wreck. Then some might argue they could have been planted there. But the investigators found that the paint on the hull of the plane corresponded to the paint on the BUK particles. ..."
"... MAX: That sure was a remarkable press conference of the ministry. Because not only weren't there any aircrafts to be seen on the displayed images, there was no rocket either. Mind you: at the press conference of July 21, 2014 the Russians showed radar images with something that looked like an SU-25. So last year they debunked their own 2014 story. What were they thinking? They made a complete fool of themselves. The information management of the Russians, as far as there is any, is just worthless. ..."
"... Member of parliament Pieter Omtzigt revealed earlier this year that DSB mistook the autopsy report of the pilot for the autopsy report of the reserve pilot, and vice versa. ..."
"... MAX: That's a spectacular mistake. In each airliner you have a pilot, a co-pilot and a spare crew. Halfway during the flight, the reserve pilot goes into the cockpit, accompanied by the reserve co-pilot. So this is essential: the pilot and co-pilot were both in the cockpit, but not the reserve-pilot and the reserve co-pilot. And thus, if you perform an autopsy on the reserve pilot, who was not in the cockpit, it should have been impossible to find any particles in his body. ..."
"... MAX: I have never defended the fighter jet scenario. It has always been an option, like is was for JIT until last year. But probably it was a BUK. Although I find it remarkable that JIT still has not made clear what type of BUK they think was used. ..."
"... MAX: Not only did JIT not reveal the exact weapon. The exact coordinates of the BUK-launcher have not been mentioned either. But anyway, the fact that they didn't say 'It was the 9M38M1' indicates they think this is not the weapon that was used. Can you follow that logic? ..."
"... MAX: Almaz-Antey has done an experiment with a BUK 9M38M1 . They detonated that BUK on a plane that was on the ground. The plane then ended up loaded with butterfly-shaped fragments. Why is it so few fragments have been found in and around the wreckage of MH17? There might be a good explanation for this. But why has nobody taken this into the discussion? It is a relevant question. ..."
"... MAX: The bodies of the deceased have been transported in refrigerated trains from Torez to Charkov. Who knows what happened along the way. ..."
"... MAX: It's for certain no rocket was fired from Zaroshchenske. Because I spoke to so many people and nobody there saw anything. ..."
"... MAX: No. That's not what they say. The only thing they do say is: 'There was a BUK unit of the Ukrainian army in Zaroshchenske.' They never said, 'They fired from that location.' See their press conference of 21 July 2014. ..."
"... In the vicinity of Pervomais'ke it's easy for journalists to get any story they want. 'Here you have a crate of beer, a bottle of vodka and a hundred dollars. Now please tell me this and that.' People living there are inclined do that. I may be exaggerating, but I'm sure things like that really happen. ..."
"... The above interview was originally published in Dutch on Novini.nl . The original article is much longer, and delves into the propaganda war surrounding MH17, the dubious role of Ukraine's SBU in the investigation, the radar and satellite data, the geopolitical shadow play of the Dutch government - and the diminishing possibility of bringing suspects to justice. Only one paragraph has been added to the original article for reasons of clarification. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Max van der Werff and Marcel van den Berg are citizen journalists. They write about MH17, pro deo.

Up to last year Max van der Werff earned a living as a corporate investigator for a German company. He now sells electric bikes to German delivery services for a Dutch company. Marcel van den Berg is an independent IT specialist. He advises his clients in the field of cloud computing and server virtualization.

Both men provide a blog, Max van der Werff: Kremlintroll (formerly: May 7 ) and Marcel van den Berg: What happened to flight MH17? Max van der Werff went to Donbass twice to investigate the crime scene. He speaks and reads Russian, but not well enough to properly understand everything published on the internet about MH17. Both researchers are in contact with Russians and Ukrainians who help translate.

Their names may be non-existent in the Dutch newspaper columns and in the news programmes on radio and television; but the efforts the two MH17 experts have put in their research are valued by various relevant parties. Like members of the Dutch parliament, as well as the detectives of Joint Investigation Team (JIT), and last but not least family members of the 298 victims (most of them Dutch) of this terrible disaster, which took place in Ukraine on 17 July 2014, when flight MH17 of Malaysia Airlines, going from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was shot from the sky.

Max and Marcel. How did you get interested in MH17?

MARCEL: I've been an aircraft spotter for most of my life. Whenever an accident occurs with a plane, I'm interested to determine the root cause. I found it strange that in the case of MH17 it took so long before the investigation started. Even when it had become clear to everyone the crash site was safe, it took some time before investigators visited it. I started blogging in September 2014. My knowledge of air traffic control and radars helped me in my research on MH17.

MAX: I grew up on the edge of the Iron Curtain. My father worked at a NATO airbase in Germany. This is how I got interested in the Soviet Union and geopolitics. When NATO began bombing former Yugoslavia in 1999, I quickly made the analysis: 'This is only just the beginning. It's a tryout to create problems for Russia.' I foresaw that Georgia and Ukraine would follow.

The story of MH17 is very much connected to the geopolitical conflict that is taking place there. The MH17 disaster would not have occurred if East and West had chosen to reach an agreement on Ukraine instead of seeking a confrontation. I immediately realised: MH17 is used to frame Russia as an inhumane regime which shoots down civilian aircraft without a thought. And as it took longer for evidence to come out, my curiosity grew.

Are there politicians, journalists, official researchers and relatives following your research?

MARCEL: I do no keep a record of that. I'm not very interested to know. In any case on Twitter I have a member of parliament following me, Pieter Omtzigt of the CDA, and a journalist, Jeroen Akkermans of RTL.

MAX: These two are following me on Twitter as well. And the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

And relatives of the deceased?

MARCEL: I speak occasionally with some of them, including Thomas Schansman, who wrote a letter to Putin, Poroshenko and Kerry.

MAX: I met with some of them, but I never contacted them myself.

MARCEL: Nor do I. I came in contact with some of them after they had asked me to give a presentation.

Max, some detectives of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which leads the criminal investigation, have visited you several times.

MAX: Yes. The first time they came to pick up items from the Boeing, which I had received from people living near the crash site. I also was interviewed by JIT detectives three times and I handed over some data they asked for. It turned out that they had read my blog and that of Marcel very well. And they asked super-detailed questions.

Marcel, have you been in contact with JIT or Dutch Safety Board (DSB)?

MARCEL: I've contacted DSB several times. But to all my questions I received the same answer: 'If it's not in the report, we cannot say anything about it.' They have cited in their report from a page on my website though.

Could we say that the two of you have a better understanding of MH17 than all journalists put together?

MAX: Each of us knows more about MH17 than all journalists combined.

MARCEL: Certainly so.

MAX: Marcel has more sense of technical issues like radar information. I have a blind spot for that. And his blog is fantastic. It's the MH17 file.

MARCEL: I'm not a radar expert, but I know one that I sometimes consult. Max has visited the crash site, and the area around it, and has spoken to people there. I lack that kind of experience.

Max, you have named your blog 'Kremlin Troll'. Why?

MAX: I was accused by some Dutch journalist of being a Kremlin Troll.

So then you thought: I'll use it as a nom de guerre ?

MAX: I have explained it on my blog. I dedicated an article to it, 'Why I'm a Troll.'

There have been two official investigations. The one from Dutch Safety Board (DSB) into the technical cause of the crash has been completed. The main conclusions are: MH17 was hit by a BUK rocket, and Ukraine should have closed its airspace in the Donbass region.

The second investigation, the criminal investigation, of Joint Investigation Team (JIT), aimed at identitying the suspects, is still ongoing. The preliminary conclusions are: It was a BUK, launched from rebel held area, and the installation used for this purpose was delivered by Russia and was transported back to Russia after the disaster.
Max and Marcel, who do you think are responsible for the downing of MH17?

MARCEL: I'm 100 percent convinced that someone from the Russian army has pushed the button. But Ukraine bears responsibility too, for not having closed its airspace . A few days before the disaster, an Antonov transport plane was shot at 6500 meters height. And there were also helicopters taken down.

In addition, Malaysia Airlines was so naive to fly over the area without verifying if it was still safe to do so. On the question if the Dutch state is to be blamed, I'm not sure. There were airliners that had stopped flying over the area, perhaps because they were indirectly warned by intelligence services.

MAX: Airplanes shouldn't have been allowed to fly over the area. You can blame Ukraine for that. But until now I haven't seen any evidence the weapon that took down MH17 came from Russia. Such evidence was not presented by JIT, in fact by no one. At the same time I don't exclude the possibility. It is still open to me.

I'm curious why you think differently about the alleged Russian involvement. But first let's presume, theoretically, there are two possibilities: MH17 was taken down either by accident or intentionally. If it happened intentionally, then the question is: qui bono ? Is there a party that benefited or could have benefited from the disaster?

MARCEL: I do not see a motive. Using my imagination, for sure I could come up with the wildest scenarios. But I'm not a conspiracy thinker. I prefer to stick to the facts.

MAX: It has most likely been an accident. But if MH17 was taken down to put the blame on another, then the guilty party must have been Ukraine, or a faction of the private army of Igor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian oligarch. But that's a hypothesis. There is no proof.

Valentin Nalyvaichenko, former head of the Ukrainian secret service, SBU, claimed MH17 was shot down intentionally. The Russians planned to bring down one of their own Aeroflot planes, so that they could blame the Ukrainians and would have a justification to invade Ukraine. But the Russians screwed up their own false flag by hitting the wrong plane.

This story of Nalyvaichenko is so exotic that it makes me laugh out loud.

This Nalyvaichenko is also suspected of involvement in the theft of the paintings from the Dutch Westfries Museum. And the SBU, led by him, tortures people . It's beyond me the Dutch government is doing business with these kind of people and parties.

You do not believe that MH17 was shot down intentionally?

MARCEL: To me that seems out of the question.

MAX: Not to me.

If MH17 was hit by accident, could it be it was Ukraine that pushed the button? There's this theory the Ukrainians tried to bring down Putin's presidential aircraft, that was to fly over the same area around the time MH17 was brought down.

MARCEL: That's nonsense, because Putin's plane just wasn't there. I have this screen dump from Flightradar . On that you can clearly see: Putin's plane flew over Warsaw, not eastern Ukraine. Even Russia Today indicated that Putin had not flown over Ukraine for months.

MAX: There's more to the story. That day Putin came from Brazil, where he had attended a conference of BRICS countries. He was to fly to a conference in Rostov , southern Russia. His plane and MH17 crossed each other at Warsaw, with half an hour difference. But instead of flying to Rostov via Warsaw, over eastern Ukraine, as planned, Putin decided to refrain from the conference in Rostov and flew directly to Moscow.

MARCEL: I think it's a waste of time to pay attention to these kinds of stories. The MH17 was a Boeing 777. It looks very different from Putin's Ilyushin 96. The colour scheme is completely different, the 777 has two engines, the Ilyushin four engines.

MAX: In 1983 a Korean Kal 007 was taken down , flying over soviet territory, by a Soechoj because the pilot mistook it for a reconaissance plane.

So I can imagine that a fighter pilot flying 10 miles from Putin's aircraft, with the aim to take it down, mistook MH17 for Putin's plane. But just the same, I think it's an unlikely story. The perpetrators would have been tipped off in a timely manner that Putin's Ilyushin 96 took a different route.

If the separatists did it, what about the theory that they shot at Ukrainian fighter jets using MH17 as a shield?

MARCEL: That's out of the question. From what I understand the radar of a BUK Telar is of high precision. It's perfectly able to distinguish a Boeing 777 from a fighter jet flying closeby. Fighter jet pilots probably knew that and would not take the risk either.

Also, there are no reports by for example airline pilots that their aircraft was being chased by Ukraine fighter aircrafts. The TCAS system in the cockpit is able to detect aircrafts flying close by.

Many eyewitnesses say they saw jets just before MH17 came down.

MARCEL: I have no doubt that they were there. There are indeed many eyewitnesses who speak of it.

MAX: One month before MH17 was taken down, Elena Kolenkina, widow of rebel leader Motorola, reported that a Ukrainian fighter jet hid behind a passenger plane. According to her, this happened with the intention to trick the separatists into hitting a passenger plane, so that Kiev could use this in its propaganda war against the separatists.

I have interviewed witnesses who claimed they have seen SU-25s. But these are jets built to destroy ground targets, a sort of anti-tank weapons. They usually fly very low, to prevent them from coming within reach of the radar and air defence.

But this shield theory makes perfect sense. Imagine there are no civil aircraft in the area. Then the people of the air defence do not need to take into account something they see flying could be an airliner. Because they know for sure: 'Everything that flies is military.' So imagine there are civilian aircraft flying over the area. Then you'll have a factor of uncertainty. The air defence crew will have to think twice before they start shooting at every object they see flying. 'Is it civil or is it military? If we doubt, let's not shoot.' In this sense, Ukraine has used passenger aircraft as a shield. They consciously haven taken the decision not to close the airspace.

MARCEL: Yes, I think so too. They have left the airspace open, not to create a physical shield for fighter jets, but to prevent the separatists from getting trigger happy.

It's very possible that an Ilyushin 76 or an Antonov, a transport plane, has flown close to MH17. I do not exclude that possibility. It's a fact that Ukrainian troops were trapped between the border with Russia and the area in Donbas controlled by separatists. Two days before the MH17 disaster there was this dramatic phone call from a soldier with a Ukrainian TV station who said, 'We're stuck here. We have no food and drink anymore. We are being shot at from all sides. And we receive no help at all.' And so it's quite possible that, alarmed by this distress call, the Ukraine military decided to send a transport plane to drop supplies.

Both Russia and Ukraine say: 'There was no other plane on the radar.' But suppose they are lying, and that there was another plane on the radar.' Then both Ukraine and Russia would benefit from not making this public. Because if it became clear to the investigators there was another plane, that could be interpreted as a motive for both parties to have pulled the trigger.

So it could very well be that an Ilyushin or Antonov used MH17 as a shield. The pilot might have thought: 'As long as I keep close to this airliner, the air defence of the separatists will not shoot at us.'

MAX: Ukraine had two other motives to keep its entire airspace open. First of all: The traffic rights amounted to a few thousand euros per airliner. Secondly, they just didn't want to admit that they lost control of the territory. It would have been a disgrace.

The JIT has investigated the possibility that MH17 was taken down by another aircraft. They now have excluded that possibility. You too?

MARCEL: 100 percent. The damage to the plane could not have been caused by anything other than a BUK rocket. If MH17 had been hit by an air-to-air missile, fired from a fighter jet, we would have known. Almost all air-to-air missiles contain 'rods', a kind of metal strips like bullets. They leave a clear fingerprint, a certain kind of holes not found on MH17.

The JIT has also found parts of a BUK rocket in the plane wreck. Then some might argue they could have been planted there. But the investigators found that the paint on the hull of the plane corresponded to the paint on the BUK particles.

MAX: I still do not want to exclude the possibility MH17 was taken down by another plane. But there is no serious party that defends such a scenario.

A Canadian investigator of OSCE was one of the first foreigners who visited the crash site. He declared the holes in the fuselage looked like the holes of machine gun fire.

MAX: Michael Bociurkiw spoke out of turn. It seems he didn't speak on behalf of OSCE.

MARCEL: Everyone who's not a specialist would initially say that those holes in the cockpit look like they've been caused by something like a board gun. One has to be a specialist to know what the damage caused by a BUK looks like.

MARCEL: Last year the Russian Ministry of Defence firmly declared that there were no aircrafts flying close to MH17 that could have been responsible for its destruction.

MAX: That sure was a remarkable press conference of the ministry. Because not only weren't there any aircrafts to be seen on the displayed images, there was no rocket either. Mind you: at the press conference of July 21, 2014 the Russians showed radar images with something that looked like an SU-25. So last year they debunked their own 2014 story. What were they thinking? They made a complete fool of themselves. The information management of the Russians, as far as there is any, is just worthless.

What particles have been found in the physical remains of the pilots?

MARCEL: The JIT and DSB have found two butterfly-shaped particles in the body of one of the pilots. And butterfly-shaped is unique to the BUK rocket.

Member of parliament Pieter Omtzigt revealed earlier this year that DSB mistook the autopsy report of the pilot for the autopsy report of the reserve pilot, and vice versa.

MAX: That's a spectacular mistake. In each airliner you have a pilot, a co-pilot and a spare crew. Halfway during the flight, the reserve pilot goes into the cockpit, accompanied by the reserve co-pilot. So this is essential: the pilot and co-pilot were both in the cockpit, but not the reserve-pilot and the reserve co-pilot. And thus, if you perform an autopsy on the reserve pilot, who was not in the cockpit, it should have been impossible to find any particles in his body.

Why?

MAX: Only BUK particles have been found in the cockpit. Not elsewhere in the plane.

Is that right Marcel?

MARCEL: Yes, the passengers did not have any fragments.

MAX: Not even the first-class passengers in front.

Max, you said you have not yet ruled out the possibility that MH17 was hit by an air-to-air missile from another plane. But am I correct you are inclined to think it was a ground-to air missile?

MAX: I have never defended the fighter jet scenario. It has always been an option, like is was for JIT until last year. But probably it was a BUK. Although I find it remarkable that JIT still has not made clear what type of BUK they think was used. They promised to disclose the exact weapon. But they didn't. At last year's presentation they said it was a BUK of the BUK 9M38 series. But there are two different ones: the 9M38 with the 9N314 combat head, and the one with the butterflies, the 9M38M1 with the 9N314M combat head.

Is it important to know the type of BUK that was used?

MAX: It's very important. If the butterflies they found are real then you can exclude the 9M38, because there are no butterflies. Then you can say without hesitation: 'It was the 9M38M1.'

MARCEL: The butterfly-less 9M38 is no longer used by Russia. Only Ukraine is still using it. This tells us JIT has not yet excluded Ukraine as a suspect.

MAX: The 9M38 is an old type, and the Russians say that they still have it, but they do not use it anymore. And they also say they have warned the Ukrainians that their 9M38's have passed the expiration date. Ukraine has never been to Almaz-Altey, the Russian producer of the BUK, for an upgrade. The Ukrainians have modernized their BUKS, via Ukroboronprom.

MAX: I think that is very important.

MARCEL: Me too.

MAX: Not only did JIT not reveal the exact weapon. The exact coordinates of the BUK-launcher have not been mentioned either. But anyway, the fact that they didn't say 'It was the 9M38M1' indicates they think this is not the weapon that was used. Can you follow that logic?

MARCEL: No.

MAX: They haven't excluded the possibility that it was the 9M38, without butterfly pieces.

They say they are sure they've found butterfly pieces. But they do not conclude from this: 'It was a 9M38M1, because it's the only BUK that contains butterfly pieces.' I think this is telling. Either you do not trust your own proof, or you have another reason not to disclose the type of weapon. What other reasons could there be not to be open about this?

What do you think, Marcel, why are they hiding the info about the exact type of BUK they think was used ?

MARCEL: I do not know. One can only speculate about it. Perhaps it was a missile of a BUK the separatists had stolen from the Ukrainian army.

MAX: That's what the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) claims . They've given no proof for it, but still it is an official publication.

MARCEL: But imagine that it was a BUK the separatists had stolen from the Ukranian army. And suppose JIT had revealed that MH17 was hit by an outdated type of rocket originating from the Ukranian army. That would have led to a lot of confusion, such as journalists jumping to the conclusion the Ukranian army had taken down MH17. To prevent his from happening JIT kept silent about the exact weapon that was used.

MAX: Almaz-Antey has done an experiment with a BUK 9M38M1 . They detonated that BUK on a plane that was on the ground. The plane then ended up loaded with butterfly-shaped fragments. Why is it so few fragments have been found in and around the wreckage of MH17? There might be a good explanation for this. But why has nobody taken this into the discussion? It is a relevant question.

Do you have an explanation for this Marcel?

MARCEL: I was in contact with an anonymous person who knows very much about BUKs. He told me that at the time of the explosion there's so much pressure on the fragments in the combat head, that when they leave the head, they are so distorted that they have partially lost their butterfly shape.

I do not exclude that technical explanation, although one should be careful with anonymous sources. They can have a hidden agenda. From this person I had the suspicion he was pro-Kiev. But I also do no not rule out the possibility that Almaz-Antey has deliberately put some butterfly shapes in this plane using some kind of device.

It took a long time before the investigators reached the crash site. There must have been plenty of opportunity to remove evidence or to put it there.

MARCEL: Parts of the cockpit roof and business class have never been found. But to be able to plant evidence, parts of the plane must have been taken away first. To me that's an unlikely scenario.

MAX: The bodies of the deceased have been transported in refrigerated trains from Torez to Charkov. Who knows what happened along the way.

Marcel, why are you so sure MH17 was brought down with a BUK installation, delivered by Russia, from an area controlled by separatists?

MARCEL: I'm not sure that the BUK Telar, that was photographed and filmed on its way from Russia to Eastern Ukraine, was used to shoot down MH17. There is simply no proof for that. But we do have two pictures of the smoke plume of the launched BUK. There are also a number of people who have shown that they saw a rocket flying over the area. I have not heard any trustworthy story that a BUK was launched from another location. There are zero indications for that. No pictures, no witnesses, nothing.

I took a close look at this village, Zaroshchenske ....

MAX: It's for certain no rocket was fired from Zaroshchenske. Because I spoke to so many people and nobody there saw anything.

MARCEL: But that's what the Russians say : Zaroshchenske.

MAX: No. That's not what they say. The only thing they do say is: 'There was a BUK unit of the Ukrainian army in Zaroshchenske.' They never said, 'They fired from that location.' See their press conference of 21 July 2014.

Max, for you there is no reason to believe a BUK rocket was launched from rebel-controlled area in Pervomais'ke?

MAX: JIT claims there are witnesses who have seen it there. But these are either anonymous or non-anonymous witnesses. I have interviewed the non-anonymous myself, and they are telling just nonsense. One person told four different stories, to RT, Radio Free Europe, The Daily Telegraph and to me.

In the vicinity of Pervomais'ke it's easy for journalists to get any story they want. 'Here you have a crate of beer, a bottle of vodka and a hundred dollars. Now please tell me this and that.' People living there are inclined do that. I may be exaggerating, but I'm sure things like that really happen.

And something I do not understand: time and again journalists tell us their witnesses want to remain anonymous because they fear for reprisals. Then why is it their sources do not seem to have any problem talking to complete strangers, foreigners, and trusting them with their lives?

The above interview was originally published in Dutch on Novini.nl . The original article is much longer, and delves into the propaganda war surrounding MH17, the dubious role of Ukraine's SBU in the investigation, the radar and satellite data, the geopolitical shadow play of the Dutch government - and the diminishing possibility of bringing suspects to justice. Only one paragraph has been added to the original article for reasons of clarification.


Eric van de Beek studied journalism at Windesheim University in Zwolle, and philosophy at the University of Amsterdam . For years he worked as a journalist for the Dutch leading weekly Elsevier . Now he mainly writes for Holland's one and only geopolitical magazine Novini .

[Jul 07, 2017] Multiple versions of MH17 downling might be introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, but Ukraine has way too many "the dog ate my homework" excuses

Notable quotes:
"... It often seems as if multiple theories were introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, keeping everyone busy running down leads. But to my mind, Ukraine has a lot of 'the dog ate my homework' excuses – none of our aircraft were flying that day; sorry, all our primary radars were down for maintenance; gee, I don't know where those ATC records went! And the theory the Dutch Safety Board copped to – that Russia smuggled in a single component of the Buk system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again – is frankly crazy and makes no sense. ..."
"... fat wankers like yourself may want to make it into the crime of the century because some Europeans suffered the consequences of the war their governments started ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Matt , July 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Instead of chasing around those who criticize the United Russia administration, your time would be better served reading about various contradictions in the Russian government's multiple conspiracy theories about MH17.

Was there an SU-25 or not? Think Pavlo, think,

marknesop , July 7, 2017 at 5:32 pm
It often seems as if multiple theories were introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, keeping everyone busy running down leads. But to my mind, Ukraine has a lot of 'the dog ate my homework' excuses – none of our aircraft were flying that day; sorry, all our primary radars were down for maintenance; gee, I don't know where those ATC records went! And the theory the Dutch Safety Board copped to – that Russia smuggled in a single component of the Buk system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again – is frankly crazy and makes no sense.
Pavlo Svolochenko , July 7, 2017 at 6:20 pm
Lulz who cares shitstain? MH-17 is a dead issue – fat wankers like yourself may want to make it into the crime of the century because some Europeans suffered the consequences of the war their governments started , but nobody else gives a damn about MH-17 or your dead Ukrainian motherland.

[Jun 30, 2017] As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds.

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 4:25 pm
As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds. And radar does not just illuminate targets, it records having received an echo return from bouncing off something, so that as the operator you see a dot – which they referred to as a tick – which is the accumulation of 'hits' by the radar, so that you can distinguish a target from the innumerable random dots which result from the characteristic known as 'scatter'. Most radars have a feature known as history recording or target trails, in which you begin to see the contacts progress by the trail of 'hits' it leaves behind.

In any case, it is significant that the Dutch investigation team did not bother to get a radar expert to summarize its findings in that area, but a political appointee with no experience in that field.

Jen , June 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Doesn't the BUK missile delivery system itself also rely on radar to locate and target any objects? So had there been a team or unit of soldiers operating such a system in the area where the Dutch claim they were in, then wouldn't Russian military have been able to work out the radar frequencies the group was using and contact it?
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 10:28 pm
Well, the Russians would hardly contact this group, would they? Not knowing the SBU and their crack communications-intercept teams were listening and ready to record another admission of Russian culpability. Over several days of observations it would be possible to identify unique Buk systems by their operating frequencies, yes. Typically they are identified as operating in the band of frequencies which identify them as a Buk system, and that's good enough, but it is possible to identify one among others if you have the opportunity to match its frequencies to observation and watch it move around, although if there are several systems, their operating frequencies will all be close.

But the Dutch story is that this system was smuggled in just long enough to take the shot and then quickly smuggled out again, and that it was only one launcher and not a complete system. The radar on the launcher is highly directional, and electronic warfare systems might not pick it up unless they were along its line of sight, whereas the emitter which is usually correlated to the Buk (by electronic intercept) is the search radar, which is its own separate vehicle.

Russian electronic warfare did report several Buk systems active in the area – all Ukrainian, presumably, since the Ukrainian command insisted the rebels did not have any – the day prior to the disaster. That statement (that the rebels did not have any Buks that were captured from the Ukrainian Army) and other realities are what force the crazy story whereby Russia supposedly smuggled in a partial system, took the shot and ran for it. It's the only one they can make fit.

kirill , June 29, 2017 at 6:00 am
The Dutch are peddling one of the most inane tinfoil hat theories ever. If Russia smuggled in that single component for an in and out atrocity, then why the FCUK didn't they just help the Donbas "terrorists' fix up the system that fell into their hands that fits the same description (i.e. one lacking a separate radar unit). Hiding a few Buk missiles in the back of a truck is vastly easier than lugging around a whole mobile unit on a flatbed.

This is shit is the same "feed the retards some 'plausible' story" ploy as the Polonium murder of Litvinenko. Smearing Polonium on a Moscow circuit plane is the ultimate in inanity. Let's use an exotic murder weapon that is messy and hard to use and make sure to trace it back to ourselves. For fuck's sake, using a hand gun with a silencer is orders of magnitude easier and less traceable since throwing the gun in the river actually works and it will have negligible chance of being found by the cops unless they have a witness.

Jen , June 29, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Of course! – I hadn't thought the SBU would be monitoring communications between the rebels in Donetsk and any outside supporters. My oversight. I had in mind a hypothetical situation where the Russian military detects such a "unit", observes its activities to determine their intended objective and then warns the "unit" that it is under surveillance.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 3:54 pm
As I've pointed out before, any emitter with such a slow scan rate as that would be useless for air traffic control. There are radars with huge antennas and very slow scan rates, but they are high-power emitters used for Early Warning, not for controlling fast-moving aircraft and deconflicting a busy air picture at various altitudes. But the Dutch 'investigators' who are helping Ukraine wash itself out of the picture hope that you are stupid.

[Jun 28, 2017] Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not miss the BUK missile – Russian air regulator

Notable quotes:
"... Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings. ..."
"... "It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:08 am
WARNING!

Kremlin controlled "news" source

Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not 'miss' missile – Russian air regulator
Published time: 27 Jun, 2017 19:41

Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings.

Last week, the Dutch government published a series of replies by Security and Justice Minister Stef Blok, who explained to a parliamentary commission why radar data provided by Russia did not show any objects approaching the MH17 flight, including a Buk missile.

The radar, according to Blok, could simply miss a missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that a missile could slip through during its "turn" and therefore leave no trace on Russia's Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar could not register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

It sneaked in while the radar antenna was looking the other way???????

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am
Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.

[Jun 26, 2017] The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance

Notable quotes:
"... the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/ ..."
"... In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria June 26, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance:

" the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/

the document was issued in Sep 05, 2013

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style.

[Jun 20, 2017] The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win. ..."
May 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate

Where is Stanley Kubrick when we need him? If he hadn't died in 1999, he would be the perfect director to transform today's hysteria over Russia into a theater-of-the-absurd movie reprising his Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," which savagely satirized the madness of nuclear brinksmanship and the crazed ideology behind it.

A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

To prove my point, The Washington Post on Thursday published a lengthy story entitled in the print editions "Alarm at Russian in White House" about a Russian photographer who was allowed into the Oval Office to photograph President Trump's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The Post cited complaints from former U.S. intelligence officials who criticized the presence of the Russian photographer as "a potential security breach" because of "the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics."

To bolster this alarm, the Post cited a Twitter comment from President Obama's last deputy CIA director, David S. Cohen, stating "No, it was not" a sound decision to admit the Russian photographer who also works for the Russian news agency, Tass, which published the photo.

One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle cartoons, disguised as photographers slipping listening devices between the cushions of the sofas.

Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to "impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," as "Dr. Strangelove" character, Gen. Jack D. Ripper, warned us in the 1964 movie.

Watching that brilliant dark comedy again might actually be a good idea to remind us how crazy Americans can get when they're pumped up with anti-Russian propaganda, as is happening again now.

Taking Down Trump

I realize that many Democrats, liberals and progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking him down, even if that plays into the hands of the neoconservatives and other warmongers. Many people who detest Trump view Russia-gate as the most likely path to achieve Trump's impeachment, so this desirable end justifies whatever means.

Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.

Some people have told me that they even believe that it is the responsibility of the major news media, the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and members of Congress to engage in a "soft coup" against Trump – also known as a "constitutional coup" or "deep state coup" – for the "good of the country."

The argument is that it sometimes falls to these Establishment institutions to "correct" a mistake made by the American voters, in this case, the election of a largely unqualified individual as U.S. president. It is even viewed by some anti-Trump activists as a responsibility of "responsible" journalists, government officials and others to play this "guardian" role, to not simply "resist" Trump but to remove him.

But The New York Times and The Washington Post, in particular, have made it clear that they view Trump as a clear and present danger to the American system and thus have cast aside any pretense of neutrality.

The Times justifies its open hostility to the President as part of its duty to protect "the truth"; the Post has adopted a slogan aimed at Trump, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." In other words, America's two most influential political newspapers are effectively pushing for a "soft coup" under the guise of defending "democracy" and "truth."

But the obvious problem with a "soft coup" is that America's democratic process, as imperfect as it has been and still is, has held this diverse country together since 1788 with the notable exception of the Civil War.

If Americans believe that the Washington elites are removing an elected president – even one as buffoonish as Donald Trump – it could tear apart the fabric of national unity, which is already under extraordinary stress from intense partisanship.

That means that the "soft coup" would have to be carried out under the guise of a serious investigation into something grave enough to justify the President's removal, a removal that could be accomplished by congressional impeachment, his forced resignation, or the application of Twenty-fifth Amendment, which allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to judge a President incapable of continuing in office (although that could require two-thirds votes by both houses of Congress if the President fights the maneuver).

A Big Enough 'Scandal'

That is where Russia-gate comes in. The gauzy allegation that Trump and/or his advisers somehow colluded with Russian intelligence officials to rig the 2016 election would probably clear the threshold for an extreme action like removing a President.

And, given the determination of many key figures in the Establishment to get rid of Trump, it should come as no surprise that no one seems to care that no actual government-verified evidence has been revealed publicly to support any of the Russia-gate allegations.

There's not even any public evidence from U.S. government agencies that Russia did "meddle" in the 2016 election or – even if Russia did slip Democratic emails to WikiLeaks (which WikiLeaks denies) – there has been zero evidence that the scheme resulted from collusion with Trump's campaign.

The FBI has been investigating these suspicions for at least nine months, even reportedly securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an American whom Trump briefly claimed as a foreign policy adviser when Trump was under fire for not having any foreign policy advisers.

One of Page's alleged offenses was that he gave a speech to an academic conference in Moscow in July 2016 that was mildly critical of how the U.S. treated countries from the former Soviet Union. He also once lived in Russia and met with a Russian diplomat who – apparently unbeknownst to Page – had been identified by the U.S. government as a Russian intelligence officer.

It appears that is enough, in these days of our New McCarthyism , to get an American put under a powerful counter-intelligence investigation.

The FBI and the Department of Justice also reportedly are including as part of the Russia-gate investigation Trump's stupid campaign joke calling on the Russians to help find the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton erased from the home server that she used while Secretary of State.

On July 27, 2016, Trump said, apparently in jest, "I will tell you this, Russia: if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

The comment fit with Trump's puckish, provocative and often tasteless sense of humor, but was seized on by Democrats as if it were a serious suggestion – as if anyone would use a press conference to seriously urge something like that. But it now appears that the FBI is grabbing at any straw that might support its investigation.

The (U.K.) Guardian reported this week that "Senior DoJ officials have declined to release the documents [about Trump's comment] on grounds that such disclosure could 'interfere with enforcement proceedings'. In a filing to a federal court in Washington DC, the DoJ states that 'because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it will withhold all records'.

"The statement suggests that Trump's provocative comment last July is being seen by the FBI as relevant to its own ongoing investigation."

The NYT's Accusations

On Friday, in the wake of Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey and the President's characterization of Russia-gate as "a total hoax," The New York Times reprised what it called "The Trump-Russia Nexus" in a lead editorial trying to make the case of some fire behind the smoke.

Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

Though the Times acknowledges that there are "many unknowns" in Russia-gate and the Times can't seem to find any evidence of collusion, such as slipping a Russian data stick to WikiLeaks, the Times nevertheless treats a host of Trump advisers and family members as traitors because they've had some association with Russian officials, Russian businesses or Russian allies.

Regarding Carter Page, the Times wrote: "American officials believe that Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, had contacts with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign. He also gave a pro-Russia speech in Moscow in July 2016. Mr. Page was once employed by Merrill Lynch's Moscow office, where he worked with Gazprom, a government-owned giant."

You might want to let some of those words sink in, especially the part about Page giving "a pro-Russia speech in Moscow," which has been cited as one of the principal reasons for Page and his communications being targeted under a FISA warrant.

I've actually read Page's speech and to call it "pro-Russia" is a wild exaggeration. It was a largely academic treatise that faulted the West's post-Cold War treatment of the nations formed from the old Soviet Union, saying the rush to a free-market system led to some negative consequences, such as the spread of corruption.

But even if the speech were "pro-Russia," doesn't The New York Times respect the quaint American notion of free speech? Apparently not. If your carefully crafted words can be twisted into something called "pro-Russia," the Times seems to think it's okay to have the National Security Agency bug your phones and read your emails.

The Ukraine Case

Another Times' target was veteran political adviser Paul Manafort, who is accused of working as "a consultant for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine and for Ukraine's former president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was backed by the Kremlin."

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

Left out of that Times formulation is the fact that the Ukrainian political party, which had strong backing from ethnic Russian Ukrainians - not just Russia– competed in a democratic process and that Yanukovych won an election that was recognized by international observers as free and fair.

Yanukovych was then ousted in February 2014 in a violent putsch that was backed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. The putsch, which was spearheaded by right-wing nationalists and even neo-Nazis, touched off Ukraine's civil war and the secession of Crimea, the key events in the escalation of today's New Cold War between NATO and Russia.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Though I'm no fan of U.S. political hired-guns selling their services in foreign elections, there was nothing illegal or even unusual about Manafort advising a Ukrainian political party. What arguably was much more offensive was the U.S. support for an unconstitutional coup that removed Yanukovych even after he agreed to a European plan for early elections so he could be voted out of office peacefully.

But the Times, the Post and virtually the entire Western mainstream media sided with the Ukrainian coup-makers and hailed Yanukovych's overthrow. That attitude has become such a groupthink that the Times has banished the thought that there was a coup .

Still, the larger political problem confronting the United States is that the neoconservatives and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, now control nearly all the levers of U.S. foreign policy. That means they can essentially dictate how events around the world will be perceived by most Americans.

The neocons and the liberal hawks also want to continue their open-ended wars in the Middle East by arranging the commitment of additional U.S. military forces to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – and perhaps a new confrontation with Iran.

Early in Obama's second term, it became clear to the neocons that Russia was becoming the chief obstacles to their plans because President Barack Obama was working closely with President Vladimir Putin on a variety of projects that undermined neocon hopes for more war.

Particularly, Putin helped Obama secure an agreement from Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles in 2013 and to get Iran to accept tight constraints on its nuclear program in 2014. In both cases, the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks were lusting for war.

Immediately after the Syria chemical-weapons deal in September 2013, key U.S. neocons began focusing on Ukraine as what National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman called "the biggest prize" and a first step toward unseating Putin in Moscow.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.

Gershman's grant-giving NED stepped up its operations inside Ukraine while Assistant Secretary Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, began pushing for regime change in Kiev (along with other neocons, including Sen. John McCain).

The Ukraine coup in 2014 drove a geopolitical wedge between Obama and Putin, since the Russian president couldn't just stand by when a virulently anti-Russian regime took power violently in Ukraine, which was the well-worn route for invasions into Russia and housed Russia's Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol in Crimea.

Rather than defend the valuable cooperation provided by Putin, Obama went with the political flow and joined in the Russia-bashing as key neocons raised their sights and put Putin in the crosshairs .

An Unexpected Obstacle

For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win.

Perhaps Trump could have diffused some of the hostility toward him but his narcissistic personality stopped him from extending an olive branch to the tens of millions of Americans who opposed him. He further demonstrated his political incompetence by wasting his first days in office making ridiculous claims about the size of his inaugural crowds and disputing the fact that he had lost the popular vote.

Widespread public disgust over his behavior contributed to the determination of many Americans to "resist" his presidency at all junctures and at all costs.

Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right arm from making a Nazi salute.

Russia-gate, the hazy suggestion that Putin put Trump in the White House and that Trump is a Putin "puppet" (as Clinton claimed), became the principal weapon to use in destroying Trump's presidency.

However, besides the risks to U.S. stability that would come from an Establishment-driven "soft coup," there is the additional danger of ratcheting up tensions so high with nuclear-armed Russia that this extreme Russia-bashing takes on a life – or arguably many, many deaths – of its own.

Which is why America now might need a piercing satire of today's Russia-phobia or at least a revival of the Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," subtitled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Watergate Redux or 'Deep State' Coup ."]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[May 30, 2017] Someone needs to remind Brennan that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennans arrival toKiev in 2014

Notable quotes:
"... getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated']) ..."
"... All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment.. ..."
"... And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else. ..."
www.unz.com

annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist.

Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

@annamaria

the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

PG:

the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

[May 02, 2017] Last years report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people. Separatists did it vertion looks more and more like propaganda peddled by neoliberal MSM such as WaPO and NYT

Carlton Meyer , Website September 14, 2016 at 4:18 am GMT \n

300 Words Better examples are found in an article that I linked:

Sep 12, 2016 – The Ukrainians Shot Down MH-17!

I highly recommend this brilliant article about how the New York Times and Washington Post have become propaganda machines for the American Neo-Con Empire.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/07/new-york-times-and-the-new-mccarthyism/

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming "Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories." The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that "The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia."The Dutch Safety Board's reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014.

But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar's claim is not "the simple truth," as he put it. Last year's report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.

Indeed, the DSB's report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO's intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

annamaria , September 15, 2016 at 1:24 am GMT \n
@Quartermaster

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

You habitually accuse the UNZ Review readers in "swallowing Putin propaganda" when you asked to provide proofs for your cavalier Russophobic statements. In case you have not noticed yet, UNZ Review does not publish Eliot Higgins (and other experts in selling ladies underwear), but prefers to deal with the serious thinkers and professionals.

Joe Wong , September 15, 2016 at 2:59 am GMT \n
200 Words @Carlton Meyer

Better examples are found in an article that I linked:

Sep 12, 2016 - The Ukrainians Shot Down MH-17!

I highly recommend this brilliant article about how the New York Times and Washington Post have become propaganda machines for the American Neo-Con Empire.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/07/new-york-times-and-the-new-mccarthyism/

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming "Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories." The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that "The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia."

The Dutch Safety Board's reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar's claim is not "the simple truth," as he put it. Last year's report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB's report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO's intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

NYT has been fabricating stories as long as it exists to assist USA government engineer regime changes and colour revolutions, and wage reckless wars on the fabricated allegations around the world, as well as white wash American war crimes. NYT is the core of the Western black information network to spread disinformation and misinformation for the American conquest of global full spectrum dominance via organised violence and committing crime against humanity.

It is puzzling why the NYT has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance because it works with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader Donald Trump while it has been doing the same unscrupulous things since its existence? Is it because the author's sense of justice is selective, and he feels the American is exceptional, injustice applies to people not American does not count?

annamaria , September 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm GMT \n
100 Words @blert 1) The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times -- of all publications -- flatly admit that they'd suppressed the truth all those years -- at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) -- properly detonated -- could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Hundreds of these rounds were ultimately recovered. The enemy never understood what they had their hands on, as Saddam had ensured that these nerve agent rounds looked identical to conventional rounds. He's the only madman that crazy.

( He did so to hide their usage from the French military advisors during his Iranian invasion. )

2) The Dutch are correct. MH-17 can't be resolved as the Russians and Ukrainians have essentially identical counter-air assets. Both parties have every reason to lie; and to screw up. The flight should never have been routed anywhere near the conflict. KAL 007 and Iran Air 655 should've been warning enough.

3) The US MSM is over concentrated to a ruinous degree. Ditto for America's J-schools, whose ethos is to propagandise the World for its betterment.

4) It's no joke that the NY Times regards anyone west of the Hudson to be rubes.

5) They can spew it out -- but can't take correction -- at ANY level. This causes a profound detachment from ground truth. "The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation"

Thank you for reminding what country had provided the chemical WMD to Saddam:
"How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons:" http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
"Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons:" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
"CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran:" http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

And thanks for the alert, "A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) - properly detonated - could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway."
There is more for your attentions.
"Concern in Russia is increasing over the growing number of hard-to-access, double-purpose medical laboratories, financed by the US Department of Defense, appearing alongside its borders " https://sputniknews.com/world/20160908/1045088663/us-russia-biological-laboratories.html
"Russia Says U.S. Expanding Bioweapons Labs in Europe:" http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-says-u-s-expanding-bioweapons-labs-in-europe/

Alfred , September 14, 2016 at 4:25 am GMT \n

There is a giant billboard going up again across the street from the NYT calling them out on 9/11

"ReThink911's "New York Times Billboard" Is Here"

http://rethink911.org/news/november-campaign-new-york-times-billboard/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

[Apr 19, 2017] Ex-CIA Directors kill Russians in Syria comment reveals neocon influence

Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never was in field operations
Notable quotes:
"... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
"... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
"... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
"... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
"... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
"... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
"... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
"... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
Aug 13, 2016 | www.rt.com
Op-Edge 'Ex-CIA Director's 'kill Russians in Syria' comment reveals neocon influence' Published time: 13 Aug, 2016 12:53 Edited time: 14:38

I want to scare Assad Mike Morell (Aug 8, 2016) Charlie Rose

Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?

Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.

"We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price," Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way that "Moscow would get the message."

Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's "Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other tantalizing bits of information.

'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing #Clintonhttps://t.co/qd21Klts2Npic.twitter.com/Otcuwniwxw

- RT America (@RT_America) August 9, 2016

RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning?

John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W. Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it.

Ray McGovern: What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him.

JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters. Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.

#WatchingTheHawks SoundCloud Episode 44.2 is here of our best segments! @TabethaWatching@TyrelWatchinghttps://t.co/dxYcjCww42

- RT America (@RT_America) August 13, 2016

RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria?

JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.

This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.

RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding like that? What is his motivation for doing this?

RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on 11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go? It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.

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

[Apr 17, 2017] To think how the US is acting different now to the past I would probably point to MH17

Notable quotes:
"... Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:04:29 PM | 64

@ outraged

I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth lead time, to what we are seeing take place?

create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?

Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.

The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician.

The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.

I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take down the US.

The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.

What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?

US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines put out by these type think tanks.

[Apr 12, 2017] As in Romes latter stages, the ruling class is dominated by sociopaths.

Notable quotes:
"... The people in America generally don't see this whether the reason is apathy, denial, or simply exposure to years of propaganda. ..."
Apr 11, 2017 | thesaker.is
The technical analysis was great, but it's the psychological analysis which explains the danger the world faces. As in Rome's latter stages, the ruling class is dominated by sociopaths. I have the feeling that many in power have the mindset they will either control the world or destroy it rather than compromise.

The people in America generally don't see this whether the reason is apathy, denial, or simply exposure to years of propaganda.

[Apr 08, 2017] Turning the tables: Duma committee to probe US media for meddling in Russian elections

Notable quotes:
"... preemptive retaliation ..."
"... After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ..."
"... Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No ..."
Apr 08, 2017 | www.rt.com
The State Duma Committee for Information Policy, IT and Communications has decided to hold an investigation into the work of Western media outlets in order to examine possible attempts to influence election processes in Russia. The head of the committee, MP Leonid Levin (Fair Russia) told TASS that he and his colleagues would soon hold a special session with analysts and experts, at which they intend to look into the activities of such mass media organizations as CNN, Radio Liberty and Voice of America. Read my lips: NO – Putin says about Russia's 'meddling' in US elections

The idea to launch a probe was proposed by MP Konstantin Zatulin of the majority United Russia party. In an attachment to the protocol letter, the lawmaker described the motion as " preemptive retaliation ."

" After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ," Zatulin wrote.

This action includes, for example, a bill that gives Justice Department additional authority to investigate RT America for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, drafted recently by Democratic Party Senator Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire). Shaheen said in press comments that her bill was a response to a report from the director of national intelligence about Russian influence in the 2016 election.

Moscow has repeatedly denied allegations of its role in the last US presidential elections. Most recently the rumors were dismissed by President Vladimir Putin as he spoke to journalists during the Arctic Forum in late March.

" Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No !'" Putin said, answering a question posed by the anchor of the forum.

[Apr 07, 2017] Ukraine BUK battery passing theorugh north Donetsk April 2014.

Apr 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
HowdyDoody -> Volkodav , Apr 6, 2017 4:18 PM

The news of the 'attack' has wiped other news off the front page. Bellingcat has just released a report with videos and photos of whole Ukrainian BUK batteries around Donetsk from April 2014 up to a few days before the shooting down of MH-17. The Ukrainians have always claimed they had no BUKs in the eara, so it must have been a Russian system, for which they created an elaborate tale of BUKs on tour.

This report destroys the whole Ukraine narrative. The Ukraine media are all over it. Where's the coverage in the western media?

Ukraine BUK battery passing theorugh north Donetsk April 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfRQqXeg14

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF...

[Apr 06, 2017] Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars

Notable quotes:
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
Apr 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc

, April 05, 2017 at 10:16 AM
"Dimon Warns 'Something Is Wrong' With the U.S."

Do you agree with Jamie Dimon assessment of the USA?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-04/dimon-still-optimistic-warns-something-is-wrong-with-u-s

"Dimon Warns 'Something Is Wrong' With the U.S."

by Laura J Keller...April 4, 2017

"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."

Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that he said was "upsetting" to write.

Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students, forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.

Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."

But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.

" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...

pgl -> im1dc... , April 05, 2017 at 10:16 AM
I meant my last comment to be a reply. No - there is a lot that Dimon said that I cannot agree with.
pgl , April 05, 2017 at 10:49 AM
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."

Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.

We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.

DrDick -> pgl... , April 05, 2017 at 11:18 AM
He also seems to falsely imply that the people associated with capital actually have functioning brains.

[Apr 04, 2017] Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards.

Apr 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RGC , April 04, 2017 at 07:42 AM
US Military Should Get Out of the Middle East Jeffrey Sachs, Boston Globe

It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.

Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards. Over and done with.

That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.

America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and terrorist blowback.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/03/us-military-should-get-out-middle-east

anne -> RGC... , April 04, 2017 at 08:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/the-empire-slinks-back.html

April 27, 2003

The Empire Slinks Back
By NIALL FERGUSON

Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca

Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.

So -- can we, like, go home now?

You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee imperialists!''

An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'': ''marines are here to stay forever.''

But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''

What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,'' newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.

But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in charge, he talked about just three months.

If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day empire. Make that a thousand hours.

Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago -- when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...

[Apr 03, 2017] Globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations vs populists who express the interests of the people in their countries

Apr 03, 2017 | thesaker.is
Question: Today we see a growing split of the world political elites. There are globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations and there is a new political concept, the so-called populists who express the interests of the people in their countries. A vivid example is the election of US President Donald Trump, and there are a number of other political leaders who are seen as fringe politicians in the West, for example Marine Le Pen. Given this, it is not by chance that Russia is seen as a leader in half of the world. Is this view justified? Can we talk about a future victory for one of these ideologies? How would this influence today's world order?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn't call Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen "fringe politicians" if only because they absolutely fit into the principles that underlie the functioning of the American and French states. Marine Le Pen is a European member of parliament and her party is active in the national parliament. Donald Trump has been elected in full accordance with the American constitution, with its two-level indirect system of electing the president. I would not even call them populists. The word "populist" has a negative connotation. You said interestingly that populists are those who represent the people. There are nuances in the interpretation of the word "populist." In modern Russian it tends to be applied to people who go into politics, but do not bear the responsibility for their words and just seek to lure voters. A populist is someone who might promise to triple wages while the budget absolutely cannot support it, etc. So I would rather call them realists or anti-globalists, if you like. Having said that, anti-globalists are also associated with hooligans who try to disrupt the G20 and G7 summits, and so on. Come to think of it, even now that the new president of the world's largest power has declared that it is necessary to think not of global expansion, but of how America lives, the role of globalists will be changing. American corporations have already demanded a reduction in manufacturing in developing countries to move it to the US in order to create jobs there. Granted, this may not be very good news for the consumer because labour is more expensive in the US, so the prices for goods, cars and so on will increase. But this is the trend. In general, President Trump's conceptual slogans during his election campaign to the effect that America should interfere less in the affairs of other countries and address its own issues send a very serious signal to the globalists themselves. Again, up until now the US has been perceived as a symbol of globalism and the expansion of transnational corporations. Those who represent their interests are the huge team that has taken up arms against President Trump and his administration and in general against everything he does, and which tries, in any way possible, to throw a spanner in the works. Something similar things are happening in France where mountains of compromising materials of ten or fifteen years ago have been unearthed which invariably are presented through an "anti-Russia prism." It's been a long time since I've seen such a dirty campaign when at stake are the concepts and ideas of how to develop the state and their country, and a smear war is being waged. We had this not so long ago, and I don't see anything good about it.

In parallel the global market and the global trade system are being reappraised through the actions and statements of the new US administration. As you know, they have walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and said they would work through regional and bilateral agreements. We believe, though, that the World Trade Organisation which it took us such a long time to join did provide a common umbrella for world trade. Some regional structures could be built into these universal systems so as not to break the ties with the non-members of these regional organisations to maintain some common contact and exchanges through the WTO. That too is now under threat. So, we are in a period of rethinking our approaches, and I don't think it has everything to do with Trump. These changes have been brewing; otherwise the American position on so many issues could not have changed so abruptly. They were long in coming, and the WTO was in a major crisis when the Western countries categorically refused to listen to the leading developing countries on a range of issues connected with investment, financial services, etc.

I wouldn't say that there are globalists and populists. There are simply people who want to get elected and follow a well-trodden path and preserve the neoliberal structures that are all over the place in the West, and then there are people who see the neoliberalism and permissiveness which are part of the neoliberal approach as a threat to their societies, traditions and cultures. This is accompanied by philosophical reflections and practical discussions of what to do about the problem of illegal migrants, their own roots and religions, whether it is politically correct to remind people that you are an Orthodox or Catholic or whether you should forget about religion altogether. I have said more than once that the European Union wanted to adopt a constitution many years ago and was drafting it. The commission was headed by Giscard d'Estaing and he proposed a very simple sentence about Europe having Christian roots. He was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it would not be politically correct and would insult the Muslims. In reality it turns out that if you are cautious about making your religious roots known you end up not caring about the religious roots of others and the consequences are not usually good. Therefore, at the UN and UNESCO, we actively support all the initiatives that are particularly relevant today: the Dialogue of Civilisations, the Dialogue of Cultures and the Dialogue of Religions. It is not by chance that they have become topical issues on the agenda because they reflect the fermentation within societies and the need to somehow search for a national consensus.

[Apr 03, 2017] Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction

Apr 03, 2017 | thesaker.is

Question : Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?

Sergey Lavrov : We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security [Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to international information security have been adopted unanimously.

Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.

I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So, alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style of James Bond will respond to this.

There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this context, serious debate lies ahead.

We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect any results yet.

[Apr 03, 2017] The United States started using the so called managed chaos technology long ago

Notable quotes:
"... The concept of managed chaos appeared long ago as a method of strengthening US influence. Its basic premise is that managed chaos projects should be launched away from the United States in regions that are crucial for global economic and financial development. The Middle East has always been in the focus of politicians and foreign policy engineers in Washington. Practice has shown that this concept is dangerous and destructive, in particular for the countries where the experiment was launched, namely Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. ..."
"... we have proposed that the UN General Assembly formalise the universal unacceptability of coups as a means of changing government. ..."
"... Last autumn, a resolution was adopted at the initiative of a large group of co-authors – our Cuban colleagues were among the most active advocates of this idea, alongside other countries. ..."
"... This resolution recognised the importance of creating a more democratic and equitable world order and openly rejected the change of governments through unconstitutional coups and attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states and to impose alien ideas and values on them as unacceptable. It is also unacceptable when national jurisdictions are applied extraterritorially, when a country hunts down other countries' legal entities and nationals around the world even though they have not violated international law but are believed to have violated the national legislation of the said country. Three countries voted against this resolution and a few dozen countries – mostly Western ones – abstained. The resolution was adopted by a far larger vote than some other resolutions that our Western partners like to quote ..."
thesaker.is

Question: The United States started using the so-called managed chaos technology long ago. What can be used to counter such technology on the international scale? Is there a response to the concept of global stability and security management? Which countries could potentially initiate this project?

Sergey Lavrov: The concept of managed chaos appeared long ago as a method of strengthening US influence. Its basic premise is that managed chaos projects should be launched away from the United States in regions that are crucial for global economic and financial development. The Middle East has always been in the focus of politicians and foreign policy engineers in Washington. Practice has shown that this concept is dangerous and destructive, in particular for the countries where the experiment was launched, namely Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.

In the case of Afghanistan, the United States launched its operation there with international support following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The UN Security Council unanimously confirmed the US right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda was supported by all countries. It's another matter that after receiving the international approval, the United States and its NATO allies, which took over in Afghanistan, started acting rather inconsistently, to put it mildly. During their operation in Afghanistan, the terrorist threat has not been rooted out, while the drug threat has increased many times over. The drug industry prospered. There is factual evidence that some of the NATO contingents in Afghanistan turned a blind eye to the illegal drug trafficking, even if they were not directly involved in these criminal schemes. Afghanistan is a separate case, although the current developments there, which are a result of the NATO operation's failure, despite the carte blanche the bloc received from the international community, can be considered an unintended cause of managed chaos. In Iraq, Syria and Libya, this chaos was created intentionally.

I have also mentioned Yemen. The situation there can be described as a huge humanitarian catastrophe. It is not at the top of the international agenda, for some reason, although representatives of the UN Secretariat who are responsible for humanitarian affairs have described the situation in Yemen as the "largest humanitarian crisis in the world", larger than in Syria or Iraq. Responsible politicians have come to see that the managed chaos theory is destroying life in many regions. Some parties can benefit in the short term from fluctuations on the raw materials markets provoked by the revolutions orchestrated by external forces, but this theory ultimately backfires at its engineers and executors in the form of massive migration inflows, which terrorists use to enter these countries.

We can see this in Europe. Terrorist attacks have been staged even in the United States.

The Atlantic Ocean has not protected it from the terrorist threat. This is the boomerang effect. Serious people are coming to see this. Reliance on international law is the only weapon against this threat. The UN Charter offers the necessary tools for this. Military force can only be used by decision of the UN Security Council, or a country can resort to anticipatory self-defence in keeping with the spirit of the UN Charter when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable.

Russia acts in keeping with these premises in its relations with other countries. China, India, Brazil and the majority of other countries share this view.

There is one more thing connected with the issue of managed chaos and its consequences.

The policy of countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as their regional organisations – the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) – is based on a formal principle on the unacceptability of the unconstitutional change of power via a coup d'état. Since this danger is not purely African or Latin American (we have seen it surface in other parts of the world), we have proposed that the UN General Assembly formalise the universal unacceptability of coups as a means of changing government.

Last autumn, a resolution was adopted at the initiative of a large group of co-authors – our Cuban colleagues were among the most active advocates of this idea, alongside other countries.

This resolution recognised the importance of creating a more democratic and equitable world order and openly rejected the change of governments through unconstitutional coups and attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states and to impose alien ideas and values on them as unacceptable. It is also unacceptable when national jurisdictions are applied extraterritorially, when a country hunts down other countries' legal entities and nationals around the world even though they have not violated international law but are believed to have violated the national legislation of the said country. Three countries voted against this resolution and a few dozen countries – mostly Western ones – abstained. The resolution was adopted by a far larger vote than some other resolutions that our Western partners like to quote, for example the resolution on the violation of human rights in Crimea.

[Apr 02, 2017] With the emergence of globalization, the term comprador denote trading groups and classes in the developing world that benefit and prefer subordinate relationships with metropolitan capital

Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova -> pgl... , April 01, 2017 at 01:55 PM
"Trump is Yeltsin American style."

Nothing can be more wrong that this statement. This is an absurd statement to say the least.

Yeltsin was a comprador, member of Russian "lumpen elite". Trump is more of economic nationalist.

See

Rise of the lumpen elite: is this really what we fought for? Published on openDemocracy

https://opendemocracy.net/printpdf/62166

Yeltsin sold Russian industry to foreigh interests for pennies on a dollar. Gave up natural resposes for peanuts, on essentially colonial terms. That how Us oil companies got to Sakhalin island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-II

The first ever Russian production sharing agreement was signed in the framework of the Sakhalin-2 project in 1994.

In foreign policy Yeltsin behaves like a drunk puppet of Clinton. His foreign minister Kozirev ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kozyrev ) was nicknamed by US press "Mister Yes".

anne -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 02:14 PM
"Trump is Yeltsin American style."

Nothing can be more wrong that this statement. This is an absurd statement to say the least.

Yeltsin was a comprador, member of Russian "lumpen elite".

[ Do explain this further when possible. ]

anne -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 02:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador

A comprador is a "person who acts as an agent for foreign organizations engaged in investment, trade, or economic or political exploitation". A comprador is a native manager of European business houses in East and South East Asia, and, by extension, social groups that play broadly similar roles in other parts of the world.

anne -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 02:20 PM
The use of emotionally laden jargon would not seem necessary if the point is to allow understanding.

Lumpen-this and Lumpen-that, such terms are of no interest to me.

anne -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 02:21 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenbourgeoisie

Lumpenbourgeoisie is a term used primarily in the context of colonial and neocolonial elites in Latin America, which became heavily dependent on and supportive of the neocolonial powers.

libezkova -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 03:52 PM
"Lumpenbourgeoisie" is a more correct term as for Yeltsin entourage then "lumpen elite". Sorry about that.

But "comprador" also is a legitimate term for describing this phenomena. It originated in Marxism and means "groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate to imperial power interests"

== quote from Wikipedia ==

In Marxism, the term comprador bourgeoisie was later applied to similar trading-class in regions outside of East Asia.[5][6][7][8]

With the emergence (or re-emergence) of globalization, the term comprador has reentered the lexicon to denote trading groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate but mutually advantageous relationships with metropolitan capital. The Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin has discussed the role of compradors in the contemporary global economy in his recent work.[9] In addition, the Indian economist, Ashok Mitra, has accused the owners and managers of firms attached to the Indian software industry of being compradors.[10] Growing identification of the software industry in India with comprador 'qualities' has led to the labeling of certain persons associated with the industry as 'dot.compradors'.[11]

== end of quote ==


But meaning all those terms is essentially the same -- part of the elite acting not in interests of the county, but some imperial foreign powers and content with neo-colonial role of their country.

In some sense neoliberal governments also can be called "lumpen elite" as they are subservient to transnational corporations, not so much interests of their own country population.

pgl -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 03:09 PM
Yeltsin sold Russian industry to foreigh interests for pennies on a dollar.

True but me thinks Trump will do the same.

libezkova -> pgl... , April 01, 2017 at 04:40 PM
Future is unpredictable by definition.

But I would draw analogies between Weimar government and Yeltsin regime. In both case countries faced huge financial outflows (reparations in one case, "economic rape" in another), hyperinflation, mass impoverishment of population, disappearance of middle class, and high unemployment.

To a certain extent that was true about Obama regime in 2008-2010.

Yeltin Russia was really a "failed country". Government employees and government workers were not paid for many months, average longevity for males dropped below 60. And Russian neoliberals (such as Yegor Gaidar( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar an object of loathing among ordinary Russians who lost everything during the neoliberal privatization, Anatoly Chubais -- the most hated person in Russia, oligarchs such as Berezovsky, Gusinsky ) who came to power with Yeltsin tried to ally with foreign powers in order to secure what they stole from Russian people. Rephrasing Obama, only the USA stand between them and pitchforks. BTW Chubais is (or was) a member of the Advisory Council for JPMorgan.

It rather funny and tragic that criminals that stole money from Russians and than managed to escape to the West with their money already in Western banks instantly become fighters for democracy -- I would call this "Classic Neoliberal Metamorphose" (CMM). Berezovsky is one example here. Very convenient, useful for the pressure on Russian government, and you do not return the money :-)

A very interesting variant of the "rule of law".

In a sense Trump is more similar to Putin than Yeltsin. Both accidentally came to power on the wave of dis-illusion of the mass of population in previous administration and dramatic loss of "good" jobs.

ilsm -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 03:53 PM
Libezkova you should follow David Warsh who runs Economic Principals blog which Professor Thoma links from here.

Warsh is writing a history of the US delegation, many from Harvard, who plundered Russia's attempt to build a stock exchange, etc.

[Apr 02, 2017] Barack Obamas theory of politics is and always has been garbage

Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com
ny Ryan Cooper

The absolute nadir of Obama's presidency was the moment he chose to try to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling (which limits the amount the federal government can borrow) to try to get a "grand bargain" on taxes and social insurance. If Republicans would agree to some tax hikes, he would get Democrats to support large cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This was stone idiocy on several levels: It accepted the legitimacy of Republicans taking the debt ceiling hostage - thus threatening national default and world financial crisis - to extract unrelated policy concessions; and as policy it was actively harmful. The narrative of looming debt crisis due to excessively generous social insurance was and is despicable garbage - and austerity and cuts to social insurance were the exact opposite of what was needed in July 2011, when the unemployment rate was 9.0 percent .

Obama was so enamored of the idea of being the president who finally cut through the partisan gridlock that he nearly undermined two of the country's most foundational programs. The only reason the grand bargain didn't pass was that the extremist faction of House Republicans refused to countenance any tax increases whatsoever .

After that humiliating failure, Obama retreated somewhat from trying to get compromises. Locked out of traditional governing, but still needing to address emergencies like climate change, he ended up resorting to a lot of unilateral executive orders.

But it seems this was merely a tactical retreat. In his 2015 State of the Union address , and again at the 2016 Democratic National Convention , he once more sounded the same anti-partisan notes of compromise and reasoned discussion. And as Jeff Stein reports after interviewing multiple top figures in Obama circles, the former president is preparing to redouble his anti-partisan efforts with a new foundation dedicated towards a rather content-free notion of "citizenship." This was also one major reason why Obama installed his loyal follower Tom Perez at the DNC - because he could liberate "himself from having to personally respond to Trump over the next several years" and thus stay above the partisan fray.

Now, as Steve Randy Waldman writes , it's not wrong to believe that a nation-state needs a basic commonality of belief and fellow feeling among the citizenry to succeed. Tying the nation together with cords of mutual dependence is one underrated function of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for instance. But when confronted with a political faction fanatically dedicated to cutting those cords, the right approach is not to keep reaching across the aisle to get tased. Instead, as FDR showed when New Deal Democrats constructed the basic structure of modern American society, one must comprehensively defeat that faction politically, over and over, until their views are exiled from the political mainstream. With agreement again defined along reasonable lines, civil political discourse will flourish once more.

But until then, it's fight or lose.

Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

[Apr 01, 2017] There some signes the quite coup happened under Obama and the remnants of democracy were lost

Notable quotes:
"... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
juliania, March 31, 2017 at 9:53 pm

Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller ). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:

As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.

The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy "

The parallels he draws are irrefutable.

[Apr 01, 2017] US neocons have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Still detente offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of Chinas orbit and accepting Us terms in Syria

Apr 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 31, 2017 3:08:38 PM | 17

b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS. He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.

In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that farce turned out.

Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.

Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen. Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a result of US pulling back from the failed 'Assad must go!' policy.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with Putin.

Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.

Hayder | Mar 31, 2017 1:17:42 PM | 1
I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and ideas came to hand.


Iraqi situation:


Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.

As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington, the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be address by their Iraqi counterparts:​


1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS, allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary Iraqis.


2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country: This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot" topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency, through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).


3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia will ultimately fail, for two reasons:


Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.


Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise, and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that. The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein, whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".


Other Iraq developments:


A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.


B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation update map 31 March https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).

Syria situation:


With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties. Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and As-Sukhnah.


The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.

If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.

The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine, I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian forces there, but time will tell.


Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?

Arab Summit:

Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO, with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".


War in Yemen:

There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.


End in sight in Syria .....?


Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end.. that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached.. they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement. We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end. they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.


Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.

Hayder, the Iraqi abroad

WorldBLee | Mar 31, 2017 3:12:54 PM | 18
I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama" is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas. Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

Temporarily Sane | Mar 31, 2017 3:14:17 PM | 19
@1 Hayder

Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.

james | Mar 31, 2017 3:33:23 PM | 20
b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens, it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...

dh | Mar 31, 2017 1:45:47 PM | 6
Good point b about this being Obama policy but

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/31/team-trump-doubles-down-on-obamas-horrendous-betrayal-of-syria

likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 2:00:02 PM | 8
yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"

No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War

In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/defense-sec-james-mattis-north-korea-has-got-be-stopped-n740966

Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford a luxury underground bunker.

likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 3:02:23 PM | 14
hopehely @ 10

Guess, I should have included the /S tag


Dh @ 12

John McCain loves his friends, ISIS. Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show saying:
"ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with them all the time."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtS3c5olMY

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You think?
All doubts of McCain ISIS connection now debunked.

Peter AU | Mar 31, 2017 4:19:29 PM | 22
Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."

There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.
US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

Louis Proyect | Mar 31, 2017 5:16:50 PM | 23
Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"

Yonatan | Mar 31, 2017 5:23:00 PM | 24
Temporarily Sane @19

Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was 6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.

Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.

Harry | Mar 31, 2017 5:38:31 PM | 25
@ Peter AU | 22

There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.

If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan, resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows). While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.

US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as many oilfields as they could.

Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.

As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.

telescope | Mar 31, 2017 10:31:53 PM | 30
The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.

Alaric | Mar 31, 2017 10:36:32 PM | 31
While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?

Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards Kurd autonomy.

[Mar 31, 2017] In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought

Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , March 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/middleeast/us-war-footprint-grows-in-middle-east.html

March 29, 2017

U.S. War Footprint Grows, With No Endgame in Sight
By BEN HUBBARD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought.

ilsm -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 01:51 PM
14 years as if US were going strong on Hanoi in '79!

Putin is a Tibetan Buddhist compared to Obama and so forth

mulp -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 04:30 PM
Well, sending US troops is a US jobs program.

Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more demand for labor produced goods.

[Mar 24, 2017] Neoliberal policies aided the far right.

Notable quotes:
"... During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945. Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right, and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary. ..."
"... The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents). ..."
"... Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.) ..."
"... The European far right has existed continuously since World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting political phenomenon in its own right. ..."
"... Le Pen's first appearance on the French political scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. ..."
"... The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order. ..."
"... The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening, the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed, since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years. ..."
"... The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency. ..."
"... In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight what is in fact an ideological power struggle. ..."
Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. : March 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM
Again it's interesting that Sanjait and PGL usually agree with Krugman, Bible and verse but they didn't agree with his most recent blog post which was about populism and leftwing/Sanders-type economic policy.

Titled "Populism and the Politics of Health"

And yet they didn't want to talk about! Very odd...

Here's a good rejoiner to Vox and Krugman about a subject Sanjait and PGL don't want to talk about:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/beauchamp-vox-le-pen-corbyn-trump-populism/

No Easy Answers, Just Bad History

A Vox writer sets out to prove social-democratic policies aided the far right. He fails.

by Marshall Steinbaum

Several weeks before Hillary Clinton's bitter defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, Vox's Zack Beauchamp waded into the simplistic debate about whether "economic anxiety" or racism was to blame for Trump's political success with a salvo on behalf of the racism explanation. Although that effort made some worthwhile points, it ultimately failed to explain why long-existing latent racism manifested in the sudden increase in xenophobia in formal politics.

This week Beauchamp returned to the breach, which has only grown wider since Trump's victory. Now the battle is about whether economic populism offers a way to stop Trump and the international march of the far right, rather than whether economic dislocation caused that march in the first place.

Beauchamp doesn't think Bernie Sanders–style economic populism can foil the far right. But his argument is much more ambitious: he sets out to prove that economically populist policies stoke, rather than ameliorate, far-right political tendencies. To do that, he deploys the following claims:

*European countries that adopted more generous redistributive policies in the post–World War II era were more vulnerable to far-right politics than those that adopted less generous ones.

*The far right's rise occurred over the past several decades and continues despite the Left's efforts to buy its supporters off with socialism. The reason why is that continuous immigration has run up against an electorate that is irredeemably racist and only becomes more so as it perceives immigrants to be the beneficiaries of the welfare state.

*Recent cases in which once-center-left parties swung decisively to the left - notably, the UK Labour Party - have proved politically disastrous and only further exacerbated the loss of political ground to the far right.

*American history is replete with white supremacy, and that fact is probably the major reason why politics in the US has consistently been several notches to the right of our European counterparts.

Of these claims, only the last one resembles reality. All the others are blatant misreadings of recent and not-so-recent history.

According to Beauchamp's stylized view of European politics, social democracy exists along a one-dimensional continuum, with variation in the degree to which it was enacted into policy in different countries after 1945. Combining the rising tide of immigration since the 1970s with the ex-ante degree of social generosity, Beauchamp concludes that redistribution is perceived as a giveaway to outsiders, and hence motivates backlash politics.

What's missing here is an understanding of what actually happened to European social democracy along the way. So let me supply a hopefully slightly better potted history.

During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945. Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right, and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary.

The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents).

Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.)

This hollowing out of national politics has had a profound effect on European social democracy. As power shifted from democratically accountable to democratically unaccountable institutions through privatization and European integration, the state's capacity to do anything about popular (as opposed to elite) grievances eroded and discontent exploded.

The ideal end goal of contemporary European social democratic parties is perhaps best embodied by Germany's Hartz Reforms. Enacted by a Social Democratic government in the early to mid 2000s over the objections of the country's labor unions, the labor market reforms occasioned a split in the party that has not been bridged since. According to the consensus narrative, the measures left Germany in better shape than ever, allowing it to weather the Great Recession and become a haven for economic and political refugees.

Beauchamp buys this assessment, endorsing - without evidence - the view that too much redistribution and regulation causes economic problems. Yet the Hartz Reforms are not responsible for Germany's relative macroeconomic success. In fact, they've worsened its labor market outcomes.

Beauchamp's point is not to conduct a policy evaluation, of course, but to presuppose that such an evaluation has already been conducted. And that serves his real rhetorical aim: to discredit the notion that social-democratic policies offer a solution to an emboldened far right. That it might be exactly the failure of these neoliberal reforms and the disrepute they've brought the leaders and factions who spearheaded them that caused social democracy's parlous state is nowhere entertained. The sea change in social democracy goes entirely unmentioned in Beauchamp's piece.

Which brings us to the parallel potted history of the European far right. Beauchamp's method is to recount a series of dates and country names: Jen-Marie Le Pen's creation of the Front National in France in 1972; its electoral breakthrough in the 1984 European elections (which Beauchamp doesn't note immediately followed a round of fiscal austerity inflicted by a Socialist government); Jorg Haider's takeover of the Freedom Party in Austria in 1986; Pim Fortuyn's 2002 assassination on the cusp of winning an outsized share of the vote in a Dutch parliamentary election; and Le Pen's success at reaching the French presidential election's second round that year. The narrative here is of a transnational, steady rise to power.

That telling is almost wholly false. The European far right has existed continuously since World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting political phenomenon in its own right.

Beauchamp doesn't mention, for instance, Le Pen's first appearance on the French political scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. Why omit that election? Because it would hinder Beauchamp's claim, pointing as it does to a social movement that has long existed on the fringes of politics and society and comes closest to power only when the political establishment is most discredited in the public mind. And that is exactly where we are now.

The reason the European political establishment, particularly of the center-left variety, is held in contempt is not because it tried making the welfare state more generous, only to have the electorate turn against them out of the racist belief that foreigners were vacuuming up all the benefits. The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order.

Which brings us to the UK Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's election as its leader. Beauchamp's move here is to conflate Corbyn with his hapless predecessor, Ed Miliband, and thereby link Labour's poor performance since 2010 to one big move to the left. In truth, Miliband inherited a party burned by its association with the financial crisis and its willingness to go along with the Iraq War, and steered it through treacherous waters with a mix of Blairite and more populist rhetoric (his greatest success being a proposal to regulate power companies).

Although Beauchamp paints the 2015 general election result as a disaster for Labour, the incumbent Tory-led coalition government came very close to losing, and the current Tory government enjoys the slimmest parliamentary majority since the 1970s. Labour netted seats at Conservative and Liberal Democrat expense in England; its total count suffered because the Scottish electorate deserted the party in favor of the Scottish National Party - a move driven by Scotland's overwhelming disgust for the incumbent government and hostility to the Westminster Labour faction's record under Blair and Brown. Far from being a failure of the left, these results were further evidence of the establishment's tarnished legitimacy.

This is the environment that propelled Corbyn to the top of Labour. His candidacy in the leadership election later that year was given a crucial boost by the parliamentary party's failure to oppose the reelected Tory government's cuts to social welfare early in the parliament's term - feeding the perception of a hapless, ideologically adrift party leadership in need of a drastic shake up.

Notably, the name "David Cameron" appears not once in Beauchamp's account of recent British political history. Yet the reason Cameron won the 2015 election was the big giveaway he made to shore up his right flank: the Brexit referendum. When Brexit ended up passing - despite the opposition of every major party - it was a gigantic slap in the face to the incumbent establishment. (Oddly, Beauchamp portrays Brexit as discrediting Corbyn - mirroring the way that Corbyn's intraparty opponents blamed his leadership for the vote, even though the Labour electorate overwhelmingly opposed Brexit and its winning margin was drawn from the English middle class, long the Tories' electoral backbone.)

The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening, the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed, since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years.

The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency.

Which brings us, finally, back home. The last section of Beauchamp's article draws upon the great work of Eric Foner and his many disciples. American democracy and American government, Foner argues, have been stained by white supremacy from the country's founding right up through the present. The disenfranchisement of a large segment of what would have been a core constituency for an American social-democratic party - southern blacks - helps explain twentieth- and twenty-first century political and policy outcomes, well beyond the dire consequences for disenfranchised blacks themselves. This is a basic, ineluctable fact of American politics.

That's not where Beauchamp ends up, however. Instead he blames the victim for social democracy's failure in the US: by advocating economic egalitarianism in hostile political territory, he argues, economic populists brought defeat upon themselves as a racist electorate interpreted that agenda as a bid to overturn the racial hierarchy.

As Matt Bruenig has written, the unspoken implication of Beauchamp's narrative is that any left economic agenda must first make it clear that the racial hierarchy will under no circumstances be threatened. "You can have diversity or you can have economic justice, but you can't have both," to use Bruenig's characterization. The acceptance of that false dichotomy, of course, is what gave us "super-predators," "the end of welfare as we know it," and the Obama administration's absolute prohibition on uttering the word "poverty" in public prior to its 2012 reelection.

Yet if Beauchamp's interpretation is correct, then the US should never have seen anything other than reactionary economic policy. And that's obviously not the case.

Interracial, interethnic social movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century won major reforms in the face of implacable hostility from both white supremacists and capitalist interests. And insofar as Progressive Era politicians betrayed the integrated coalitions that brought them to power, the sellout took place behind the closed doors of the statehouses and the United States Capitol. They most certainly did not reflect the impossibility of forming a class-based, multiracial political coalition.

Then there was the period from 1940 to 1970, which witnessed the greatest progress in closing the racial wealth and earnings gaps since Reconstruction, thanks to the strength of the New Deal coalition and the labor movement, which integrated the federal government's military-industrial supply chain (as well as the military itself, following the war), and the Civil Rights Movement, which successfully pressed the federal government to intervene in the South on behalf of equal rights. That advance was eventually turned back the same way it was during Reconstruction: through an alliance of white supremacy and implicitly racialized "free market" ideology, the latter of which came to dominate both major political parties.

In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight what is in fact an ideological power struggle.

Insofar as Beauchamp has a rhetorical opponent rather than a straw man, it is the Left's backlash against this retrograde, apologetic politics, which comes at a time when the latter has finally and abjectly failed to win or hold power at the federal, state, or local level. And that failure has occurred because centrist apologetics are up against the real thing: far-right xenophobia, shoulder to shoulder with plutocracy, dominating our national politics and threatening the lives and wellbeing of millions of our American and immigrant brethren.

Winning justice for those oppressed groups, if it is to happen, will owe nothing to the politics for which Beauchamp fights his rearguard action.

[Mar 17, 2017] Chickenhawks from Kagan family

Notable quotes:
"... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
"... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
"... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
"... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
"... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
"... http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html ..."
"... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
"... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
"... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
"... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
"... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
"... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
"... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
"... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
"... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
"... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
"... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
"... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
"... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
"... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
Mar 17, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
Bart in Virginia March 15, 2017 at 6:49 pm

It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.

I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.

Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!

Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty, telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.

Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."

Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as Pepé Le Pew likes to say.

Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm

"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.

Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm

KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds and not working for the Trump Adminstration.

Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's to know?

What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?

Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA. So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much better up against this evil array of villains.

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am

Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/03/exposing-real-deep-state.html

John , March 16, 2017 at 11:28 am

Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly in control ..

Common Tater , March 16, 2017 at 11:30 am

Joe T.
Excellent article, thanks!

D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going on in Syria, also clear and helpful.

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm

I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward to reading his reporting.

This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi. After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html

Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.

Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm

Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however. He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate, which is so true.

Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am

Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President.

As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to take her sweet candy.

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am

I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/

The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.

At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously, our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.

I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.

Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER

A good comment Joe Tedesky.

As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of interest would be Putin's response on the ground.

(When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??

Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the CIA. Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our invasion will evidently be
accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).

Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )

--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am

Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long we have been there.

I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia. Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.

As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.

The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.

Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.

John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm

Joe,

The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept. At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm

Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey man .so if not Russia then who?

Dominic Pukallus , March 16, 2017 at 4:43 am

Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at least appear Human to their subjects.

Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am

Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.

Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am

Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals, plain and simple.

Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the trenches.

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.

https://archive.org/details/YankeeDoodleInBerlin

Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.

BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am

BART IN VIRGINIA!!

Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!

Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.

Early on you pegged them:

"Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."

Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks."

Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:

"the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers."

Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-on-june-1st-the-deep-state-will-move-to-overthrow-trump-there-is-a-secret-agenda-to-allow-a-crisis-and-get-rid-of-the-president_03142017

IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon for only $12.95 or less).

Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think it is worthy of publication.

Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion (books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].

dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Who is behind them rascals?

evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:

"A Family Business

There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.

For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence in Afghanistan.

Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-26/meet-kagans-seeking-war-end-world

from wikipedia:

"In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]

In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a strong advocate of the Iraq war.

From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]

During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]

Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]

Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]

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

also check out the footnotes from the wiki article ..

Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues

Bottom line, though, it seems like the Kagans have been at the center of Washington policy think for decades and decades and therefore fit neatly within the comfort zone of powerful people who carry out U.S. foreign policy – Republicans and Democrats.
That's who we are, apparently ..
I recently saw Wally Shawn's play in NYC – 'Evening at the Talk House', an amazing play about who we are – or have become .
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/theater-review-evening-at-the-talk-house-is-wallace-shawns-political-party-trick-021617
http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/theater-evening-at-the-talk-house-and-escaped-alone.html

Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 11:26 pm

Thank you for your research and report

jaycee , March 15, 2017 at 9:28 pm

It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you seek.

For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics, CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.

Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am

Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda." It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com .

Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am

You can find the Vimeo versions at https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda . Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan" article.

Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am

The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink tanks and political bribe donations.

The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy, and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War. Don't we need more of those wars.

BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am

dineesh,

This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.

dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.

D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis also recommended. Posted today.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/03/third-times-the-charm-the-neocons-want-another-sunni-insurgency.html

Sally Snyder , March 15, 2017 at 7:18 pm

As shown in this article, the United States is using ammunition in Syria that is adding to the already significant problems that Syrians are facing:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/02/the-united-states-and-cancer-of-warfare.html

Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.

Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.

Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm

What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.

But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland" situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.

One could only hope.

Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.

Jonathan , March 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm

In connection with the legality of CIA meddling in internal affairs, and the Trump wire-tapping charge, Scott Ritter has made what seems to be a rather good point in a recent article published in Truthdig. The article digs a little deeper into the matter and comes up with a surprising and quite optimistic conclusion.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_some_explosive_truth_20170314

D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 8:32 pm

As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"

He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of Assad "drinking the kool aid."

My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it, calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the neocons on pipeline projects etc?

LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm

I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now this is very unlikely.

Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.

There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also. The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am

I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even the winner will have won much more than a big headache.

Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.

MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am

Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.

The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along. Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied. The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell weapons and Israel will be worry free.

What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position. Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.

Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am

Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans, and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period, and life goes on.

You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.

John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations. Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.

Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am

The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.

MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am

"Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"

Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni, ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.

D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm

@ ME Expert:

Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.

On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too simple.

With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.

On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia). At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.

I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.

D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!

LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies, Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias. It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum

Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm

I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House (if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/waking-up-to-the-truth-about-the-sunni-awakening/

If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!

MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm

I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.

The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government. Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.

D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm

I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war of apples vs. oranges."

LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm

Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,

CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm

I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits. This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest private equity firm on the planet.

I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating a war or wars.

I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11 was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.

But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.

It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.

How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?

How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?

It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling here.

The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?

There is a much bigger story here.

The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen. This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.

It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by the government to actually improve security so what is the point.

The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.

Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?

There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.

What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat it!

We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.

We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.

If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also need to protect our privacy.

So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player in the international terrorism game? I think not.

Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into an industry aimed at real security.

Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning it the hard way is an honest living.

Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival to hold power.

Bruce Walker , March 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.

CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm

That would be spelled: knows nothing
Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.

CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm

Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.

That would be : bated breath.

My bad.

geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm

kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!

Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm

The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly, I cannot.

Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.

TheSkepticalCynic , March 15, 2017 at 10:39 pm

Fuck the Kagans

LJ , March 15, 2017 at 10:43 pm

But they might multiply!

Fran Macadam , March 15, 2017 at 10:42 pm

"Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"

I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.

Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am

If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money, and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses today. We do not have a democracy now.

Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.

Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm

It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred. At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the next commercial break.

It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As noted by Mr. Parry:

" by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."

So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.

I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.

Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm

Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there is some crime they could be charged with.

MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm

We wish.

F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm

The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.

Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:11 am

Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.

I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?

Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump and Tillerson are wary of them.

Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am

"How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"

Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons or Trumps!

Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am

Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world. And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason. How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction - also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?

Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm

FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.

Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/

This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job is to support H.R.608 and S.532.

Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am

There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame. Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??

Seema Gillani , March 16, 2017 at 7:00 am

Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war business as usual.

Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am

If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife; and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best watch out in that direction.

fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am

The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right decisions..
Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows the
right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in plain view.

Bryan Hemming , March 16, 2017 at 8:17 am

Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?

Del Spurlock , March 16, 2017 at 8:51 am

EXCEPTIONAL

Donald Kagan
Spawned a tribe
Of tinhorn
Warriors

Practice war he
Said to them
Make men
Sacrifice
Their reason and
Their rectitude
Their dreams of paradise.

Make them fear
The empty space
Filled with conjured devils
Make them sacrifice their young
To save god's holy settlers.

Make Obama toe their line
Add John Lewis too
Watch Black leaders
Act so dumb
And crap on King to Boot.

Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 9:01 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXspsfoPX50

Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 8:57 am

The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."

Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive. Enough already!

Dan Kuhn , March 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present push to what will be a catastrophic war.

LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation, whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in 1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.

exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests, the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.

Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am

Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections, the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on and on and on

Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting about?

It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.

It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.

And not in the right direction.

My question .When does the news start, Robert?

D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm

You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?

MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:53 pm

Here is that link to Saker's article:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/u-s-against-iran-a-war-of-apples-vs-oranges/

Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm

So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary. I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes, submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.

LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm

Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons. I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.

John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over the 99% ..

Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.

Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm

The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.

Airman Sparky , March 16, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepé Le Pew likes to say."
Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence

Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.

Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland!

Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm

Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white. Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?

J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm

UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/11/09/20161111_trump1.jpg

Brad Isherwood , March 16, 2017 at 4:39 pm

The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911. The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.

The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring. Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.

The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad. The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.

Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the reciever of the pipelines.
Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.

Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel "

US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.

Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises? The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq. Is this Deja Vu

Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest. Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have a planet with many problems we should be addressing.

[Mar 17, 2017] The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow

Notable quotes:
"... The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. ..."
"... "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. ..."
"... "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. ..."
"... the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." ..."
"... Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. ..."
"... It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. ..."
"... As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Mar 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more "regime change" wars, reports Robert Parry.

The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.

Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump.

In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as "Russia's accomplices after the fact" by not investigating more aggressively.

Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.

Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington's world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.

Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose "liberal interventionism" matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.

There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.

Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting "regime change" back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money.

A Family Business

As I noted two years ago in an article entitled " A Family Business of Perpetual War ": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

"This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

"Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert's brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War."

But things didn't quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to Trump.

After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.

With Trump in the White House, Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland's fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia. As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump's team to rig the U.S. election.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia's alleged "meddling" to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's 9/11 terror attacks.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert themselves.

Baiting Republicans

Robert Kagan took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article and its headline, "Running interference for Russia."

Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)

Kagan wrote: "It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party's leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country's political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing."

Kagan then reprised Official Washington's groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims from President Obama's outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had "hacked" Democratic emails and released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.

Though Obama's intelligence officials offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.

Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama's appointees, Kagan judged that "given the significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling" and justified "a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation."

But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.

He declared: "The most important question concerns Russia's ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States' electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.

"Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations."

A Different Reality

As alarmist as Kagan's op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election's outcome.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news.

A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details about Trump's tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen's tax returns was somehow a threat to American democracy.

The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking the White House. I agree, but doesn't it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton's nomination, about the contents of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing to the Clinton Foundation?

Yet, because Obama's political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community "assess" that Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.

More Loose Talk

But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S. democracy. He asserted as "fact" – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is "interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy's recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

There's been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the "post-truth" era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.

But it's clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to "counter" what is deemed "Russian propaganda."

Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:

"But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party's current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community's findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.

"Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.

"The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party's leadership, both in the White House and Congress.

"When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia's accomplices after the fact."

Lying with the Neocons

Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons' long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.

But the neocons have long lusted for "regime change" in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama's arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State's "capital" of Raqqa.

In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern Syria:

"American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.

"The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of a secure base inside Syria. President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming America's approach to it."

A New Scheme on Syria

In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings to entice the U.S. military into a "regime change" project in Syria.

The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.

Putin's interference in thwarting the neocons' dream of a Syrian "regime change" war moved Putin to the top of their enemies' list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman deemed "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.

It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria "Toria" Nuland to oversee the "regime change" in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how "to glue" or "to midwife" a change in Ukraine's elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as "legitimate."

But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion."

So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a "regime change" in Syria.

All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton, a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.

Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda.

It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes.

As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Mar 11, 2017] Whos Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?

Notable quotes:
"... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
"... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
"... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
"... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
"... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RGC -> EMichael... March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM , March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM
Who's Telling the 'Big Lie' on Ukraine?

September 2, 2014

By Robert Parry


Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
...............

A Mysterious 'Invasion'

And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.

While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.

One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."

Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.

"You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq."

But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

kthomas -> RGC... , March 11, 2017 at 08:27 AM
Poor Slavs. Always killing each other because the other is too Slav or not Slav enough.
libezkova -> kthomas... , March 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM
Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.

[Mar 11, 2017] Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists

Notable quotes:
"... Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels ..."
"... But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. ..."
"... The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites. ..."
"... The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. ..."
"... Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members. ..."
Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RGC : March 11, 2017 at 07:47 AM
Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists


Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels

By Tom Parfitt
9:00AM BST 11 Aug 2014

......................................

But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming.

The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

RGC -> RGC... , March 11, 2017 at 07:52 AM
The Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a National Guard of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4]

The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3]

Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National Guard of Ukraine.[7]

More than half of the Battalion members are from eastern Ukraine and speak Russian,[8] and some of its recruits come from the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[9] The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.[10][11]

In its early days, Azov was the Ministry of Internal Affairs' special police company, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the leader of the Vasylkiv, Kiev, branch of Patriot of Ukraine and Right Sector.[12][13][14] Under the "Azov" umbrella were also created the non-governmental organization "Azov Civil Corps" and the political party National Corps.[15]

Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members.

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

[Mar 11, 2017] John Helmer: Australian Government Trips Up Ukrainian Court Claim of MH17 as Terrorism

Notable quotes:
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014. ..."
"... In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime." ..."
"... Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there. ..."
"... Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement. ..."
"... There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later. ..."
"... On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan. ..."
"... My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes. ..."
"... This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won. ..."
"... You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends. ..."
"... This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though ..."
"... How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind. ..."
"... If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine. ..."
"... As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts. ..."
Mar 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on March 11, 2017 by Yves Smith By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.

The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act. Because the Attorney-General's legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull's public opinions, Brandis's advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police, have been conducting for more than two years.

In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime."

On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17 incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a spokesman that he is still investigating. "The criminal investigation of MH17 is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme."

Brandis was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was terrorism. That he has provided the advice on AVTOP is confirmed by a source in Turnbull's office.

AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is decided, according to the Australian social security ministry. It records that the last terrorism incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One Australian was killed. On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident for AVTOP compensation. That commenced on October 21, one month after the incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.


Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L01799/Explanatory%20Statement/Text

The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric Abetz.

In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the attorney-general was Brandis. They agreed to designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train station, as terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March 22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45 days later.

There are press reports that Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.

Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there.

The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code. Officials working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime Minister that the incident comes under the Code's sub-section 100.1(1). This says a terrorist act "means an action or threat of action where: (b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public."

For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read this .

Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident, according to the criminal code provisions, the prime minister still has a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a particular incident.

That Turnbull hasn't done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn't want to do so - and not only because of his attorney-general's advice. Turnbull was also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott's to send 3,000 Australian troops to join Dutch and other NATO forces in a US-backed military operation in eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy. For that story, click here .

Australian sources who know Turnbull don't agree in their interpretation of what he is now saying and doing. Some sources believe that with his political mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself from opposition party attacks that he is "soft" on the Kremlin. With his legal mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case.

The Australians haven't realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a terrorist act undermines this month's proceedings in The Netherlands, where the Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven't realized either.

The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16, 2017, and can be read here . The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.

Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week: left US lawyer Marney Cheek; right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine

According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. "When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life."

"By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions, the Russian Federation's response was to substantially increase these groups' firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. In July 2014, as part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board These perpetrators committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian government There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific terrorist act."

"Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17."

The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read here . Ilya Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March 7. Rogachev was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel, Samuel Wordsworth.

According to Rogachev, "it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army's anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with 'BUK-M1' missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment's headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT."

He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile, or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended to do so. "It is enough to note," said Rogachev, "that neither the DSB [Dutch Safety Board] nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that specific purpose."

The JIT, according to Turnbull's spokesman in Canberra this week, includes Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said they "remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17 are held to account." On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the JIT hasn't satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP's Commissioner Andrew Colvin reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the AFP , are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis.

In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17 investigation; for details read this and this .

Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. "The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant" in determining whether the downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime Minister's judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.

"For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention," Rogachev testified this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty covering compensation for aircraft incidents, "the intention must have been to shoot down a civilian aircraft "

Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court papers by the Kiev regime, "there is a separate requirement of specific intent. So far as concerns Ukraine's allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article 2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: "(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their case.

Ivan , March 11, 2017 at 2:20 am

Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement.

hemeantwell , March 11, 2017 at 7:49 am

I'll add the usual point that the charge is all the more incredible because none of the US' radar and satellite coverage at the time has been brought to bear to "prove" Russian complicity. Ukraine air space 7/24/14, unplugged?

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:12 am

There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later.

There were also a number of commercial imaging satellites that passed through the area that day.

On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan.

There were numerous (too many to list) SIGNIT satellites operated by a number of countries from LEO to HEO (SBIRS).

My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes.

But what do you mean by 'prove'?

susan the other , March 11, 2017 at 10:48 am

This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won.

If intent cannot be proven against the Russians, it can't be proven against the Ukrainian army either because the evidence presented eliminated all the above top secret details. So now the whole thing was an "accident". When, if all the evidence were reviewed, a case for intent falls against Nato and Ukraine – they intended to frame Russia for the incident to gain support for their cause. And as such it does meet the definition of terrorism. At least Turnbull refused to call it Russian terrorism.

rkka , March 11, 2017 at 2:38 am

What I want to know is why the Ukrainian air traffic control system directed this flight over a zone of active hostilities, where the Ukrainian Air Force had previously had a good many military aircraft shot out of the sky.

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:19 am

The answer to the first part of your question is that countries get paid for over flights. The second part of your question is that all the Ukrainian Air Force planes that had been shot down were flying much, much lower and it was assumed the equipment being used to do it couldn't go as high as the commercial airliners were flying.

You, know sort of like the Soviets couldn't reach the U-2.

tgs , March 11, 2017 at 9:29 am

And of course the tapes from the control tower have simply disappeared.

Here is a another Australian lawyer who outlines why the investigation was compromised from the beginning.

MH17 and the JIT: A Flawed Investigation

dcrane , March 11, 2017 at 4:32 am

Indeed – even if they had no reason to believe that a capability to shoot down airliners at 30,000 feet plus (i.e., a weapon like the Buk-M1) was present on the ground at that point, commerical airliners are sometimes required to descend rapidly to much lower altitudes (e.g., by pressure emergencies) so it makes no sense to rely on an assumption that hostile weapons can't reach the usual cruising altitude. It is a fair question what the airline ops people were thinking as well.

Agreed that this has always seemed more likely to be a reckless screwup by the people running the BUK than a deliberate terrorist act. (Then again, I think the host nations do make money from these flyovers.)

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:16 am

I agree with your conclusion that it was a total screw up. Only part of the system was present and that cut down the ability to see the entire picture (or better see the entire picture).

martanus , March 11, 2017 at 5:20 am

interesting study of accident MH17

https://mh17web.wordpress.com/

Barry Fay , March 11, 2017 at 10:05 am

What a great article! Must read!

Quentin , March 11, 2017 at 6:32 am

You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends.

The Rev Kev , March 11, 2017 at 7:39 am

This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though.

How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind.

Following American policy for this area, of which Australia has no connection, has led to all sorts of weird repercussions. Tony Abbott wanted to send a brigade of our troops to eastern Ukraine as part of a NATO force. That would of worked out well! If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine.

andyb , March 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts.

Persona au gratin , March 11, 2017 at 10:34 am

Agreed. This would not be an issue at all were it not for the propaganda smoke screen the western MSM was ordered to throw up to protect those who must never be named.

originalone , March 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that Putin was traveling back to Russia and his flight path was changed prior to the shoot down of MH17, which was on the same flight path, but wasn't altered. A mistake by the Ukrainians who didn't get the word? As for the silence of the U.S., seems to go with the territory considering who is/was at center stage in the overthrow revolution.

[Mar 03, 2017] America primary strategic threat is not North Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology.

Notable quotes:
"... "In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party." Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons. ..."
"... Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should anyone listen to what he has to say? ..."
"... Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven. I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory. ..."
"... If you really want to get down on the man, though, follow Columbia professor Andrew Gellman. Here is a sample of his take on Brooks: http://andrewgelman.com/2015/06/16/the-david-brooks-files-how-many-uncorrected-mistakes-does-it-take-to-be-discredited/ ..."
"... To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals. ..."
"... The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management, a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all. ..."
Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Sceptic , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:28 am
Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).

What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again, primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).

America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.

Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States' persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often manufactured enemies.

Cornel Lencar , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:46 am

Kudos Mr. Bacevich for an exceptional piece!

Somehow the current situation in the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana, that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes

The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article.

Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China, India, Japan, is an overstretch

Murali , says: February 23, 2017 at 12:16 pm
"In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party." Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons.
Phil Giraldi , says: February 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm
David Brooks is a Canadian whose son served by choice in the Israeli Defense Forces rather than the U.S. military. He passed on playing an active role in the wars that his father so passionately supports. Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should anyone listen to what he has to say?
Cynthia McLean , says: February 23, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Brilliant! It's about time someone seriously took down David Brooks & Co's faux innocence narrative of US history. The only point I would add is that this story predates Brooks by a good century and a half. By identifying its national "interests" with those of the Divine, the US gives itself an eternal and perpetual get-out-jail-free-card. It seems not to matter that millions are slaughtered and entire cultures destroyed, as all was all done with the "best of intentions."
Howard , says: February 23, 2017 at 2:12 pm
It's a poor kind of child who loves his parents only so long as they are more attractive, richer, and more powerful than other parents, and it is a poor kind of "patriot" who loves his country only so long as it is more admired, richer, and more powerful than other countries.
David Walkabout , says: February 23, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Preach it, Brother Andrew!
No Nation Nell , says: February 23, 2017 at 4:18 pm
I don't know if it was your intention but your piece made it far more evident that Brooks is a charlatan you've constructed as Trump.
Howard , says: February 23, 2017 at 4:41 pm
"In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance is not to conservatism as such, but to the Church of America the Redeemer." As though having "confessional fealty" to "conservatism" (which some people indeed have) were any better. Regarding anyone who falls into that category, all I can do is quote one of the great voices of wisdom for our time: "I pity the fool!"
jon-e , says: February 23, 2017 at 5:48 pm
'The things Americans do they do not only for themselves, but for all mankind.' Well aint that grand! Brooks must have been intoxicated by his ideas at this point, sounds like Dennis Prager. It would be easy to laugh at such ideas if they weren't so destructive. Excellent piece.
Ken Hoop , says: February 23, 2017 at 7:14 pm
Brooks son being in the IDF and Brooks own vehemence to destroy an unthreatening (to the US) enemy of Israel in 2003 is of course of one piece.

Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven. I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory.

Of course Russia has always needed a strong man to stay intact and I couldn't rule out government sympathizers might have taken action on their own, those who were alarmed at Russian liberal journalists fomenting the kind of discord which might suit Victoria Nuland but not Russia staying intact that is.

Rick Jones , says: February 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
Although I actively seek out level-headed conservative thinkers/writers, I've never been a fan of David Brooks (probably for reasons related to those put forth in this article).

If you really want to get down on the man, though, follow Columbia professor Andrew Gellman. Here is a sample of his take on Brooks: http://andrewgelman.com/2015/06/16/the-david-brooks-files-how-many-uncorrected-mistakes-does-it-take-to-be-discredited/

troopertyree , says: February 23, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Phil giraldi. if brooks'views are less valid because his son skipped Iraq are bill kristol's and Elliot Cohen's more valid because their sons were u.s.marines in Iraq?
ctks , says: February 24, 2017 at 2:57 am
superb essay.
Gil , says: February 24, 2017 at 6:45 am
Lies, Andrew. Not "alt-facts." Lies.
david robbins tien , says: February 24, 2017 at 7:49 am
To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals.
connecticut farmer , says: February 24, 2017 at 9:03 am
Good article. Couldn't agree more. A few minor quibbles though:

1. Compared to Lippmann, Brooks is an intellectual lightweight. They're not even close.

2. Though in the context of the article somewhat self-serving, Brooks' criticism of the educational system is valid.

Otherwise, the author is spot-on.

Fran Macadam , says: February 24, 2017 at 12:28 pm
"The global trend has been towards democracy for a century now"

The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management, a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all.

[Feb 26, 2017] US Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent? ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:52:15 AM | 2

Posted earlier ...

US.Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine, Tymoshenko?

Firtash can evade prison term if he "sells out" Russian leaders – Gerashchenko

Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:56:33 AM | 3
More about Firtash in a post here ... Former Manafort UA Partner Facing Extradiction

A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent?

Oui | Feb 22, 2017 1:07:23 AM | 5
Dutch fake referendum on Ukraine ...

Dutch Parliament secures required majority to support ratification of EU-Ukraine deal – outcome of debate

On last day before recess and the March general election!

[Feb 26, 2017] a textbook illustration how color revolution methods are used to discredit the government. To attack Trump Russia is skillfully painted as Big Satan contact with whom is sin

Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc : February 24, 2017 at 08:26 PM

RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive

"Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

Ring any Nixon Bells with anyone???

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html

"Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM

"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...

libezkova -> im1dc... , February 26, 2017 at 06:56 AM
This article is a textbook illustration how "color revolution" methods are used to discredit the government.

Russia is skillfully painted as "Big Satan" contact with whom is sin for Christians.

What a despicable scum those presstitutes are...

[Feb 19, 2017] Retired Green Beret Warns Deep State's Utopia Of Oligarchs Is Enslavement And Complete Control Of All Of Mankind Zero Hedg

Notable quotes:
"... Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job. ..."
"... "Bill and I chose to Help early" My friends from Haiti tell me how grateful they are. They would like their gold back from your brother though. ..."
"... McCain sold his soul for a fresh pack of Marlboro's in 1968 Hanoi, and Lynnsey is a gay pederast. ..."
"... Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today... ..."
"... the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements.... when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and laughing.... ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
by Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 10:30 PM

becoming clearer by the day... the battle lines have been drawn

xythras -> Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 10:30 PM

PATRIOTIC SPRING HAS STARTED --

Geert Wilders was Hailed like a Rock Star in Spijkenisse, Rotterdam

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-02-18/geert-wilders-was-hailed-as-a-...

GUS100CORRINA -> xythras , Feb 18, 2017 10:36 PM

DEEP STATE = Demonically Controlled Human Beings working together who have made a pact with the DEVIL for POWER, MONEY and INFLUENCE.

GEORGE SOROS is the POSTER CHILD for the typlical DEEP STATE member.

WernerHeisenberg -> GUS100CORRINA , Feb 18, 2017 10:52 PM

Even worse than that, they hope they will be rewarded for their service with promotions to become immortal minions of Lucifer after their ancient human bodies finally expire.

Mustafa Kemal -> GUS100CORRINA , Feb 18, 2017 10:53 PM

CFR is the brain

Luc X. Ifer -> Mustafa Kemal , Feb 18, 2017 10:58 PM

This article practically describes the Communist Soviet bloc.

wanglee -> Luc X. Ifer , Feb 18, 2017 11:09 PM

Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job.

However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November. Although I have not been a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans (such as McCain who is too old to make a sound judgement), and those media who donated/endorsed Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalist, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will be globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.

Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431 ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261... ) DEA Report Shows Infiltration of Mexican Drug Cartels in Sanctuary Cities ( http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/09/08/dea-report-shows-infiltration-... ) Welfare Discourages Work( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/the-science-is-settle... ) Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders's "Free College" Tuition Plan Is All a Lie ( http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-wo... UC Berkeley Chancellor: Hillary Clinton 'Free' College Tuition Plan Won't Happen ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/uc-berkeley-chancello... ) Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I'm 'Terrified' of Hillary because we know that there were "People" who "Disappeared" ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/exclusive-bil... ) Former FBI Asst. Director Accuses Clintons Of Being A "Crime Family" ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuse... ) FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-da... ). Aides claiming she "could not use a computer," and didn't know her email password– New FBI docs ( https://www.rt.com/usa/360528-obama-implicated-clinton-email/ ). 23 Shocking Revelations From The FBI's Clinton Email Report ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/23-shocking-revelations-from-the-fbis-... ) DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up her email server ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-just... ) Former House Intelligence Chairman: I'm '100 Percent' Sure Hillary's Server Was Hacked ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/former-house-... ) Exclusive - Gen. Mike Flynn: Hillary Clinton's Email Setup Was 'Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior' ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/exclusive-gen... ) Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials ( http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-clas... ) Obama lied to the American people about his secret communications with Clinton( http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/president-barack-obama-hillary-email-... ) Former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft: FBI didn't 'clear' Clinton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFYQ3Cdp0zQ ) When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-cli... ) Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/08/wikileaks-putting-on-... ) Russian officials donated $$$ to Clinton Foundation for Russian military research ( http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/16/schweizer-insecure-left-wants-... ) Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-... ) HILLARY CAMPAIGN CHIEF LINKED TO MONEY-LAUNDERING IN RUSSIA ( HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2016/10/HILLARY-CAMPAIGN-CHIEF-LINKED-TO-MONEY-LAUNDE... ) The largest source of Trump campaign funds is small donors giving under $200 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-fund_us_57fd4556e4... ) How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mega-donors-helped-raise-1-b... ) Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2 ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-news... ) Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash ( https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hill... ) Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planni... )

HRClinton -> Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 10:43 PM

In that case, the choices are: Help, Fight or Stay out of the way.

Not being the fighting type, Bill and I chose to Help early, so that we're well positioned and so that we can also help like minded people that we bring in. Call it Amway with a twist.

Mustafa Kemal -> HRClinton , Feb 18, 2017 10:54 PM

"Bill and I chose to Help early" My friends from Haiti tell me how grateful they are. They would like their gold back from your brother though.

myne -> Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 11:03 PM

Farmer knows best.

Back to your stall, heffer.

Normalcy Bias , Feb 18, 2017 10:30 PM

I don't even want to imagine what's being held over the heads of McCain and Graham.

Squid Viscous -> Normalcy Bias , Feb 18, 2017 10:34 PM

McCain sold his soul for a fresh pack of Marlboro's in 1968 Hanoi, and Lynnsey is a gay pederast.

so, not hard to imagine, really

bankerssuck -> Normalcy Bias , Feb 18, 2017 10:58 PM

72 worn out virgins?

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:33 PM

zionists do what they gonna do... so what?

Squid Viscous -> Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:56 PM

ballers gonna ball, then they go to hell, dam, dat a hot gym down dere

deimos178 , Feb 18, 2017 10:35 PM

As long as he can drag the whiney little bitches McConnell and Ryan over the finish line.

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:37 PM

Zionists already run USA.. so what if they enslave you.... you are already enslaved.... fools... you cannot stop them.....

djsmps , Feb 18, 2017 10:39 PM

Well, I'm not sure if if I'm on-board with that.

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:39 PM

the zio power brokers love what is going on ... they LOVE making CHAOS... it's working as planned... blow the whole thing up... you are doing exactly what they wanted

mvlazysusan , Feb 18, 2017 10:41 PM

Ending the ponzi money scheme and issuing non-debt based money will go the farthest in returning the power to the people to whom it belongs.

How about this: Take all that money lent to the big banks at a very low interest back from the banks and lend it to the American people at the same intrest rate.

coast1 , Feb 18, 2017 10:47 PM

Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today...

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:50 PM

the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements.... when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and laughing....

the more chaos the better for them... when will you learn...

anticultist , Feb 18, 2017 10:51 PM

excellent presentation on globalist treason below from Jones.

their mind control technology of racebaiting and gender wars are expansions to their white

guilt narrative, to maximize victimhood of ignorant slave zombies chanting for nanny state welfare.

To entrain them how they are not worthy is maximizing the self-sabotage instinct. This is triggered if the

weak federali slave minds are at risk of achieving success they will instead self sabotage

themselves with bad behavior and negative instincts,

to take themselves out of the situation and out of the game. Because with success comes

leadership, philanthropy, accountability, and responsibility, all antithetical to liberal cannibal slaves chanting for more.

How else would they be poor, ignorant, taxed, and property-less, like communism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PolyMD9lTVE

Squid Viscous -> MASTER OF UNIVERSE , Feb 18, 2017 11:05 PM

lol, least stressed Prez since... Andrew Jackson? he doesn't give a flying fuck what ass clowns like you think - get it?

divingengineer -> MASTER OF UNIVERSE , Feb 18, 2017 11:11 PM

Keep dreaming snowflakes. He looks like he's having the time of his life to me.

max_leering , Feb 18, 2017 10:55 PM

I think Trump gets it... the "trump" card is the minimal ties by him to special interests... notice I said minimal... that said, he's not as beholden as others before him... take the Boeing deal to provide a new AF1... he bluntly says it's overpriced, so Boeing reduces price... there is no president being owned by big biz in this scenario... and the new media fight is being likened to the media fight of Nixon... Idon't see itt that way... with the advent of numerous alternative news outlets (where I get mine), it's not the same CBS and Walter Cronkite or NBC and David Brinkley 6PM news show where most folks were almost programmed to get any news each day, so it could be tailored to fit a propaganda lean... the east European and Mideast wars are going to take the longest to root out the villians, as the MIC will do anything/everything to not lose one tiny fraction of their power, calling the shots with folks like McCain and Graham... it's going to take at least a year, possibly two, but I agree with the author in that if Trump shows his base he's working hard trying to get the things implemented that he stands for, the Demos are Dead, I tell you, DEAD

Cardinal Fang , Feb 18, 2017 10:56 PM

Same as it ever was since the fucking pyramids...

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:59 PM

the more the swamp is drained... the more Soros laughs... more chaos... more protests, more anarchy, then killings come, total fucking chaos is the goal... then the zios can come in and buy it for a song...

fall of USSR made how many zios billionaires?

Order out of chaos..... the more chaos - the more hand wringing....they are excited to get closer to their goal..

Soros would love to be injected with something to make him younger so he can live to see the collapse of USA, and then come in and snap up all the assets... it would be better than when snapped up property in hungary for a song...

Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:00 PM

Trump was never a member of Skull & Bones. That says a lot.

max_leering -> Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:02 PM

Odumbo was a member of Skullfucked and Boneheaded

Squid Viscous -> max_leering , Feb 18, 2017 11:18 PM

no at Columbia they had "get skulled & bone the jew sluts at Barnard" club...

obozo swings both ways, so he was an honorary member

anticultist -> Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:08 PM

Trump doesnt have a pedophile blackmail "control file" the globalist nightmare

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:03 PM

zios campaign the bring in immigrants and terrorists, then zios get you all worked up to hate them, and then fight them..

they sit back and laugh at the mess they made.... so much fun for them.... and great buying opportunity

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:06 PM

Zios don't really have to do much ... all they have to do provoke you.... such a simple strategy

BlueGreen , Feb 18, 2017 11:08 PM

And then a chess man walked off the board after slaying the master...........wtf ever

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:09 PM

there is no goal of 'complete control' that's bullshit... coming from a mental midget..

the goal is CHAOS.... what ever comes after of course jews will control... naturally.... communism, capitalism... doesn't matter... it's all the same... but they shall be at the top

Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:15 PM

of course Soros and the lot wanted Hillary to win, so she could further erode USA, but really they must be pleased with Trump as President, as it appears they could not have dreamed how much choas a Trump Presidency can bring...

so things are turning out nicely for the zios... maybe even ahead of schedule with Trump...

now all they have to do is provoke Trump into doing things to stir things up... should be easy to provoke Trump as he is easily rattled

How can you possibly understand zios such as Soros if you don't think like him?

Father ¢hristmas , Feb 18, 2017 11:15 PM

Huxley was right.

[Feb 19, 2017] COLOR REVOLUTIONS: TECHNIQUES IN BREAKING DOWN MODERN POLITICAL REGIMES

Notable quotes:
"... The characteristics of color revolutions are: ..."
"... The impact on power is exercised in a special form of political blackmail. ..."
"... Youth protest movement serves as the main tool for influencing the power. ..."
"... At the heart of the technological scenario of a color revolution is the Anglo-Saxon (North American) ideology of democratization, suggesting the export democracy and the democratic institutions and values in the neighboring countries. 54 In practice, only their authors and their developers, the Anglo-Saxons, are able to use the technologies of color revolutions. In any country where the color revolution began to unfold, we look for the trail of North America. ..."
www.orbus.be

The purpose of any color revolution is a coup, i.e. a seizure and hold of power by force.

The objects of the color revolutions are power and power relations; its subject is the political regime.

Color revolutions have necessary and sufficient conditions for their success.

A necessary condition for the implementation of a color revolution is the existence of political instability in the country, accompanied by the current government crisis. If the political situation in the country is stable, it is necessary to artificially destabilize it.

A sufficient condition is the presence of a specially organized (in the form of a special network) youth protest movement.

The characteristics of color revolutions are:

1) The impact on power is exercised in a special form of political blackmail.

2) Youth protest movement serves as the main tool for influencing the power.

The color revolutions only resemble real revolutionary movements. Unlike the real revolutions, caused by the objective development of the historical process, the color revolutions are technologies that are successfully masquerading as natural processes. They differ in the level of an almost theatrical drama that Western political scientists are diligently trying to pass off as natural and spontaneous manifestations of the will of the people that suddenly decided to regain the right to govern their own country.

At the heart of the technological scenario of a color revolution is the Anglo-Saxon (North American) ideology of democratization, suggesting the export democracy and the democratic institutions and values in the neighboring countries.54 In practice, only their authors and their developers, the Anglo-Saxons, are able to use the technologies of color revolutions. In any country where the color revolution began to unfold, we look for the trail of North America.

There are two versions of the explanation of the causes of the color revolutions: the version of spontaneity and a version of the recreation of the color revolutions (random and not). Both versions have a right to exist, and both are not certain.

Supporters of spontaneity of the color revolutions insist that the cause of the revolution is the objective social contradictions that are manifested in the forms of popular uprisings and mass protests of the "oppressed" people. Poverty, fatigue regimes, the craving for democratic change, and demographic situation are cited as such reasons.

Meanwhile, when we look at the socio-political situation in almost every country where there was a color revolution, it often turns out that the existing contradictions and social breaks were not their main and only reason, although they have become a catalyst for the subsequent events.

For example, in Egypt, until the color revolution there were the so-called subsidy for tortillas, providing access to the main product, the Corn tortillas, for the poorest segments of the population. In the slums of Cairo, however, on the roof of each hut there is a satellite TV dish, and Libyan nationals received welfare (and a lot of other benefits), which was so great that people stopped working and put to work the visiting guest workers from Egypt and other African countries; the standard of living in Tunisia, the most democratic of all authoritarian countries in Africa, became very close to the South of France (Provence and Languedoc), and even exceeded southern Italy. One of the reasons for the burst of protest movements in Syria is that Assad decided (without any pressure) to soften the authoritarian regime and began to conduct liberal reforms that the Islamists immediately took advantage of, as well as their supporters from the United States, etc.

The supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions indicate multiple repeatable scenarios (a democratic template) of these revolutions in various countries around the world that are very different both in terms of the political system, and in the nature of the socio-political problems. They claim that all the colored revolutions are "a blueprint," and the likelihood of the recurrence of the same event on the same pattern in nature is negligible. On the basis of these findings, supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions point to a number of grounds, on which any externally spontaneous popular revolt can set a color revolution.

Every color revolution has its own features that show technology.

  1. First, it is a feature of the Anglo-Saxons' external politics, their distinctive style of work.
  2. Second, it is a strict correspondence of the revolution to the plan of any base template (or scenario). All color revolutions develop in the same scenario using a template pattern.
  3. Third, this is how the youth protest movement is organized and used, which is controlled by the technology of reflexive control (it is also an American invention).
  4. Fourth, there are certain recurring features in the selection and the nomination of the revolutionary leaders.
  5. Fifth, in some color revolutions, revolutionary ideology that allows recognizing them as fake is completely absent. This is due to the fact that the Americans, the authors of the color revolutions, do not always understand the mentality and the psychology of the people. They want to bring "the value of a true democracy," and cannot offer an ideology that is organically accepted by all sectors of society.

The color revolutions are often called the technology or instruments of the "soft power" as it is understood in the perspective given to this term by John Nye.55 This approach, based on the principle of analogy (externally color revolutions are non-coercive techniques of regime change), is not quite accurate and is often misleading, causing the color revolutions to be considered softer and, therefore, more a progressive and a less dangerous form of social influence on authoritarian regimes. Thereby, a campaign to promote color revolutions unfolds, in defiance of any form of self-armed coups.

In our view, it is difficult to determine what is actually a more dangerous phenomenon for the international security as a whole: the color revolutions or local armed conflicts. The modern Middle East, immersed in color revolutions of the "controlled chaos," is a full proof. It still seems pretty obvious that modern color revolutions in nature are not a manifestation of the "soft power." Color revolutions are nothing but an organizational form of state intimidation (i.e. blackmail, the object of which is an independent and sovereign state), masquerading as a legend and slogans of the national revolution.

Color revolutions are not "soft power." It is a hacking tool of democratic regimes in transition, copied from the Anglo-Saxon model by the non-Western countries which have tendencies of imitating. One could argue that Americans not only created a model of the democratic structure of the state, focused on the "export," but also took care of the creation of the special tools for its demolition and dismantling, if it suddenly became necessary. In today's world, such tools that act as master keys to break the political regimes of the Western liberal type, are the technologies of the color revolutions.

Special attention is given to questions related to the risk of escalating a color revolution in a civil war or an international conflict, in the phase of an armed confrontation. Color revolutions use military force as a factor of the service function that their writers and technologists resorted in case of emergency. Military force for color revolutions is not the main tool. Its use is rather forced and secondary in character. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to draw attention to the fact that modern color revolutions really create the conditions and reasons for the subsequent military intervention.

There is only one underlying model of a color revolution. It is the creation of the protest movement and turning it into a political crowd and directing its aggression to the current government, in order to get it to voluntarily withdraw from public office and to give up control of the country. This pressure on the government always takes the form of blackmail and ultimatums with threats of massacres and, rarely, physical attacks against the dissidents. If the government starts to resist, a color revolution enters a phase of armed rebellion. Sometimes this is accompanied by an armed revolt with the intervention of the Western countries, as it did in Libya, and may be in Syria.

The model of color revolution consists of five main stages or phases:

  1. Any color revolution begins with the formation of the country's organized protest movement - the main driving force of the future color revolution.

    At the initial stage, before the big opening, the protest movement is generated in the form of a network of conspiratorial cells, each of which has a leader, and three or four activists on call. These networks bring together thousands of activists that make up the core of the future of the protest movement. Before becoming the leaders of the cells, many of them are trained in special centers, specializing in promoting democratization.

    The activists are recruited from the youth environment that is extremely mobile and easily entrained with different bright appeals and slogans.

    The network principle of the organization of the protest movement resembles the principle of global terrorist organization networks, which, in fact, is the same organizational technology.

  2. This network emerges from the underground to the streets of major cities at the same time and on cue, which is called the incident. Such incident can be any event, shocking society and getting a powerful public outcry. As a rule, it is initiated on purpose.

    In the revolutions in Serbia (Bulldozer Revolution 2000), Ukraine (2004), and Georgia (2004), the results of the elections were such incident, which were declared fraudulent. The revolution in Tunisia (2010), a country with an authoritarian regime, began with the self-immolation of a trader on one of the central squares of the capital: an insignificant event across the country.

    It is important that the incident would attract the attention of the whole society and would be the subject of extensive discussion, interpretation, a rise of universal excitement, and it would initiate spontaneous forms of mass behavior.

  3. After the incident occurred, the protest network rises from the underground to the streets, where a group of activists of the cells become a catalyst for massive spontaneous processes, involving all major sectors of the population.

    The mechanisms to mobilize the conflict are turned on, one of which is the "Twitter revolution" - involvement through social networks.

    The cells begin to rapidly grow with citizens that are dragged into a spontaneous protest movement and that they pushed to take part in mainly out of fear for their future. The overall mood of anxiety leads to the fact that the consciousness of men that goes into the so-called borderline and becomes subject to a mass panic reactions, general hysteria, often manifested at the level of reflexes and instincts. From this point, there is only one step from becoming a mass protest of the community into the crowd of protesters.

  4. The next step in the scheme of a color revolution is the formation of a political crowd. To do this, a large enough area (Maidan) needs to be chosen that could accommodate large masses.

    The activists lead their elected protesters to this square, where there is a complete fusion of the participants into a single mass during the hours of the meeting, known in psychology as the crowd. There is a complete emotional fusion of individuals with the crowd, where bright "revolutionary" identification symbolism begins to be to be used, in order to identify "their own" and "foreign".

    In these conditions, the mind controlling technologies affect the crowd, introducing new values ​​and imperatives, and reprogramming a person . It is these technologies that are used in Protestant totalitarian sects.

    It creates the conditions to sustain the existence and functioning of the crowd: financial security, tents, hot meals, clothing, money for the activists, means of attack (and armature ...), and etc. The "Home Front Command" is well-organized.

  5. On behalf of the crowd, crucial requirements come to those in power using the threat of mass riots or, at least, of the physical destruction. In that case, if the government does not sustain this pressure, it is swept by fury. If the government accepts the challenge and is ready to fight, the crowd becomes a major ram factor that the authors color revolution apply to those in power. In the future, such a revolution inevitably turns into a rebellion, and in some cases into a civil war, accompanied by military intervention.

The evolution of organizational charts and patterns of color revolutions are pretty well traced by the example of the revolutions of the "Arab Spring." Thus, the "Arab Spring" revolutions have their own characteristics that distinguish them structurally and technologically from its predecessors - the color revolutions in Central Asia, Ukraine, Georgia, and even the so-called "Green Revolution" in Iran in 2009. The feedback mechanisms (iterative mechanism is well known to mathematicians) and "controlled chaos" are added to the classical scheme to implement a color revolution (i.e., a coup) that allow to control the political instability not only within a single, relatively small countries (such as Ukraine or Georgia) but across the entire region (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and etc.).

The feedback mechanism is a special correction mechanism that allows it to identify and to eliminate the shortcomings in the implementation of schemes of the color revolutions in real-time, modifying them under specific conditions of the particular social and cultural environment. Such a mechanism was first worked out in the revolutions of the "Arab Spring," in which coups in the countries that are victims of a wave of the "forced democratization," are not carried out simultaneously but sequentially along a chain. Each subsequent implementation scheme of color revolution took the mistakes made in the implementation of the previous scheme into account. The introduction of color revolutions into technological schemes of feedback mechanisms in real-time, based on iterative schemes, is a direct result of their evolutionary development, allowing the immersion of entire regions and not just individual countries into the revolutionary processes.

The mechanism of the "controlled chaos" is another evolutionary breakthrough in the technology of color revolutions, which allows the use of "democratic schemes and templates," originally developed for the Western type society (individualistic) in terms of traditional Eastern societies, that are resistant to the promotion of democratic and liberal values in their original form. In order for the Western and Anglo-Saxon technology of the colored revolutions started to work in this kind of socio-cultural environment, the traditional structure of the social order must first be destroyed, which is what the technology of the "controlled chaos" does (and very successfully). The main goal of these technologies is to prepare a traditional society to use technology to control mass political consciousness and mass political behavior that is achieved with the help of its "atomization," the breaking of the bonds between individuals and the community, the introduction Western type surrogate individualism into the consciousness of citizens.

Modern developments in Ukraine (2013-2014) are also relevant to the color revolutions, as they repeat the Egyptian scenario exactly. Therefore, it can be expected that the color revolution in Ukraine also opens the way for foreign intervention, as in Libya, and may be in Syria.

In the events in Ukraine, we can discern some signs familiar to the color revolutions in the CIS, Georgia, and Central Asia, that engulfed Ukraine in the 2000s in the "orange" frenzy, as well as in the recent revolutions of the "Arab Spring."

Comparing the current Ukrainian color revolution with recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, it should be noted that the scenario of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 is exactly the same as the revolution in Egypt, that destroyed the Mubarak regime, and the Egyptian president was dismissed from his post and imprisoned. There are too many coincidences, which are:

  1. the nature of popular unrest, which escalated into riots that were passed as the spontaneous, but in fact were not.
  2. a well-organized protest movement, supported by paramilitary militias, the Ukrainian nationalists, had been transferred to Kiev from the Western regions of Ukraine, where they trained all these years in special camps, studying the tactics of resistance of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as the tactics of the war in an urban setting.
  3. the blockade of the authorities to seize the strategic and vital infrastructure of the capital.
  4. the use of mechanisms for conflict mobilization of a community, involving it in the conflict on the side of the "representatives of the people in revolt," inciting hatred against the regime, the wide ideological treatment of those that come under the influence of radicals
  5. large-scale information war
  6. a well-organized supply of the rebels with everything they need to continue the fight, including special equipment, clothing, food, financial means used for the services of mercenaries and provocateurs.

These similarities of the Egyptian and the Ukrainian revolutions, however, are limitless. In both cases, under the guise of the people in revolt, organized and well-armed groups of rebels are included in the armed struggle: in Egypt - the Islamists , and in Ukraine - the Western nationalists. For the public this struggle that has all the signs of the beginning of the Civil War, is presented as a "national liberation movement, deployed by the people in revolt against the criminal regime."

In both cases, "people in revolt" were opposed by the weak, indecisive and corrupt power that is afraid to take decisive action and that is slow when it comes to making a choice, torn between recent allies that tend to distance themselves from it the new conditions, makes contradictory statements, demonstrating their helplessness and discrediting itself perhaps more effectively than the opponents do. That is how Mubarak behaved. Until the last moment, he believed that the US would come to his aid and save him from his own play of a color revolution, hoping that this is just an educational measure. His hopes, however, were dashed just like the expectations of Viktor Yanukovych that an almost European Ukraine is not the wild Egypt; Ukrainians are not illiterate Arabs, and all will settle by itself.

A few years, Yanukovych repeated the exact behavior of Mubarak: despite the obvious threat posed by the burgeoning insurgency, which began with really a trifling unrest in the so-called Independence Square, he did nothing to stop this revolution. Instead of tough but fair measures to restore order (as Alexander Lukashenko did with the "Jeans Revolution"), Yanukovych started an incomprehensible political game, playing with the West (EU and US), then with Russia, hoping that Ukraine will receive the next tranche of financial support from both sides in the background of his "intended great role in containing chaos."

Yanukovych's weakness was the reason that at first he lost the support of the electorate, and then his supporters turned away from him that began to rapidly disperse or just run over to the enemy's side. In these critical conditions, Yanukovych still ordered the suppression of the power of the Maidan, but he did not have the willpower to finish it. When the rebels pulled in the illegal armed nationalist groups to the Maidan and began to form squads of "self-defense" out of the the bulk of the protesters, the suppression of the rebellion was only possible at the cost of bloodshed. Yanukovych did not dare to do this for the fear of, not so much, the killings, but for the safety of their capital and accounts in foreign banks, which he could be deprived of overnight could after being recognized as an "international criminal offender."

Yanukovych's playing around with the European Union also played a fatal role. FIrst, the EU insisted that Yanukovych would strongly suppress the riots in the capital, restoring the rule of law. When he finally started doing so and the first victims appeared, the EU immediately began to blame Yanukovych's regime for human rights violations and the genocide of his own people, as well as the urgent need to make concessions to the rebels and to negotiate with them. When Yanukovych, following recommendations, went to negotiate with the rebels, they thought it was the recognition of the weakness of the government and intensified their actions, entering a phase of uncompromising armed struggle. As a result, Yanukovych and his team just escaped from Kiev, instead of continuing to fight or take responsibility for their actions.

The differences between Egypt and Ukraine are really small: in Egypt, the Arabs came to the Cairo Square, and in Kiev they were the Ukrainian nationalists, and ordinary citizens, dissatisfied with the dominance of the Donetsk clan. In fact, in both cases citizen became "tired of those in power," which served as the catalyst for the color revolution from both, the Mubarak regime and the regime of Yanukovych. That is what appeals to the nationalists, forgetting the obvious analogy, which can be traced between the Ukrainian and Egyptian scenarios.

In similar revolutions in Syria and in Libya, the Islamists were the ones against the regimes, with which these regime have been struggling for decades; The Ukrainian nationalists are composed of many Catholics, Greek Catholics, and many of those that adapted some Protestant sects, mostly totalitarian in character that preach extremism. In fact, in both cases, the success of the coup became possible only because of the weakness and the infinite fluctuations of the ruling regime, initially an extremely self-confident one, and then quickly fallen in spirit, serving as an example that gave a signal to its supporters "to escape if you can." In Egypt, moderate Islamists came to power after the revolution, and in Ukraine, extreme nationalists seized power, which is about the same.

During the entire time that North Africa and the Middle East were swept by the tsunami of the color revolutions of the "Arab Spring" and the world's attention was focused on to the tragedy of Libya and Syria, Russia has not ceased to argue, when will the tide of the color revolutions return, and when will the last bastion, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, be swept away. It was pretty obvious for all that the implementation of new technologies of the color revolutions, based on the "controlled chaos," having a run-in the Arab East, thereby will not be limited to the East. A question arose: which country is next in line to be thrown in the chopper? Will it be Iran, where the so-called "green revolution" almost reached its goal in 2009?

The states of Central Asia were called as the following objectives of the color revolutions, where the previous model of the color revolutions failed to ensure the stability of the puppet regimes that came to power in the wake of a color revolution. Belarusian partisan regime has long been a strong annoyance for the whole of the West, something resembling the Gaddafi regime; some had mentioned China. However, the wave of the color revolutions did not continue to format the Muslim East, and suddenly emerged in Ukraine, directly on Russia's borders. Hence, the obvious conclusion: the purpose of the new wave of the color revolutions is not Ukraine and not the Yanukovych regime, but Russia and its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Russia, based on the Ukrainian experience, must prepare for the fact that it will be the next target in the list of the Anglo-Saxon color revolutions that already have the experience in eastern traditional societies and under a super-centralized state built on the principle of the "power vertical," not having airbags in the form of a civil society. A country needs a state concept to counter the color revolutions, both in Russia and, in general, throughout the CIS, having its implementation be backed by road map. It would be naive to hope that this time the wave of the color revolutions will bypass Russia. There are no miracles or exceptions in politics. It's just that the Americans have been searching for approaches to Russia, based on the experience of a test color revolution, the so-called "revolution of the white ribbons." Finally, this approach is found. Ukraine was nothing more than the last dress rehearsal for a revolution, using a country with a similar mentality, culture and civilization identity.

The situation is similar to Ukrainian, is developing today in Venezuela. Here, a protest movement unfolds, which has all the hallmarks of a classic color revolution. This may mean that the United States, having realized a scenario of a color revolution in Ukraine, used another Russian ally - Venezuela. Moreover, we can say with confidence that this time the US created a wave of color revolutions, not in a single country (Ukraine, for example) or a region, but launched an offensive in several strategic directions making countries, such as Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela their targets, i.e. those countries that are (Ukraine - until February 2014) Russia's strategic allies.

A color revolution in Venezuela is possible, moreover, it is inevitable. The fact is that due to the credibility and popularity of Venezuela in the Latin American world, the use of brute military intervention by the United States can be ruled out, as it was in Grenada and Panama. Therefore, in the quest to destroy the gains of the Bolivarian revolution and to undermine the pursuit of freedom by the people of Venezuela, the United States will use the "soft power," "soft" coup technologies, disguised as spontaneous acts of political processes and popular revolutions, the way it was organized in Tunisia, Libya, Syria. Libya, particularly, is an illustrative example, where the color revolution turned into a civil war, and the last one turned into the intervention by France and Great Britain, as well as the United States that later came to the rescue. Of course, Venezuela is not Libya, and here the Americans will use a special scenario, based on all the same basic scheme similar for all the color revolutions. Most likely, the scheme, repeating an armed rebellion of 2013 - 2014 in Ukraine will be applied in Venezuela, which began with "Euro Maidan."

  1. The first sign. Those protest movements and demonstrations that are currently taking place in the largest cities of Venezuela, is the first sign of the beginning of the color revolution. Please note that the protest demonstrations take place in major cities at the same time, hence, they cannot be considered spontaneous, due to a high degree of synchronization of operations.
  2. The second sign is the coverage of these protests by the Western media, in which there are signs of and the elements of information warfare. There are other signs that definitely do not point to chance and external handling of the protests. If it is a color revolution, the support for the opposition groups from the outside is a prerequisite of its success. The organization of large-scale protests, even the ones that look spontaneous, is very expensive. None of the forces within the country, sympathetic to the rebels, have such funds. As a rule, the channels of financial income in the country to organize a color revolution are quite easily detected by the financial intelligence.

Preliminary tests of the color revolution scenarios in Venezuela were held during the election campaign, when the Chavistas actually lost (or won by a whisker) in all major cities, but won in provincial areas.

All the signs indicate that the "controlled chaos" technology is used in Venezuela. The "controlled chaos" technology is a technology of destruction of structures and institutions of civil society that can resist the rebels and the participants of the color revolutions. They make the human environment receptive to the slogans of the color revolutions, since technology if the color revolutions were developed by Americans living in a society of individualists and liberals, for similar societies and social formations. The pure technologies of the color revolutions have stalled in the East because society is not liberal there, but organized by the communal, ancestral or tribal basis. The "controlled chaos" destroys a community structure, resulting in a lot of people being deprived of social protection and experiencing feelings of fear and panic, being forced to seek refuge, organizing into a crowd, which is then used by the directors of the color revolutions.

In the case of Venezuela, "controlled chaos" will be necessarily involved to destroy the social unity of those, who gained a lot from the peaceful Chavez revolution, and to weaken the rest of the Hispanic world that may not come to Venezuela to help.

There is a system of measures that help reduce the risk of the color revolutions. It consists of three groups.

  1. The first group of measures is aimed at detecting and blocking financial flows going to finance the protest movement.
  2. The second group of measures is aimed at involving the social base of the protest movement, young people aged 18 to 35, in the activities of the non-governmental organizations of pro-government orientation.
  3. The third group of measures is to create "valves to let off steam" a society to relieve tension that would not allow a society to "overheat" like a steam boiler, and then throw out the accumulated energy in the form of a social explosion.

It is interesting that in the latest works of the Western authors (including British and French) there appear assessments of the color revolutions, which are contrary to the notions of color revolutions as instruments of democratization and formation of a democratic world as imposed by the United States. For example, some scientists are beginning (still quite cautiously) to argue that none of the color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa have brought prosperity to the Christian world. On the contrary, the "Arab Spring" has stirred up the most dangerous, extremist forces representing Islamism and forced them to withdraw from the deep underground, which the Western countries now have to deal with at the official level.

The "Arab Spring" that began under the banner of democratization of the Arab East, accelerated the retreat of Christianity under the pressure of radical Islam, which strengthened with the beginning of the colored revolutions of the "Arab Spring." The "Arab Spring," created with the money and with the help of American and Western European allies, has become for Western Christian civilization that is already experiencing an acute crisis, the beginning of the "Christian winter." 56

Western Christianity has put down another line of defense. It makes us seriously think about what role today he color revolutions actually play in world politics in the formation of a new world order, and what will it become if the wave of the color revolutions will not be stopped in time.


Conclusion

The modern world is experiencing an era of global change, accompanied by the collapse of the Westphalian system, the growth of the global political instability, the reconfiguring of the system of international relations that existed in the postwar world, international legal nihilism, the devaluation of values and a decrease of the role of international institutions, such as the UN.

Even S.V. Lavrov in an interview to the "International Affairs" journal has noted that "the historical processes continue to gain speed. We see this in the acceleration of the deep, as they say, tectonic shifts in the redistribution of power and influence at the global level, in the rapid developments in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in a number of other areas of the world." 62 In these circumstances, it is necessary to develop a new platform for the global unification and integration, on the solid foundation where a new architecture of international relations and a new design of international institutions can be built that meet the realities of the emerging multipolar world.

[Feb 19, 2017] Covert Action The Limits of Intervention in the Postwar World Gregory F. Treverton 9780465014392 Amazon.com Books

Feb 19, 2017 | www.amazon.com
T. bailey on October 3, 2005

Under Cover, or Out of Control?

The New York Times November 29, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition (Review of 2 books, including The perfect failure: Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the CIA at the Bay of Pigs, only this book review included here)

The torrent of revelations about the Iran-contra affair during the summer's televised hearings, and in the recently released report of the Congressional committees that conducted the hearings, has made Americans aware both of the importance of covert action in the foreign policy of their country and of its risks and costs. These two books do nothing to reha