Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump & Kremlin united by common cause to ‘trash’ Americans – ex-US envoy to Russia

RT | December 24, 2016

Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has accused US President-elect Donald Trump of teaming up with the Kremlin in an effort to “trash” Americans. McFaul has called on Republicans to “speak up.”

“Why is Trump so militantly against an investigation into Putin’s meddling in our elections?” McFaul wrote on Twitter on Friday. “What does he have to hide? This love fest is odd.”

Earlier this month, the former US ambassador to Russia even suggested registering RT and Sputnik news agency as “foreign agents,” claiming that they supported Donald Trump during the presidential elections.

“We know that Russian-government-controlled ‘media’ outlets such as RT and Sputnik campaigned openly for one candidate, Donald Trump,” McFaul wrote in his article for the Washington Post. While he accused the Russian news outlets of meddling in the US election, he offered no proof to support his claims.

Last month, McFaul was prohibited by the Russian Foreign Ministry from entering Russia for what it described as purposeful damage to relations between Moscow and Washington. In a Facebook post, he said that he was told he is “on the Kremlin’s sanctions list because of close affiliation with Obama” and “will take that as a compliment.”

Trump set off an avalanche of criticism after agreeing with the Russian leader’s assessment of the Democrats’ attempts to blame the 2016 election on external factors, instead of accepting it with dignity.

Brushing aside evidence-free claims that Russia interfered with the US election process, Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during his annual news conference in Moscow on Friday that the Democrats are exclusively responsible for their political failures.

“There are attempts by the Democrats and the current administration to blame their failures on external factors. The Democrats didn’t just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate as well. Did I do that as well? They need to learn to lose with dignity,” Putin said.

Reacting to Putin’s statement, Trump tweeted “So true!” triggering a cascade of criticism on Twitter in response, with social media users calling the next US president a traitor, embarrassment, Kremlin puppet, and in Vladimir Putin’s “back pocket.”

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

The Bullets Of An Assassin: Nothing Is Beyond the Pale

By Christopher Black | New Eastern Outlook | December 22, 2016

The bullets of an assassin shook the world on Monday. Shot from behind by a former Turkish police officer, at an art gallery in Ankara, right across the street from the US embassy, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, a man with a long and distinguished career in the Soviet and Russian Foreign Service, died on the spot.

Those who are behind this assassination, for no one can believe that this man acted alone, are exposed by the slogan he shouted after the murder, “Don’t forget Aleppo.” They are exposed by the words and photos which were quickly splashed across the front pages of the western media and set in an editorial context that implicitly condoned the act. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the BBC made sure those words were in their headlines and the lead paragraphs of their stories, as did the New York Times and the rest. The New York Times posted a photo of the assassin standing with his arm raised in the air, as if an actor in a Hollywood action film, beginning his transformation from terrorist assassin into a martyr “for Aleppo and the people of Syria.” A fanatic acted out his part in life and they will make sure he continues to act it out in death. A member of the Ukraine parliament has already called the assassin a “martyr.”

The western governments issued the required condemnations of the assassination but who can believe their sincerity? For years now the NATO governments have been attacking Russia through illegal economic blockades they call “sanctions,” have physically attacked Russia through Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, have advanced NATO’s military forces right up to the Russian border, put out endless false stories about Russia’s actions and policies, generated a sewer of anti-Russian propaganda in the media and in NATO government statements, killed Russian officers and pilots trying to counter their proxy terrorists forces in Syria, attacked the Russian consulate in Damascus several times, fabricated stories of crimes, and during the American presidential election and its aftermath have descended into the depths of insanity by accusing Russia of trying to influence that process.

So, their regrets are worth nothing. It is obvious that this assassination was meant to delay a Turkish-Russian rapprochement, but it was also to punish Russia for its assistance to the government of Syria in liberating Aleppo. In light of President Obama’s ridiculous statement that he knew President Putin was behind alleged attempts to fix the US election while refusing to offer any evidence of this absurd claim, we must remember his dangerous promise to strike back at Russia in retaliation and must consider whether this was part of that retaliation, for the assassination took place within a few days of Obama making his “a time and place of our choosing” statement.

President Putin, along with President Erdogan referred to the murder “as a provocation aimed at derailing Russia-Turkey ties and the peace process in Syria.” Putin stressed, “We must know who steered the killer’s course.”

Since the only party conceivably interested in or could benefit from such a provocation is NATO and its allies, Russia is really saying that they are behind this, though caution is their watchword and the investigation has only begun. The Syrian Peoples’ Assembly in Damascus stated Tuesday that, “This cowardly act of terror is a stain on the forehead of the countries supporting terrorism and demands legal accountability at the international level.”

The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, stated that, ““Both Turkey and Russia realize that the attack was aimed at damaging bilateral relations and compromising the achievements that have been made recently. Turkey and Russia should not let the organizers’ of this crime reach their goals. We should find out who is behind this heinous crime. We can succeed if we work together…the masterminds of the Russian ambassador’s murder wanted to harm the Russian-Turkish relations, but Moscow and Ankara should not allow terrorists to achieve this goal.”

The Russian foreign minister, Serge Lavrov, stated similarly, “The main aim of the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey is the desire to undermine the process of normalization of Russian-Turkish relations and to prevent the effective fight of the two countries against terrorism in Syria. We are confident that the main aim of those who plotted this barbaric thing was to undermine the process of normalization of relations between Russia and Turkey in order to prevent effective fight against terrorism in Syria.”

But we can be sure that it will not stop developing relations between Turkey and Russia. If the Turks convince the Russians they had nothing to do with it, that it was connected to the FETO organisation whose leader Fetullah Gulen is in the United States, living under American protection, though he has denied it, or to the terrorist organisations they have been supporting in Syria, and the western intelligence and military services supporting them, then it is likely to push Russia, Turkey and Iran, closer together against a common enemy. And, indeed, this appears to be the case as those three nations went ahead with talks in Moscow on Tuesday to forge a way ahead to a peaceful resolution of the war in Syria.

But the willingness to assassinate an ambassador means that we can expect the US and its allies to develop new actions in Syria against the Syrian government and Russia and their allies, just as they have reverted back to new sanctions against Iran in violation of their agreement with Iran. The Americans are still invading Syria every day, sending in forces, setting up camps flying American flags, acting as an occupation force along with British, French and other forces and so far the Syrians have not dared to touch them. But so long as those bases are allowed to remain, committing their act of aggression against Syria, they will be the source of more violence and chaos.

Would NATO be willing to assassinate an ambassador? We need only remind ourselves of their attempt to assassinate the Chinese ambassador Pan Zhan Lin in Belgrade in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Five guided missiles were fired at the Chinese embassy from an American aircraft. The one aimed at the ambassador’s room luckily did not explode but 4 other diplomatic staff were killed and 20 injured. Various reasons have been suggested for US bombing of the Chinese embassy but the Chinese ambassador stated later that it was meant to break the will of the Yugoslav government by making it clear to its allies that continuing to support the Yugoslav government was dangerous.

Similarly this assassination was also meant to break the will of Syria by making it clear to its Russian ally that continuing to support Syria in its war against the US proxy force attacking the country is dangerous on every level. It is a threat against President Erdogan as well, since it is clear that his purge of those who tried to overthrow him in July has not succeeded in eliminating those who want to bring him down and stop reconciliation with Russia. It also is an attempt to block President–elect Trump from advancing better relations with Russia, and at the same time can be used, along with the seemingly random terror attack on civilians in Berlin by unknown agents, to support the NATO countries push for more war in Syria, allegedly to root out “terrorists.” These events do not occur in isolation. One has to wonder further whether the assassination was a set up for something else, false flag operations in the Baltic or elsewhere conducted by NATO forces but to be blamed on a Russia intent on revenge for the murder of its ambassador. Nothing is beyond the pale for NATO and their secret services.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.

December 23, 2016 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘So correct’: Trump responds to Putin’s holiday letter

RT | December 23, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump has praised a “very nice” holiday letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin, expressing hope about renewed cooperation between Moscow and Washington after the change in management.

Extending his “warmest Christmas and New Year greetings” to Trump, Putin wrote that “relations between Russia and the US remain an important factor in ensuring stability and security of the modern world,” according to an unofficial translation of the letter made available by the president-elect’s transition team.

“I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able – by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner – to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level,” said the letter, dated December 15.

“A very nice letter from Vladimir Putin; his thoughts are so correct,” Trump said Friday, in a statement to reporters accompanying the letter. “I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path.”

The statement comes a day after Trump posted a cryptic tweet advocating that the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” sparking fears of a renewed atomic arms race with Russia.

During the campaign, Trump has repeatedly argued it would be “nice if [US] could get along with Russia,” prompting accusations from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that he was “Putin’s puppet”. Democrats have also said that “Russian hackers” were responsible for the disclosure of emails both from the party and the private account of Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta, which were released by WikiLeaks prior to the November 8 election.

December 23, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Perpetrators of US Democratic Party’s Email System Hack Still Unknown – Putin

Sputnik – 23.12.2016

Perpetrators of the breach of the US Democratic Party’s email system are still unknown, but the resignation of the chief of the party’s National Committee proves accuracy of information made public by the hackers, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the annual press conference on Friday.

“Some hackers breached the email system of the Democratic Party leadership. As US President-elect said, who knows, who these hackers were. Maybe they were in some other country, not in Russia,” Putin said.

“The main thing is the information that the hackers provided to the public. Did they compromise or distort anything? No. The best proof of the fact that they revealed truthful information … was the resignation of the chief of the party’s National Committee. It means she acknowledged that the hackers showed the truth,” Putin said.

December 23, 2016 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

If we are in arms race, US started it by pulling out of ABM treaty – Putin

RT | December 23, 2016

If Russia and the US are engaged in another nuclear arms race now, then it is the fault of George W. Bush, who started it by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

“The prerequisites for a new arms race were created after the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. This is obvious,” he said on Friday during his annual Q&A session with the media.

Putin was referring to a key international agreement reached in 1972, under which the US and Soviet Union pledged not to undermine one another’s nuclear deterrent by developing the means to intercept each other’s intercontinental ballistic missiles.

President George W. Bush’s administration withdrew from the ABMT in 2002, resulting in its termination. Russia has responded by taking measures to ensure that America’s antimissile shield won’t work well against Russian ICBMs, Putin explained.

“When one party unilaterally withdrew from the treaty and said it was going to create an anti-nuclear umbrella, the other party has to either create a similar umbrella – the necessity of which we are not sure about considering its questionable efficiency – or create effective ways to overcome this anti-ballistic missile system and improve its strike capabilities,” Russia’s president told the journalists.

Putin was commenting on a report on the state of Russia’s military presented by Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu on Thursday, which included an update on the modernization of Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

Shortly afterwards, President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

The comments from the leaders of the world’s two primary nuclear powers have made some commenters nervous about the prospects for nuclear arms reduction and the future of New START treaty. The agreement, which calls for the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia to be reduced, was signed in 2010 by President Barack Obama and then-President Dmitry Medvedev.

Putin said the modernization of Russia’s military has been carried out “within the framework of our agreements,” including New START. He added that America has its own modernization program for nuclear weapons, including those deployed on foreign soil.

“In Turkey, in Britain, in the Netherlands a replacement of American tactical nuclear weapons is underway,” he said, addressing a BBC correspondent, who asked about the nuclear issue. “I hope that your program audiences and internet users know about that.”

The president added that, even if Russia is drawn into an arms race, it won’t spend more than it can afford, saying “we are fine with the situation and fulfill all our [military modernization] plans.”

December 23, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Putin Agrees With Trump Russia-US Relations ‘Worse Than Ever’

1048913642

Sputnik – 23.12.2016

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday he agreed with US President-elect Donald Trump that Moscow-Washington ties are currently at their lowest level and it was necessary to take steps for their normalization.

He also said that he and the US president-elect will think how to normalize bilateral ties.

“Trump said during the election campaign that he believed it was right to normalize Russian-US relations and said that it couldn’t get worse because [they] were worse than ever. I agree with him. We will think together how to make [the bilateral relations] better,” Putin said during an annual press conference.

A meeting with US President-elect Donald Trump will have to take place when Trump has formed the government so that the Russian and US leaders could prepare properly to discuss the normalization of ties, he said.

“It is difficult to say at this time. The US president-elect has to be able to form his team first. Otherwise, meeting unprepared is inexpedient,” Putin said at an annual press conference, when asked about the possible date for his meeting with Trump.

“What issues will be [discussed] there? The normalization of our relationship,” the president added.

“The change of the relations between our two states, the improvement of the interaction between the states to solve problems the whole world and our countries are facing, first of all, in the sphere of security, gradual economic development. We have a lot of issues to work on together,” Putin answered, when asked what he expected from the Russian-US ties in 2017.

Putin said that he was willing to travel to the United States if Trump invites him.

“If he will invite [me], then of course, I will travel [to the United Sates],” Putin said.

He said that he expected Moscow to improve its relations with the US administration next year, including on security and economy.

Asked at an annual press conference what he expected to see next year in US-Russia ties, Putin replied, “changes in our intergovernmental relations that will bring them back on track toward a normal cooperation on the state level in order to resolve issues our countries and the entire world face, primarily on security and sustained economic growth.”

“We have a lot of topics for cooperation,” Putin assured journalists in Moscow.

December 23, 2016 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

A Loser’s Malice: What’s Behind Obama’s Attacks on Putin

or-38382

By Michael Jabara CARLEY | Strategic Culture Foundation | 23.12.2016

Relations between Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Barack Obama are poisoned and irretrievably damaged. It’s therefore a good thing that Obama is leaving office on 20 January.

Bad US-Russian relations are of course nothing new. Since the Anglo-American war against Iraq in 2003, the US-Russian relationship has been headed downhill.

For Obama, it appears that everything has gotten personal. The US president often acts like a petulant adolescent, jealous of a high school rival. You know, the kid who does everything better than he does. The lad takes it badly and won’t let it go. He challenges his nemesis to some new contest at every opportunity only to lose again and again. That’s got to be hard on the ego.

Between Obama and Putin there have been many such encounters.

Nor can it help that western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin.

Western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin

Let’s consider Obama’s remarks at his last press conference on Friday, 16 December. «The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us», said Obama: «They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate». This was insulting both Putin and his country, but not enough apparently for Obama. «They [the Russians] can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like».

What on earth is Mr. Obama talking about? Intimidate the press? The Moscow newspapers and television media are loaded with «liberals». Many Russians call them «fifth columnists». They are «people with ‘more advanced’ worldview[s] who do not tolerate ‘Russian propaganda’ themselves», according to one colleague in Moscow. But Mr. Putin tolerates them and pays them no mind.

«Lock up dissidents… discriminate against people»? What alternate reality does Mr. Obama live in? Doesn’t produce anything people want to buy? The United States buys rocket engines that it does not now produce at home. Maybe the Americans, a Russian commentator joked, can use high tech trampolines to get into space and do without Russian technology.

In an interview the previous day with the American National Public Radio Obama ranted about Putin. It must have been a rehearsal for his press conference. «This is somebody, the former head of the KGB», said Obama, «who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia… countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn; is currently making decisions that’s leading to a slaughter in Syria». What stupefying hypocrisy; what utter nonsense. Putin was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB, but never its head, and he certainly has not «crushed democracy in Russia». He even treats his political opposition with respect compared to Obama who dismisses president-elect Donald Trump as some kind of Russian Manchurian candidate. The Russians, according to Obama, interfered in the US presidential elections, and helped defeat fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. They hacked the Democratic National Committee’s hard drive and passed thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, although, according to others, an outraged Clinton insider leaked the cache of embarrassing emails. Obama has dismissed that possibility. The Russians did the hack, he insists, and Putin must be held personally responsible.

Where’s the evidence? In Moscow, an angry Putin challenged Obama to put up or shut up. This is a hard thing for Obama to do. The Russians, he says, «counter American efforts to expand freedom at every turn». One wonders where that would be. In the Ukraine where the United States and European Union backed and guided the coup d’état against the democratically elected Ukrainian government? Or in Syria where the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists? How many democratic governments or popularly supported political movements has the United States plotted against or destroyed since 1945? The list is long, including the 1996 Russian presidential election.

In Syria, the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists

Obama directly raised the issue of Syria during his NPR interview. The liberation of E. Aleppo from Al-Qaeda and other jihadists has infuriated the west. To the everlasting shame of France, the Eiffel Tower was darkened to mourn the defeat of Al-Qaeda. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is up in arms. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Palestinian and Iraqi militias have helped the Syrian Arab Army to cleanse Aleppo of jihadist terrorists, and thwart the United States and its vassals. This is what galls Obama, being outmanoeuvred by a lesser man than he and a lesser country than the United States. How deplorable to speak of the liberation of E. Aleppo as «a slaughter in Syria».

Remember 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed?

Obama’s frustrations began several years ago. Remember back in 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed? Apparently, the US government came within an ace or two of launching massive air attacks on Syria. Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making. All the while, Putin kept urging Russian-US cooperation against the jihadists in Syria, trying to draw the United States away from its ruinous policies. To no avail. Who then acted with greater statesmanship, Putin or Obama?

In 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons, Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making.

Temporarily thwarted in Syria, the United States opened up a new front on Russia’s southern frontier in the Ukraine. It backed the coup d’état in Kiev and turned a blind eye to the fascist vanguard, which kept the new Ukrainian junta in power. «The fascists are just ‘a few bad apples’», officials said in Washington, thinking that NATO had scored a great victory in getting its hands on Sevastopol so it could kick the Russian Black Sea fleet out of its traditional home base.

You have to give credit to Obama; he was ambitious, aiming for a big prize and the humiliation of Russia and its president. Again, he was thwarted not so much by President Putin but by the Russian people of the Crimea who immediately mobilised their local self-defence units backed by «polite people», Russian marines stationed in Sevastopol, to kick out the Ukrainians with scarcely a shot fired. They organised a referendum to approve entry into the Russian Federation. Reunification was quickly approved by a huge majority and celebrated in Moscow. Putin gave a remarkably candid speech, explaining the Russian position. «NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round».

«NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory», Putin said

It all happened so quickly, Obama must have looked on, dumbfounded, sputtering with angry frustration at having been outmanoeuvred by Crimean Russians who knew a thing or two after all about «innovating» and defending their land. Russians in the eastern Ukraine also resisted, taking up arms to defend themselves against Kiev’s fascist battalions.

That was too much. Putin became Obama’s nemesis. The US president struck back with economic sanctions, which his European vassals quickly endorsed. When Malaysian Airlines, MH17, was shot down over the eastern Ukraine, Obama and the EU at once accused Putin of being responsible without a shred of evidence. In fact, the available evidence points to the Kiev junta as the guilty party, but the MSM paid no attention. It ran an orchestrated propaganda campaign leading to harder sanctions against Russia intended to sabotage the Russian economy and break the Russian government.

Obama and his advisors again miscalculated. The Russian government instituted its own sanctions against the EU, and looked for other sources of supply or replaced foreign imports with Russian products. «We can do without Polish apples and French cheese», most Russians thought. «Liberals» sulked over the loss of their Camembert, but that’s a small price to pay for Russian independence. Obama was outsmarted again by Russians who, he insists, can’t innovate. As for the EU, it suffered huge economic losses because of sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. It’s getting to be a habit; the EU has again renewed its sanctions against Russia.

The EU has suffered huge economic losses because of its anti-Russia sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot.

Whilst the Ukrainian crisis dragged on, Obama had to turn his attention back to Syria. In the autumn of 2015, Putin ordered Russian aerospace and naval forces to intervene on behalf of the hard-pressed Syrian government which asked for assistance against the western-backed jihadist invasion. The tide of battle slowly turned. Again, Obama was caught off guard; again, the US plan to overthrow the Syrian government was thwarted by Obama’s nemesis. The United States tried bogus truces to allow its jihadist mercenaries to refit and resupply. At first, the Russians did not seem to catch on, accepting American proposals as genuine. They had to learn the hard way, but they did eventually. The liberation of E. Aleppo, although overshadowed by the simultaneous loss of Palmyra, is another blow to Obama’s policies and to his fragile ego.

How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

No wonder the US president is lashing out at Putin, publically insulting him and his country. No wonder the MSM is up in arms. How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

Like the USSR before it, Russia has always had to pursue a politique du faible, a poor man’s policies, never having the abundant resources of it western adversaries. Russians learned early on to innovate. The fox has to make its way in a world full of dangerous wolves.

What Obama must hate most of all is Putin’s exposure of US support for Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Who indeed is responsible for the «slaughter» in Syria? Obama calls it fighting for democracy. «Airstrike democracy», Putin once derisively replied. «Do you realise what you have done?» Putin asked at the UN in 2015, shocking the MSM. Obviously not, if one is to judge by Obama’s remarks of the last few days. He’s still the obsessive adolescent with doubts about himself and in over his head against a real statesman. Thank heavens Obama is on his way out the door of the White House. It’s not a minute too soon. Olliver Cromwell’s famous remark in 1653 to the Rump Parliament seems apposite. «You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!»

December 23, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Envoy killed in a ‘parallel universe’

By Andrey Fomine | ORIENTAL REVIEW | December 21, 2016

The Russian ambassador was killed in Ankara on the evening of Dec. 19 . The killer, a 22-year-old Turkish graduate of the police academy who had been fired in July after being deemed untrustworthy, fired 11 bullets into the ambassador’s back as he finished addressing the attendees at the opening of the Russia Through Turkish Eyes photo exhibit.

Since the murderer was killed by a detachment of police who arrived a few minutes after the tragedy, the upcoming investigation is unlikely lead back to those who ordered this crime. Obviously this was not the work of the Turkish government – this murder was specifically intended to disrupt the process of rebuilding the dialog between Russia and Turkey spanning a wide range of issues – from resolving the situation in Syria to shipping natural gas to Europe. Many point to Daesh’s underground network in Turkey – but it should be understood that that is under the full control of the Turkish authorities and the cover operation now being conducted by the authors of this campaign of intimidation is intent on convincing the world that the Islamists are beyond anyone’s control and too reckless to be kept in check. The gunman was likely an agent from Mossad or a Western intelligence service who was passing himself off as a covert terrorist, which would be an entirely plausible story for a young man who had found himself in difficulties. The shots that rang out in an Ankara gallery of contemporary art a few minutes after a plane carrying Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu turned toward Moscow were also intended to overshadow his visit (which turned out not to have been worthwhile, based on the negotiations).

By and large this act of terrorism was a desperate, angry move by figures at the backstage in the global theater who have lost this round in Syria.

Back in October we wrote about how the events in Syria are in no way a local conflict, but rather reflect a clash between powerful forces, one demanding “freedom of capital” and the other – protecting freedom of the soul. These high stakes explain the unprecedented campaign of lies that major transnational news outlets have launched in recent weeks concerning the state of affairs in Aleppo with their baseless accusations that the Syrian army and its allies have committed war crimes. The propaganda has become so ferocious that Syrian, Russian, and alternative sources of information that report on the real situation in Syria have been accused of fabricating a “parallel universe.” It’s hard to believe, but people who are well aware that  the “documented evidence” that they are presenting as “proof of the regime’s atrocities” was actually filmed say,  somewhere in Egypt still have the audacity to claim that their reporting reflects “reality” and that anything inconsistent with that is something “parallel.”

The fanatical faith of the devotees of “freedom of capital” in the “sanctity” of their “civilizing” mission, which they see as the only path, can be attributed to nothing but this entirely Trotskyist psychic phenomenon (that the end justifies the means).

The result of the astonishing intellectual selectivity of these blind guides (or Intellectual Yet Idiots, as the Lebanese-American scholar Nassim Taleb has called them) was recently clearly exhibited by a US correspondent for the Norwegian mainstream newspaper Aftenposten. He was covering the press conference held by Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and activist with the International Syria Solidarity Movement, in the United Nations building in New York on Dec 9. That Norwegian correspondent challenged her on one point and her reply resonated throughout social networks for the next few days.

Among other things, she declared that the volunteer group known as the White Helmets, although so renowned in the West, is entirely unknown in Aleppo (another activist with the Syria Solidarity Movement, Vanessa Beeley, recently published a detailed investigation of these terrorist accomplices).  Aftenposten interweaves its usual propaganda with photos and videos from highly dubious sources supporting the insurgents and condescendingly notes, referring to UN humanitarian official Jan Egeland, that “no one in Aleppo has ever heard of the UN either.”

To Russians, who continually find themselves up against a similar lack of coherence in the way Europeans think of their country (whether in the imaginary “Russian threat” to the Baltics, “aggression in the Donbass,” or the “occupation of Crimea”), such metamorphoses are interpreted as “Russophobia.” But it seems that the problem goes much deeper.

A favorite catchphrase for most US and European politicians is “Western values.” This slogan is invariably trotted out whenever they need to force someone else to agree to some decision that is essential to the West, while anyone who opposes them is declared an enemy of these values and is subjected to ostracism, sanctions, condemnation, or even destruction. Few realize that that concept is now widely used within a context that has nothing to do with axiology (the study of values), but which is at its heart merely a political mythology. An impartial analysis of Western values, especially in comparison with those held by Russians, gives a very clear answer to the question as to why Russia, although it seems to no longer have any fundamentally new ideological project to offer the world, is emerging as the new “shining city upon a hill” for a growing number of people across the globe.

First of all, when Western ideologues attempt to define the concept of Western values, they usually cite a dozen or so stock phrases such as “democracy,” “tolerance,” “a strong civil society,” “the rule of law,” and “political pluralism,” all of which were divorced from their original meanings long ago.  In fact, only provincial Europhiles and American students in liberal arts colleges believe in these mottos anymore.  On the contrary, the difference between the word (“democracy”) and the deed (utterly suppressing dissent and ordering the overthrow of legitimate regimes in objectionable countries) has become one of the most important tools used by the West to promulgate its quasi-values, which are actually fronts for its true expansionist interests.

Let us turn to a comparative table of the actual value systems of the contemporary West vs.  Russia:

The  West

 Russian (Eurasian) civilization
  • globalism
  • a multi-polar world
  • universality
  • the diversity of identities
  • the superiority of the Western world (Western civilization as a model)
  • all civilizations are equal and sovereign
  • limitless progress
  • movement forward without destroying the old
  • material prosperity
  • spiritual and social development
  • multiculturalism
  • internationalism (the brotherhood of nations)
  • a society that is open to migrants
  • (at the expense of the native-born population)
  • a strict migration policy
  • (the protection of the interests of the native-born population)
  • political pluralism
  • the spiritual communion of an entire society (“sobornost”)
  • a strong civil society
  • a society in solidarity
  • the bourgeoisie (the primacy of the propertied classes)
  • communitarism (the primacy of the majority)
  • agnosticism, atheism, and secularization
  • faith (traditional religions)
  • a preference for newly formed religions and sects
  • a preference for traditional religions and a rejection of sects
  • gender equality (the feminization of men and masculinization of women)
  • the preservation of natural gender differences and traditions
  • same-sex marriages and surrogate motherhood
  • the traditional family
  • sex “education” in schools
  • moral education in schools
  • support of the LGBT community at the expense of the traditional majority
  • the identification of non-traditional sexual orientation as an abnormality
  • juvenile justice that includes the legal protection of children from their parents
  • the exclusive right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, up to a certain age
  • the right to euthanasia
  • a ban on euthanasia and a focus on improving pain relief
  • the right to clone
  • a ban on cloning
  • individualism
  • various forms of collectiveness
  • freedom defined as the utmost rejection of social taboos
  • freedom defined as alignment with the (Divine) ideal
  • the law means justice
  • justice above the law
  • formal tolerance
  • genuine forbearance and compassion
  • political correctness
  • truth
  • transparency
  • openness (in the sense of “honesty”)
  • a “free” press
  • an accurate press
  • shame
  • conscience
  • a preference for private ownership
  • all types of ownership are equal
  • an open economy
  • a balance between openness and sovereignty
  • the “free market” as the primary regulator of economic relationship
  • the state determines the national priorities for the economy
  • the right to the unilateral use of force in the name of democracy
  • non-violence
  • social safety nets for those who are loyal to the system
  • social safety nets for all
  • an army of paid professionals
  • the universal conscription of citizens
  • wars are justified and essential in order to bring democracy to the “barbaric” part of the world
  • only defensive wars are acceptable

 

It is important to note that the values listed in the right-hand column of the table of values are merely ideals that are professed and are not officially approved Russian imperatives – they are understood identities that Russians have adopted (and these are being retained even amidst the atmosphere of the aggressive recoding emanating from the West, which, however, has not been very successful over the last 25 years).  Since the onset of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the process of re-traditionalizing Russian society has greatly accelerated, and this now seems irreversible and is even having a clearly beneficial effect on the West. The hysteria unleashed by the owners of a number of international media outlets communicating only a single, primal thought – “Russia is the world’s greatest evil” – is tied to this Russian renaissance and the subsequent frustration of the hopes of Western elites to build a totalitarian super-society in the foreseeable future based on pseudo-liberal slogans. But what kind of “evil” can Western civilization speak of when it has placed its bets on Hominid immoral in its classical, Biblical delineation?

Amb. Andrey Karlov became the real victim of aggressive imposing of false values and world-views on entrapped individuals, vainly wishing to find the Truth in distorting mirrors of the lavishly financed Western propaganda machine. They never realize that consuming Daily News or Al-Jazeera, they are turning into a Mevlut Mert Altintas themselves…

December 22, 2016 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow wants Saudi Arabia to join Russia-Turkey-Iran efforts for Syria peace – UN envoy

RT | December 21, 2016

Moscow says that Saudi Arabia should join efforts to find peace in Syria undertaken by Russia, Iran and Turkey, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s UN envoy, said.

The Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to draft a joint statement aimed at resolving the long term conflict in Syria.

According to Churkin, the document was “an extra effort by our three countries” to, among other things, prepare opposition forces “to negotiate with the government, and put them at the same table with the government, so they can develop between themselves some arrangements that would advance the political process.”

It is “very important” that the statement by Moscow, Tehran and Ankara “contained an invitation to other countries that have influence ‘on the ground’ to join such efforts,” he said.

“It seems to me it would be very important for Saudi Arabia to take a similar stance and work in the same direction,” the envoy told Rossiya 24 channel.

The Russia-US talks on resolving the Syrian crisis have stalled, but Churkin says that the situation may change when Donald Trump replaces Barack Obama in the White House.

“I’m going to share my personal interpretation of the things I’ve heard recently,” he said.

According to Churkin’s information, the UN special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said he planned to convene a new round of talks about Syria on February 8, 2017.

“I’m sure he (de Mistura) did it only after he had found an opportunity to contact the people on Donald Trump’s team and to coordinate the date with them,” the Russian UN ambassador said.

“That’s good enough a sign because it could be indicative of the ability of the Trump Administration to steer the situation towards a rapid enough unfolding of the political process (in Syria),” Churkin said, again stressing that it was just his “personal interpretation of events.”

He said that Russia is ready to cooperate with Nikki Haley, who Trump plans to propose for the next US envoy at the United Nations.

“She’s a quite young governor of South Carolina, lacking international experience, but I heard some good comments about her,” the Russian envoy said.

However, he stressed that he doesn’t know Haley in person, which makes it hard to predict how the US delegation will act under her in the UN and with the Security Council.

“Anyway, I think it’s early to relax and expect that we’re going to have some kind of nirvana in our work at the UN. It’s going to be a bit more complicated in real life,” Churkin said.

The pullout of militants from the Syrian city of Aleppo “is being completed,” Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Wednesday.

Aleppo was the last major city being held by the rebels in the country, with their withdrawal being agreed though Russian and Turkish mediation.

According to estimates by Russian officials, the evacuation of civilians from eastern Aleppo, which has been under rebel control since 2012, is expected to conclude in a few days.

December 21, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CIA Hawk Called for the US to Deliver a “Painful” Blow to Putin One Week Prior to Ambassador Being Assassinated

By Steven MacMillan | Blacklisted News | December 21, 2016

On the evening of Monday the 19th of December, a day before Russia, Turkey and Iran were scheduled to meet in Moscow to discuss the Syrian conflict, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was assassinated while speaking at an art exhibition in Ankara. The assailant has been identified as Mevlut Mert Altıntas, a 22-year-old off-duty Turkish police officer, who reportedly had just returned to duty last month after being suspended over suspected knowledge of the failed July coup attempt. Video footage of the attack shows Altintas shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ moments after shooting Karlov, in addition to yelling: “Don’t forget Aleppo; don’t forget Syria!” According to certain pro-government newspapers in Turkey, Altıntas may have had ties to the Gülen movement, a movement led by the US-based cleric, Fethullah Gülen. The CIA has been intimately connected to the Gülen movement for years, as the author F. William Engdahl has extensively documented.

Just a Coincidence?

Six days prior to the assassination, the hawkish former Deputy Director of the CIA (who also served as the Acting Director twice), Michael Morell, called for the US to respond to alleged Russian meddling in the US election by retaliating in a way that was both “overt” and “painful to Putin.” It should be noted that the whole narrative of Russia meddling or hacking is a faux one, as no proof has been presented to the public thus far, and is merely the latest effort to demonize Moscow due to the fact that Russia prevented the West and their allies forcing regime change in Damascus. In reality, Morell was advocating retaliation against Russia because Moscow had the audacity to stand up to the US in the Middle East, not because Russia meddled in the US election. Speaking to the Atlantic Council – a Washington-based think tank – on the 13thof December, Morell said:

“In order for a US response to actually result in deterrence two things have to be true: one, it has got to be overt, it has got to be seen; and two, it has got to be painful to Putin. That responsibility for responding to what the Russians did here is largely that of the Obama administration because it happened on their watch. I am a little concerned that the response is going to fall through the cracks of the transition, just the way the US response to the [USS] Cole bombing [on October 12, 2000] fell through the cracks of the transition between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.”

Perhaps Morell’s comments and the assassination were unrelated, and the shooting was carried out on behalf of militants in retaliation for the Russian military campaign in Syria without the CIA’s knowledge; but then again, perhaps they were related, and the CIA in coordination with other intelligence agencies were involved in the assassination. Franz Klintsevich, the First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Defense and Security at the Russian Federation Council, has questioned whether the West was involved in the shooting, saying that “representatives of NATO secret services” may have been be behind it.

Morell’s comments certainly reveal the kind of strategic discussions that were (and are) taking place in think tank circles in the West. We know for sure that the assassination was both “overt” and “painful to Putin,” as the shooting took place in a highly public place and Putin had a fairly close relationship with Karlov. The Russian President said in a statement that Karlov was a “good-hearted person” that he knew “personally,” in addition to stating that the assassination was an attempt to disrupt the Russian-Turkish rapprochement and the resolution of the Syrian conflict:

“Ambassador Karlov was a very good-hearted person; I knew him personally, so I’m not speaking from hearsay. Last Autumn, during my visit to Turkey, Ambassador Karlov accompanied me all the time. This murder is clearly a provocation aimed at undermining the improvement and normalization of Russian-Turkish relations, as well as undermining the peace process in Syria promoted by Russia, Turkey, Iran and other countries interested in settling the conflict in Syria.”

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President, also called the assassination a “provocation,” as well as describing the incident as a “false flag attack:”

“I believe this is an attack on Turkey, the Turkish state and the Turkish people, and also a clear provocation … [in terms of] Turkish-Russian relations. I am sure our Russian friends also see this fact. Both Turkey and Russia have the will not to be deceived by this false flag attack.”

Since Erdoğan apologized to Putin for shooting down a Russian plane on the Turkish-Syrian border in November 2015, Moscow and Ankara have been trying to rebuild ties. Although it has not always been a smooth path, Russia and Turkey appear to be moving closer to each other. The agreement between Ankara and Moscow over the Turkish Stream project – a natural gas pipeline that would run from Russia to Turkey via the Black Sea, and potentially be extended into southeast Europe – is illustrative of the improvement in relations between the two countries. If Turkey, Russia and Iran manage to forge an agreement over Syria, this will bring the Syrian conflict much closer to being resolved, considering the role Turkey has played in supporting the rebels in neighboring Syria.

There was a clear motive for certain factions within the CIA and other intelligence agencies to attempt to impede the Turkish-Russian rapprochement, and disrupt the potential of an alliance between Turkey, Russia and Iran emerging. The shooting may also be an attempt to send a message to Putin that figures close to him can be assassinated with ease. We should not forget that Putin’s favorite driver was killed in a freak road accident in September.

Steven MacMillan is a freelance writer and editor of  The Analyst Report. 

December 21, 2016 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama seeks to tie Trump’s hands, imposes more sanctions on Russia

By Alexander Mercouris | The Duran | December 20, 2016

The Obama administration leaves office with a sting in its tail, announcing more sanctions against Russia over Crimea and the war in the Donbass.

The additional new sanctions are minimal and largely symbolic.  They affect nine regional units of the Russian gas producer Novatek, a number of subsidiaries of the Russian Agricultural Bank, Crimean Ports, Crimean Railways, the Stroiproekt Institute, which is one of the organisations involved in designing the Kerch bridge project, the Karst company, which is one of the main subcontractors for the Kerch bridge project, the Transflot shipping company, two ships belonging to the Transflot company (Marshal Zhukov and Stalingrad), and FAU Glavgosekspertiza Rossii, which is the Russian agency responsible for expert reviews of design documents and findings of engineering surveys.

In addition individual sanctions have been imposed or extended against 7 individuals.

Six of these individuals (Kirill Kovalchuk, Dmitri Lebedev, Dmitri Mansurov, Mikhail Klishin, Oleg Minaev, and Mikhail Dedov) are sanctioned because they are connected to Bank Rossiya, ABR Management, or Sobinbank.

Bank Rossiya was placed on the US Treasury’s original sanctions list in 2014.  The Obama administration believes – quite groundlessly – that Vladimir Putin has a personal connection to Bank Rossiya, and has insinuated that he is in fact its owner.  There is in fact no evidence that Vladimir Putin had any special connection to Bank Rossiya before US sanctions were imposed on the bank in 2014, though after the sanctions were imposed, and in response to them, Putin publicly said he would open an account with it.

The seventh individual placed on the sanctions list is a Russian businessman, Yevgeny Prigozhin.  The US Treasury justifies its decision to place him on the sanctions list in this way

Prigozhin has extensive business dealings with the Russian Federation Ministry of Defence, and a company with significant ties to him holds a contract to build a military base near the Russian Federation border with Ukraine.

Prigozhin is moreover accused of

having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, senior officials of the Russian Federation.

The expression “senior officials of the Russian Federation” is widely recognised code for President Putin himself.

If there is an overarching theme to these new sanctions, it is that they either sanction individuals and companies engaged in upgrading Crimea’s infrastructure – in particular the Kerch bridge – or continue the practice of targeting individuals the Obama administration has (wrongly) convinced itself are custodians of Vladimir Putin’s mythical billions.

The Russians have already made clear that the new sanctions will not affect the Kerch bridge project, and that they reserve the right to undertake what they call an “asymmetric response” to them.

What does the Obama administration achieve by imposing these ineffectual sanctions a month before it leaves office?

The short answer is that the sanctions do not seem intended to target Russia so much as Donald Trump, who has made clear that he wants to improve relations with Russia.  In particular they seem designed to make more difficult the Senate confirmation of Rex Tillerson (Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of State) who as CEO of Exxon has made known his opposition to the sanctions.  Quite possibly demands will be made that Trump and Tillerson commit themselves to maintaining the sanctions in order to secure Tillerson’s confirmation.

If so then this shows the extent to which hostility to Russia has become for the Obama administration an obsession.  It seems that even in its dying days it is doing all it can to make sure its hostility to Russia remains US policy even after it is gone, by trying to tie the hands of the next President, who is known to favour a different policy.

The Russians themselves have understood the frankly pathological quality behind this latest action, making dark predictions that it won’t be the last one before the Obama administration ends its life.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said as much shortly after the new sanctions were announced

I won’t be surprised if on January 20, the day of inauguration of the next US president, one minute before Donald Trump takes office, at 11:59, we will once again see behind some curtain, in the corner, those who continuously produce such kind of decisions once again inventing certain rescripts, decisions, pushing into an abyss relations with Russia that are already in tatters due to Washington’s irresponsible and senseless policy.

Whether that is indeed what will happen, and whether the Obama administration really can tie the hands of the next President in this way, remains to be seen.  In the meantime it is a frankly sad and even disturbing way for the Obama administration to see out its life.

December 20, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Bad Losers (And What They Fear Losing)

Photo by Cliff | CC BY 2.0

Photo by Cliff | CC BY 2.0
By Diana Johnstone | December 19, 2016

Paris – If the 2016 presidential campaign was a national disgrace, the reaction of the losers is an even more disgraceful spectacle. It seems that the political machine backing Hillary Clinton can’t stand losing an election.

And why is that?

Because they are determined to impose “exceptional” America’s hegemony on the entire world, using military-backed regime changes, and Donald Trump seems poised to spoil their plans.  The entire Western establishment, roughly composed of neoconservative ideologues, liberal interventionists, financial powers, NATO, mainstream media and politicians in both the United States and Western Europe, committed to remaking the Middle East to suit Israel and Saudi Arabia and to shattering impertinent Russia, have been thrown into an hysterical panic at the prospect of their joint globalization project being sabotaged by in ignorant intruder.

Donald Trump’s expressed desire to improve relations with Russia throws a monkey wrench into the plans endorsed by Hillary Clinton to “make Russia pay” for its bad attitude in the Middle East and elsewhere. If he should do what he has promised, this could be a serious blow to the aggressive NATO buildup on Russia’s European borders, not to mention serious losses to the U.S. arms industry planning to sell billions of dollars worth of superfluous weapons to NATO allies on the pretext of the “Russian threat”.

The war party’s fears may be exaggerated, inasmuch as Trump’s appointments indicate that the United States’ claim to be the “exceptional”, indispensable nation will probably survive the changes in top personnel. But the emphasis may be different. And those accustomed to absolute rule cannot tolerate the challenge.

Bad Losers On the Top

Members of the U.S. Congress, the mainstream media, the CIA and even President Obama have made fools of themselves and the nation by claiming that the Clintonite cabal lost because of Vladimir Putin.  Insofar as the rest of the world takes this whining seriously, it should further increase Putin’s already considerable prestige.  If true, the notion that Moscovite hacking could defeat the favorite candidate of the entire U.S. power establishment can only mean that the United States’ political structure is so fragile that a few disclosed emails can cause its collapse. A government notorious for snooping into everybody’s private communication, as well as for overthrowing one government after another by less subtle means, and whose agents boasted of scaring the Russians into re-elected the abysmally unpopular Boris Yeltsin in 1996, now seems to be crying pathetically, “Mommy, Vlady is playing with my hacking toys!”

Of course, Russians would quite naturally prefer a U.S. president who openly shies away from the possibility of starting a nuclear war with Russia. That doesn’t make Russia “an enemy”, it is just a sign of good sense. Nor does it mean that Putin is so naïve as to imagine that Moscow could throw the election by a few dirty tricks. The current Russian leaders, unlike their Washington counterparts, tend to take a longer view, rather than imagining that the course of history can be changed by a banana peel.

This whole miserable spectacle is nothing but a continuation of the Russophobia exploited by Hillary Clinton to distract from her own multiple scandals. As the worst loser in American electoral history, she must blame Russia, rather than recognize that there were multiple reasons to vote against her.

The propaganda machine has found a response to unwelcome news: it must be fake. The Washington conspiracy theorists are outdoing themselves this time. The Russian geeks supposedly knew that by revealing a few Democratic National Committee internal messages, they could ensure the election of Donald Trump. What tremendous prescience!

Obama promises retaliation against Russia for treating the United States the way the United States treats, well, Honduras (and even Russia itself until blocked by Putin). Putin retorted that so far as he knew, the United States was not a banana republic, but a great power able to protect its elections. Washington is loudly denying that. The same mainstream media who brought you Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” are now bringing you this preposterous conspiracy theory with straight faces.

When intelligence agencies become aware of the activities of rival intelligence agencies, they usually keep the knowledge to themselves, as part of the mutual spook game. Going public with this wild tale shows that the whole point is to persuade the American public that Trump’s election is illegitimate, in the hope of defeating him in the electoral college or, if that fails, of crippling his presidency by labeling him a “Putin stooge”.

Bad Losers On the Bottom

At least the bad losers on the top know what they are doing and have a purpose. The bad losers on the bottom are expressing emotions without clear objectives. It is false self-dramatization to call for “Resistance” as if the country had been invaded by extraterrestrials. The U.S. electoral system is outmoded and bizarre, but Trump played the game by the rules. He campaigned to win swing states, not a popular majority, and that’s what he got.

The problem isn’t Trump but a political system which reduces the people’s choice to two hated candidates, backed by big bucks.

Whatever they think or feel, the largely youthful anti-Trump protesters in the streets create an image of hedonistic consumer society’s spoiled brats who throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want. Of course, some are genuinely concerned about friends who are illegal immigrants and fear deportation. It is quite possible to organize in their defense. The protesters may be mostly disappointed Bernie Sanders supporters, but whether they like it or not, their protests amount to a continuation of the dominant themes in Hillary Clinton’s negative campaign. She ran on fear. In the absence of any economic program to respond to the needs of millions of voters who showed their preference for Sanders, and of those who turned to Trump simply because of his vague promise to create jobs, her campaign exaggerated the portent of Trump’s most politically incorrect statements, creating the illusion that Trump was a violent racist whose only program was to arouse hatred. Still worse, Hillary stigmatized millions of voters as “a basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” These remarks were made to an LGBT rally, as part of her identity politics campaign to win over a clientele of minorities by stigmatizing the dwindling white majority. The identity politics premise is that ethnic and sexual minorities are oppressed and thus morally superior to the white majority, which is the implied oppressor. It is this tendency to sort people into morally distinct categories that divides Americans against each other, every bit as much – or more – than Trump’s hyperbole about Mexican or Islamic immigrants. It has served to convince many devotees of political correctness to regard white working class Americans in the “fly-over” regions as enemy invaders who threaten to send them all to concentration camps.

Terrified of what Trump may do, his opponents tend to ignore what the lame ducks are actually doing. The last gasp Clintonite campaign to blame Hillary’s defeat on “fake news”, supposedly inspired by The Enemy, Russia, is a facet of the growing drive to censor the Internet – previously for child pornography, or for anti-Semitism, and next on the pretext of combating “fake news”, meaning whatever goes contrary to the official line. This threat to freedom of expression is more sinister than eleven-year-old locker-room macho boasts by Trump.

There will and should be strong political opposition to whatever reactionary domestic policies are adopted by the Trump administration. But such opposition should define the issues and work for specific goals, instead of expressing a global rejection that is non-functional.

The hysterical anti-Trump reaction is unable to grasp the implications of the campaign to blame Hillary’s defeat on Putin. Do the kids in the street really want war with Russia? I doubt it. But they do not perceive that for all its glaring faults, the Trump presidency provides an opportunity to avoid war with Russia. This is a window of opportunity than will be slammed shut if the Clintonite establishment and the War Party get their way. Whether they realize it or not, the street protesters are helping that establishment delegitimatize Trump and sabotage the one positive element in his program: peace with Russia.

Adjustments in the Enemy List

By its fatally flawed choices in the Middle East and in Ukraine, the United States foreign policy establishment has driven itself into a collision course with Russia. Unable to admit that the United States backed the wrong horse in Syria, the War Party sees no choice but to demonize and “punish” Russia, with the risk of dipping into the Pentagon’s vast arsenal of argument-winning nuclear weapons. Anti-Russian propaganda has reached extremes exceeding those of the Cold War. What can put an end to this madness? What can serve to create normal attitudes and relations concerning that proud nation which aspires primarily simply to be respected and to promote old-fashioned international law based on national sovereignty? How can the United States make peace with Russia?

It is clear that in capitalist, chauvinist America there is no prospect of shifting to a peace policy by putting David Swanson in charge of U.S. foreign relations, however desirable that might be.

Realistically, the only way that capitalist America can make peace with Russia is through capitalist business. And that is what Trump proposes to do.

A bit of realism helps when dealing with reality. The choice of Exxon CEO Rex W. Tillerson as Secretary of State is the best step toward ending the current race toward war with Russia. “Make money not war” is the pragmatic American slogan for peace at this stage.

But the “resistance” to Trump is not likely to show support for this pragmatic peace policy. It is already encountering opposition in the war-loving Congress. Instead, by shouting “Trump is not my President!” the disoriented leftists are inadvertently strengthening that opposition, which is worse than Trump.

Avoiding war with Russia will not transform Washington into a haven of sweetness and light. Trump is an aggressive personality, and the opportunistic aggressive personalities of the establishment, notably his pro-Israel friends, will help him turn U.S. aggression in other directions. Trump’s attachment to Israel is nothing new, but appears to be particularly uncompromising. In that context, Trump’s extremely harsh words for Iran are ominous, and one must hope that his stated rejection of “regime change” war applies in that case as well as others. Trump’s anti-China rhetoric also sounds bad, but in the long run there is little he or the United States can do to prevent China from becoming once again the “indispensable nation” it used to be during most of its long history. Tougher trade deals will not lead to the Apocalypse.

The Failure of the Intellectual Establishment

The sad image today of Americans as bad losers, unable to face reality, must be attributed in part to the ethical failure of the so-called 1968 generation of intellectuals. In a democratic society, the first duty of men and women with the time, inclination and capacity to study reality seriously is to share their knowledge and understanding with people who lack those privileges. The generation of academics whose political consciousness was temporarily raised by the tragedy of the Vietnam war should have realized that their duty was to use their position to educate the American people, notably about the world that Washington proposed to redesign and its history. However, the new phase of hedonistic capitalism offered the greatest opportunities for intellectuals in manipulating the masses rather than educating them. The consumer society marketing even invented a new phase of identity politics, with the youth market, the gay market, and so on. In the universities, a critical mass of “progressive” academics retreated into the abstract world of post-modernism, and have ended up focusing the attention of youth on how to react to other people’s sex lives or “gender identification”. Such esoteric stuff feeds the publish or perish syndrome and prevents academics in the humanities from having to teach anything that might be deemed critical of U.S. military spending or its failing efforts to assert its eternal domination of the globalized world. The worst controversy coming out of academia concerns who should use which toilet.

If the intellectual snobs on the coasts can sneer with such self-satisfaction at the poor “deplorables” in flyover land, it is because they themselves have ignored their primary social duty of seeking truth and sharing it. Scolding people for their “wrong” attitudes while setting the social example of unrestrained personal promotion can only produce the anti-elite reaction called “populism”. Trump is the revenge of people who feel manipulated, forgotten and despised. However flawed, he is the only choice they had to express their revolt in a rotten election. The United States is deeply divided ideologically, as well as economically. The United States is threatened, not by Russia, but by its own internal divisions and the inability of Americans not only to understand the world, but even to understand each other.

Johnstone-Queen-Cover-ak800--291x450Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She can be reached at diana.johnstone@wanadoo.fr

December 19, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »