Sunday, August 17, 2014

Who Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH17?

A lie gets half way around the World before the truth has a chance to put its pants on
Winston Churchill

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them

telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

All truth goes through three phases. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third is is accepted as self-evident.

Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin for Lies on MH17

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 31.08.2014 | 01:29

 When a Malaysian Airlines flight carrying 289 civilian passengers was accidentally shot down in Ukraine the western press immediately accepted reports from Kiev that a rocket fired from Donetsk, a city located in the rebel sector of Ukraine blew up the aircraft.

 Only three days after the crash, Secretary of State Kerry did the rounds of the Sunday talk shows making what he deemed an 'extraordinary circumstantial' case supposedly proving that the rebels carried out the shoot-down with missiles provided by Russia. He acknowledged that the US government was 'not drawing the final conclusion here, but there is a lot that points at the need for Russia to be responsible.

The New York Times is filled with articles since the crash pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin. The Cold War is back. 

An August 7 article in the New Straits Times, Malaysia's flagship English-language newspaper, however charged the US- and European-backed Ukrainian regime in Kiev with shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 in east Ukraine. The evidence in this article is substantial So where is the truth? Intelligence analysts in the United States have already concluded that Malaysia flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it. This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a jet that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth."

 Some sections of the US intelligence have concluded that US Secretary of State John Kerry's claims that pro-Russian forces shot down the plane are lies.

Testimony by a Canadian-Ukrainian monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Michael Bociurkiw was one of the first investigators to arrive at the crash site. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on July 29, Bociurkiw said: "There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire."

Another source the paper cited was an article, "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts," by former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry "Given the lack of any evidence supporting US charges that pro-Russian forces shot MH17 down with a Buk anti-aircraft missile some US intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault, and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings."

The US intelligence community lacked any satellite imagery supporting Kerry's allegations, and that the only Buk missile system in that part of Ukraine appeared to be under the control of the Ukrainian military."

Propaganda Value
This lack of transparency, of course, has a propaganda value since it leaves in place the widespread public impression that ethnic Russian rebels and Russian President Vladimir Putin were responsible for the 298 deaths, a rush to judgment that Secretary Kerry and other senior U.S. officials (and the Western news media) encouraged in July 2014.
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Once that impression took hold there has been little interest in Official Washington to clarify the mystery especially as evidence has emerged implicating elements of the Ukrainian military. For instance, Dutch intelligence has reported (and U.S. intelligence has implicitly confirmed) that the only operational Buk anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, were under the control of the Ukrainian military.
In a Dutch report released last October, the Netherlands’ Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) reported that the only anti-aircraft weapons in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian government.
MIVD made that assessment in the context of explaining why commercial aircraft continued to fly over the eastern Ukrainian battle zone in summer 2014. MIVD said that based on “state secret” information, it was known that Ukraine possessed some older but “powerful anti-aircraft systems” and “a number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country.”
The intelligence agency added that the rebels lacked that capability: “Prior to the crash, the MIVD knew that, in addition to light aircraft artillery, the Separatists also possessed short-range portable air defence systems (man-portable air-defence systems; MANPADS) and that they possibly possessed short-range vehicle-borne air-defence systems. Both types of systems are considered surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Due to their limited range they do not constitute a danger to civil aviation at cruising altitude.”
One could infer a similar finding by reading a U.S. “Government Assessment” released by the Director of National Intelligence on July 22, 2014, five days after the crash, seeking to cast suspicion on the ethnic Russian rebels and Putin by noting military equipment that Moscow had provided the rebels. But most tellingly the list did not include Buk anti-aircraft missiles. In other words, in the context of trying to blame the rebels and Putin, U.S. intelligence could not put an operational Buk system in the rebels’ hands.
So, perhaps the most logical suspicion would be that the Ukrainian military, then engaged in an offensive in the east and fearing a possible Russian invasion, moved its Buk missile systems up to the front and an undisciplined crew fired a missile at a suspected Russian aircraft, bringing down MH-17 by accident.
That was essentially what I was told by a source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts in July and August 2014. [See, for instance,’s “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts” and “The Danger of an MH-17 Cold Case.”]
But Ukraine is a principal participant in the Dutch-led Joint Investigative Team (JIT), which has been probing the MH-17 case, and thus the investigation suffers from a possible conflict of interest since Ukraine would prefer that the world’s public perception of the MH-17 case continue to blame Putin. Under the JIT’s terms, any of the five key participants (The Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia, Belgium and Malaysia) can block release of information.
The interest in keeping Putin on the propaganda defensive is shared by the Obama administration which used the furor over the MH-17 deaths to spur the European Union into imposing economic sanctions on Russia.
In contrast, clearing the Russians and blaming the Ukrainians would destroy a carefully constructed propaganda narrative which has stuck black hats on Putin and the ethnic Russian rebels and white hats on the U.S.-backed government of Ukraine, which seized power after a putsch that overthrew elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014.
Accusations against Russia have also been fanned by propaganda outlets, such as the British-based Bellingcat site, which has collaborated with Western mainstream media to continue pointing the finger of blame at Moscow and Putin – as the Dutch investigators drag their heels and refuse to divulge any information that would clarify the case.

Finally, the New Straits Times and Parry both cited retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, who has pointed to photographic evidence of MH17 wreckage suggesting that cockpit panels were raked with heavy machine gun fire from both the port and starboard sides. "Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through the panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile," Parry wrote.

  These events also constitute yet another indictment of the Western media, who have completely blacked out the investigation of the crash of MH17. Instead, the elements in the CIA and their Ukrainian proxies driving the war in east Ukraine have been able to escalate the confrontation with Russia and demonize Putin, without any of their unsubstantiated accusations of Russian involvement in the MH17 crash being challenged.

"Silence denotes consent, and the deafening silence of the Western media on the issue of Kiev’s involvement in the MH17 crash testifies to the criminalization not only of the foreign policy establishment, but also of its media lackeys and the entire ruling class."
By Niles Williamson, WSWS

The US and European media have buried this remarkable report, which refutes the wave of allegations planted by the CIA in international media claiming that Russian president Vladimir Putin was responsible for the destruction of MH17, without presenting any evidence to back up this charge.

The media coverage is a classic example of turning a tragic accident into a tidy story that fits into a Cold War tirade supported by US and EU warriors that justifies destroying the Russian economy with relentless sanctions. 

Will the truth be finally sorted out? 

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Where did the Leadership Go?

I must follow the people. Am I not their leader? Benjamin Disraeli

A leader is a dealer in hope. —Napoleon Bonaparte

A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd. —Max Lucado

He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander. —Aristotle

Mohandas Gandhi

Image result for Helmut Schmidt
Helmut Schmidt

Image result for teddy roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt

Pierre Trudeau

Great leaders capable of taking  big decisions seem to be rapidly disappearing on all continents. In Europe no more heavy-weights like  Churchill, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Helmut Schmidt and Willie Brandt; instead we have lightweights like Barroso, Rasmussen, Lady Ashton, Hollande and Merkel.

  In Canada no more leaders like Lester Pearson, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, Joe Clarke and Pierre Trudeau; instead we have Stephen Harper and our famous mayor, Rob Ford. Not sure how to label the US leadership. Once there was Teddy and then Delano Roosevelt, but nothing since Lyndon Johnson;  Bill Clinton serving his banksters by scrapping Glass-Steagall, Hilary uttering Cold War nonsense and associating Putin with Hitler, Obama preaching America's exceptionalism and supporting disasters led  by his appointed trouble makers like Victoria Nuland's PNAC gang, As for the UK we have Mr Cameron, America's servant, and the ever present Lady Ashton parroting whatever the script prescribes.

Winston Churchill

There was a time when leaders were capable of sitting with their sworn enemies to hammer out deals. At Yalta, Roosevelt sat a the same table with Churchill and Stalin. Now we have Obama refusing to talk with Putin, hiding behind NATO and resorting to pouting and sanctions. Western leadership is now like a club house filled with self-serving mediocrities.  Ironically the only country with a real leader is Russia but Europe, US and Canada won't let him sit at the table for fear they might have to hear something that conflicts with the US song sheet they must follow.

Nelson Mandela Musical Groups & Artists
Nelson Mandela
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Musafa Kamal Attaturk.
Why do they want to destroy Vladimir Putin? Well first of all he is Russian and therefore the enemy of Washington, their loyal EU puppets and the NATO war machine.  I suppose other reasons for  a start might be he is an opponent of Washington's PNAC hegemonic ambitions, a critic of the mob scene in Kiev, resisting US ambition to appoint and control the leadership in Syria and Ukraine, and his condemning them for the failed state disasters they left in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and now in Ukraine plus US tolerating wealthy Saudi Arabian's support of Jihads,
Also a reminder that Russia hasn't invaded anyone; Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia after the mentally limited US hand-picked Ukrainian leader, Oleksandr Turchnov declared that his Russian speaking citizens were no longer entitled to their language.  NYT and Globe and Mail pundit's are either avoiding this truth that doesn't fit their script or having great difficulty understanding this. If Canada had similarly declared the nullification of the French language Quebec would have instantly succeeded to join France so the departure of Crimea is clearly understandable. With the US fleet positioned in Sevastopol, Poroshenko, the chocolate oligarch new leader of Ukraine, is determined against their will to bring Crimea back into the arms of Ukraine. Poroshenko just a few years ago was described by the CIA as a self enriching crook, but he is now our crook and therefore Washington's and the EU's anointed leader.

Charles De Gaulle
In a nutshell, where have all the real leaders gone? Why have they been replaced with such self serving mediocrities? De Gaulle and Schmidt wouldn't have put up with any of this.

The NYT and Fox News have been preaching for some time pure propaganda that Vladimir Putin is an evil dictator. After cleaning up the financial mess from the rape of Russia's assets during the IMF aided Yeltsin period of 'Gangster Capitalism' that created overnight billionaires (most of whom now sit with their laundered stolen wealth in Britain) and impoverished the population, Putin raised the standard of living, put the economy on a sound footing and enjoys a popularity rating far above that of any Western leader. Loves animals too. He rightly imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was recognized by the CIA of amongst other offences tax evasion including 10 billion dollars of money laundering. Putin must be bad but not sure why. The weak but obedient rabble that we now have as leaders now sit around a table to decide how Vladimir Putin and the Russian people should be punished. To save the taxpayer some money why don't these same leaders apply sanctions at the same time to America's and the UK's leaders for the far greater crimes they have committed.  Their list of crimes is long; in the past two decades they have left Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Vietnam in ruins and millions have been slaughtered, but all is forgiven without sanctions and lets move on and focus on Putin. Russia in modern times hasn't invaded anyone while the West has been busy; but no matter, because maybe if we upset their borders enough they just might and NATO will have something to do. The Charge of the Light Brigade will be reborn.

Why is this happening to leadership? 

The veritable explosion of sources for information through the internet  challenges our  conventional view of where we can find the truth. Leaders were once looked to as a top down source for guidance, but now the internet has opened up a global village for debate the moment a leader speaks and every voice must be heard. Admittedly this is a good thing, Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether a scholar, an oracle, just a journalist or an ignorant bigot. The internet has opened up many sites that challenges the mainstream media. The cacophony is deafening. How to choose? Eric Fromm's famous book written in 1941 'The Escape from Freedom'  is highly relevant reading today. Fromm emphasizes the human tendency of retreating from intellectual freedom by adopting the values and ideas of others. The choices  presented in this exploding information age are vast and heightens the confusion.The pundits and politicians of many stripes try to guide us through this swamp with many of them like our Canadian PM, Mr Harper part of the swamp and adding fuel to the confusion. We all have our favourites depending on our biases. 

Can real leaders survive in this jungle of information surrounded by a circus of media consultants, supporting politicians, strategists, back room specialists, pollsters, script writers, film makers, and with equally well financed attacking opponents tearing this all to shreds. Where is Waldo in all this? With all this expertise will wealth determine the winner? Can they fabricate, cut and paste false leaders to serve their ideologies and objectives? Will any leader say anything that they have personally thought out or written? Will we be voting for well financed committees with the false leaders videoed by aides simply waving at a distance as they step out of helicopters?

I wonder what it cost to develop and support great leaders in the past in comparison with what it costs today to produce these new humanoid leaders backed by their armies of helpers?

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Image result for pictures of earliest to modern man
Rumsfeld, Bolton, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Zoellick,Schmitt - all valiant 'Chicken Hawks'

"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

PNACers seem to harken back to fuedalism. They are politically primitive.
 Jane Smiley

 "The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world.

 "Nineteen Arabs were named as hijackers of the 9/11 planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and "regime changes".

 Quotes from The PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) originated in a Washington based think tank in 1997 founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Its stated goal was to promote the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world"

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks, men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.  These are the thought processes of fanatic sociopath Americans who want to control the world."

The PNAC group have left a spectacular trail of costly failed ventures in terms of lives lost and nation states destroyed, such as in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan but they don't give up and are now attempting a repeat in Syria, Iran and Ukraine while uttering warlike challenges to Russia. President Vladimir Putin stands in their way by blocking Nuland's regime change in Syria, defending the aspirations of Russian speaking Ukrainians living in regions bordering Russia and defusing US threats against Iran's peaceful nuclear ambitions. He has also consistently condemned before the fact PNAC's interventions. The US media consistently labels him as an enemy of Washington's peaceful intentions.

US foreign policy is hopelessly entangled in PNAC's goals for 'Regime Change' in Syria and this explains the bizarre US polic y of arming Jihad terrorists and in Kiev allying, on an end justifying the means basis,with corrupt and Nazi elements in the government thus inflaming the conflict and distrust between Kiev and Ukrainians living in areas bordering Russia. This destructive interference in the Ukraine is being led by the notorious Victoria Nuland of "fuck Europe" fame and her husband Dick Kagan (who had a leading role in the design of PNAC) and  supported by President Obama. Strangely the EU led by knee-jerking neocons like Anders Fogh Rasmussen, José Manuel Barroso, and strangely tolerated by Merkel and Hollande, are supportive of these costly US led disasters occurring in their back yard. Past European leaders like Willie Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Jacques Chirac and Charles De Gaulle would have brought all of this destructive nonsense to an abrupt halt and sent PNAC and its NATO war machine packing back to America.

What is the future for PNAC, in a World dominated by unrivaled US financial and military dominance since WWII? The good news is that US share of the World's GDP that once stood at 50%. has since declined today to 26% which is comparable with EU figures. As the World's economy becomes  increasingly multi-polar with the GDP of other leading regions and nation states (e.g. India, China, Brazil, SE Asia) growing at several times the rate of the US we can expect  that the concept of PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) is on a collision course with reality.  Despite this the US unfortunately continues to use NATO as their roving battleship to batter down nations such as Russia that threaten PNAC's hegemonic ambitions. Brussels complies because they find NATO useful to strengthen relationships, including  military commitments, with countries in Eastern Europe that were once members of the Warsaw Pact.

PNAC and NATO are organizations designed for conflict and by their very nature and mandate require an enemy. If the humanitarian concerns of regions in conflict such as currently in Ukraine, Syria and Iran were of genuine concern, then European, Russian and the Washington would preside over joint meetings to arrange financial aid and support. Putin has put forward recommendation for such meetings but Obama and his vassals in Brussels refuse to talk with him because it conflicts with the avaristic hegemony of PNAC to gain control of the oil and industrial resources in the region and for Brussels to piggyback on this ambition.

The West is playing a dangerous game with Washington's right wing led by PNAC promoting further military build up in Eastern Europe and wanting to move NATO into the Ukraine up against Russia's doorstep. Its forcing European nations to take sides and encouraging revolution in a deeply divided Ukraine. Its producing a powder keg.  A powder keg kicked off World War I and it could happen again.

As far as I know America is the only nation who proclaims their leadership is good for the world. Try claiming that throughout the Nations of Latin America,  Iraq,  Iran, India, China, Brazil - the list is long. PNAC is an aggressive invention of the right wing in America that has failed miserably in the past  and is predictable to repeat the same in the future. Armed with NATO and in the hands of mediocre politicians of which there is an abundent supply of these days, it will continue to do great harm. 

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

It's All About Bullshit

Definitions of Bullshit

  • Term of disparagement and ridicule of (mainly) ideas and utterances. 

  • To try to persuade someone or make them admire you by saying things that are not true

  • The faeces (poop)of a bull.
bullshit photo: Bullshit 525.gif
An important detector that has a universal application.

Interview by Aimie Birdwhistle, editor of Woman's Monthly, with Professor Algernon Twithead, PhD, University of Lardberg, Birdsville, Canada. Professor Twithead is a biologist/zoologist who has made a lifelong study of bovine feces and methane emissions.

The Interview:
AB "Good morning Professor Twithead."

ATPhD "My friends just call me Twit for short. In fact many of enemies refer to me as a Twit too. Either way I am known as a Twit"

AB "That's very funny, but Twit how did your studies of cow faeces come about?"

ATPhD "My dad owned a farm for breeding bulls and as a young boy I worked at cleaning the barns which involved cleaning out a lot of bullshit."

AB "Then what?"

ATPhD  "I earned my way through school, including my undergraduate studies, at Lardberg U shoveling bullshit out of the barn. My classmates jokingly referred to me as a bullshitter. It made sense then that I decided to take bullshit seriously and undertake my PhD in bull faeces and methane emissions. It is an important aspect of environmental studies. Did you know that bovine gas emissions (farting) are a major environmental pollutant contributing to global warming?
These emissions are more damaging to the planet than CO2 from cars."

AB  "Wow!! I now know that I have to take bullshit more seriously. But is this true or are you bullshitting me?"

ATPhD "Its no bullshit."

AB "So I can now see that bullshit is a very important issue that influences all aspects of our life. The environment, the mainstream media, most politicians, even academia. The opinions of my Uncle Birt and Aunt Maud on almost any subject were mostly bullshit so I have been exposed to a lot of bullshit.  I now understand why you have made bullshit a lifetime study.  Bullshit is everywhere and not just under our feet."

ATPhD  "Yes it is a complex subject aside from science because one man's truth is another man's bullshit. For example I believe that Mr Harper, our Canadian Prime Minister is - to use a shortened phrase - full of shit. This applies to many other politicians throughout the world and you no doubt have your own long list." 

BT "I certainly do. I think everyone has a long list. My sister, for example, has a high turnover of boyfriends because she always ends up claiming that they have bullshitted her about their intentions."  

ATPhD "To sum up there are two aspects of bullshit of vital importance, one that will affect man's survival on this planet: and we can begin to do something about, and the other that is a reflection of human behaviour that is usually out of control.

 Man's Survival on this planet: Several factors contribute to the accumulation of methane gas in Earth’s atmosphere,but one contender stands out above the rest as particularly repugnant: Cow Farts!! They are having an increasingly damaging effect on climate change as people are eating more meat.

New Zealand New Zealand in 2003 considered measures such as introducing a fart tax and feeding garlic to cows to reduces their farting. Further study is needed to determine whether feeding garlic to cows will affect the taste of their milk. As for the fart tax it was rejected by the public and I'm not sure why. As you may be aware humans produce gases daily, sometimes to their embarrassment, but nowhere near the extent of these animals."

BT "I never realized before how important it is to think about farting and not just because of bullshit. What can scientists do about it? What ab out affixing a balloon to the backside of the cow and capturing the gas as fuel? "

ATPhD "cows belching produce only half the gas so it is only a half solution. As for affixing a balloon the quantity of gas emitted by a cow daily is enormous and the balloon ends up much bigger than the cow and it would look unsettling in the meadow to see herds of ballooned cattle. Like milking the balloon would have to be expelled daily.*A barn in Germany exploded this January after a static electric charge ignited a cloud of methane gas inside the barn, the Associated Press reports.The source of the methane? The barn’s cows, about 90 of them, “belching and farting”

BT "If your story about the barn blowing up isn't bullshit then it logically follows there is an abundant amount of energy that can be harnessed from bullshit if we can learn how to do it and it would be less costly and far less damaging to the environment than fracking. I'm all for bullshit. It might be a good idea to promote this on Fox News because they are expert bullshitters.

ATPhD " I am a man of science and it has been enlightening for me to discuss bullshit with an intelligent and I might say a very pretty woman like you who understands bullshit. Thank you for the time you have spent with me. Might you join me for a pleasant dinner?

BT "I accept and would be delighted to spend a romantic candlelight dinner with you, but can we avoid talking about bullshit?

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

NATO - An Archaic Threatening Menace.

Offices in Brussels
Unfortunately, expanding NATO over the last two decades has turned what once was a military alliance into an international social club

 While there is much about which the U.S. and Europe should cooperate, there is no need for an American-dominated transatlantic military alliance.

 A Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, led by the core western members of NATO, is but a paranoid fantasy.
 Doug Bandow 

NATO 'Anachronistic Nightmare' and should be disbanded
Dennis Kucinich

I  think that NATO is itself a war criminal
Harold Pinter 

Postscript May 30 2014 - US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia. Ask yourself, which nation is using NATO as a hegemonic battering ram? 

NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was founded in 1949. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. The Treaty members at the time included the USA and Canada in North America plus 26 West European countries. It has since expanded to include East European countries originally members of the Warsaw pact.
It is a cost sharing organization  with about 22% of the budget carried by the US, Germany 14% ,the UK and France about 12% each, and the balance divided up by agreement between the remaining member states more or less based on their respective GNP's.

Clearly the original goal of 'keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down' no longer makes any sense. How then can we justify NATO? We obviously can't without reinventing the Cold War because its designed to need enemies, so after Crimeans by a popular vote overwhelmingly decided to return to Russia, eureka !! the US policy wonks found a reason to vilify Russia. Mr Vershbow, The American Director of NATO, has announced that the Cold War is now back! This is much to the relief of all those companies supplying services, weaponry and people with careers dependent on NATO's existence. With an annual budget in excess of 1.2 trillion dollars and reportedly with 9 million people in member states depending on its existence for careers and employment, it has many mouths to feed 

What we have here is what was once a defensive organization having become a threatening war machine filled with a bureaucracy of well fed military personnel, strategic planners, clerks and technicians integrated like a giant football team with the controlling owner and coach selected from its  largest backer, namely the United States. With the US's abysmal track record of dismal failures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and currently hoping to repeat their disaster in Syria (if Mr Putin would only let them) this coach is clearly incompetent and should be fired.

Yes NATO is too big to fail in its present form, but like the banks it can be broken up.

The problem is that with the revolutionary turmoil in the Ukraine it provides Cold War warriors like Nuland an opportunity to revitalize NATO as a giant cudgel to take into this deepening divide between the unelected government in Kiev supported by Washington and the obedient Brussels and the Eastern provinces where a predominately Russian speaking population have for the past 300 years shared a common heritage with Russia.

Why would Washington and Brussels support this Nazi dominated  government in Kiev? Clearly because it is consistent with their anger with  Vladimir Putin who has prevented their military strike in Syria, welcomed Crimea's enthusiastic return to Russia to escape the Nazi dominated misfits in Kiev, and condemned their invasion of Iraq and Libya.  Such arrogance in the eyes of Washington deserves punishment. Sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions with the vassal states under leaders like Merkel and Hollande goaded by Washington weakly considering sanctions of their own despite deep conflicts with their own economic interests. Only an absurd unwieldy integrating monstrosity like NATO can produce this mindless behaviour. In the meantime Russia is being welcomed by China, forming pipeline and economic agreements and leaving the sanction obsessed West looking self destructive and ridiculous.

Looking at the future it is an absurdity to assume that nations facing the inevitable crises that will inevitably arise will be prepared to operate from a Washington led song sheet. NATO is old, its mandate outdated and is is in the way of rational decisions. It must go.

How would the process of addressing each nation's national interests look like without NATO? Certainly less automatic interference by Brussels and Washington where their intrusion is often neither welcomed nor needed. Makes more sense for states to call upon alliances with whomever when deemed necessary. World War II brought the Allies together through leaders like Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt who agreed to coordinate their efforts to achieve a common goal, and in the process rallying many nations to the cause, to defeat the axis of Germany and Japan. Certainly a rigid NATO "to keep the Americans in and the Russians out" would have been an destructive absurdity that would have lost the Wars. The reality is that the combined effort of Russia (who took far and away the greatest losses) and the Western allies won the war in Europe. There was no great love between Stalin and Western leaders but great leaders have the wisdom to come together when facing a crisis.

NATO is an absurdity forcing a mindless lockstep acceptance of a belligerent form of US leadership that is bringing back the Cold War. What is urgently needed at this time while we face a revolutionary crisis in Ukraine is for rival nations to work together as they did in WWII to hammer out solutions that will unite Ukrainians. It will take bringing to the table less involved nations like China, India, and Brazil to knock sense into the thick skulls of visionless NATO bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington. NATO is now the battering ram these dunces want to move into Ukraine and with a rhetoric itching to inflame a conflict that could lead to war.

Apropos of this NATO's Deputy Secretary General is traditionally an American, currently, Alexander Vershbow, who has recently unilaterally announced that NATO is now compelled to treat Russia “as more of an enemy". The weapons industries will no doubt be overjoyed by this announcement.

 NATO is an archaic menace and not a solution. It should be dead and buried

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Vladimir Putin - great leader or villain?

 Augst 7 2014: US sanctions against Russia to no ones surprise are severely backfiring with the Russian PM Dimitry Medvedev signing a decree on the full ban for imports of beef, pork, poultry meat, fish, cheese, milk, vegetables and fruit from Australia, Canada, the EU, the US and Norway. One wonders why these countries other than the US bothers to carry the overhead of governments since the all take their orders from Washington in this insane pursuit of self-destruction. The cost to Russia and the western nations of this food fight will annually amount to hundreds of billions dollars in lost revenues. While their unfit weak leaders fluff up their feathers and huff and puff their already weak economies face further damage. Wth the battle now extending to the airlines this is becoming an economic disaster. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Is leadership so weak now that there are no EU leader that can step forward and say "lets end this self destructive nonsense"?

May 1 2014: The Cold War is back as Russia and the US/EU battle over the Ukraine. On the east side the population is predominately Russian speaking and have strong historical relationships with Russia. To the West and in Kiev sympathies lean more to developing closer ties with the EU and accepting NATO. The IMF have just offered a loan to Ukraine in the vicinity of 17 billion US dollars and it has been accepted.  The demands for austerity and the selling  off of assets as part of packages produced an economic and social disaster in Russia during the Yeltsin period including imposing a brutal program of austerity to pay off the bankers. The IMF is now often referred to as global loan shark and has repeated these measures in over 70 countries including Greece and Portugal with the same disastrous results. The question at this point is whether the Ukraine, a deeply troubled nation with a highly educated population will accept living with the IMF's terms for austerity and the inevitable selling off of assets to the highest bidders. 
  • Victoria Nuland travels to Kiev to hand out cookies to the riot police. It is not known whether she baked them or bought them from Lidl or Aldi.
  • We are told  to vilify Vladimir Putin and this blog is an attempt to explain why.
  • Ms Nuland was heard to say "Fuck the EU!! and Ms Merkel angrily asked for an apology. This offering of cookies might help.
  • The New York Times and Fox News say that Vladimir Putin is a very evil so everyone in America who watches TV and the mainstream media know that he must be a very bad guy.
  • Putin made an outrageous statement "Sometimes it seems to me that America does not need allies, it needs vassals." and this clearly shows the thoughts of a disrespectful very bad guy.
  • He intervened but failed to prevent the CIA-NATO coup against Gaddafi that destroyed Libya as a nation-state with the loss of many lives so Obama and his Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, are very offended and Putin must be a very bad guy 
  • He prevented the US military from finishing off the Assad Government in Syria while funding Jihad rebels and in the process forced a peace that eliminated chemical weapons, including the rebels use of  Sarin gas by blocking the Jihad. Victoria Nuland is upset again because she had her heart set on bloodshed and regime change. This arrogant defiance of US striking power was further proof that he is evil and  must be a very bad guy.
  • He was very critical at the outset of the US invasion of Iraq that has left the country in ruins. Here again Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan of PNAC fame who led the charge into Iraq are very upset. This is a gross insult of the intentions and use of US power and therefore he must be a very bad guy. Hillary Clinton has finally admitted that in supporting the invasion she made a mistake so maybe Putin, the bad guy, was right but all the same if the NYT says he is a bad guy. 
  • He accepted the will of Crimeans in a free vote to return to their original Russian homeland, Hillary strangely called him a Nazi for supporting this, Poroshenko the corrupt chocolate king President of Ukraine and his close friend and equally corrupt and self enriched ally Yulia Timoshenko that he freed from jail are upset too, so this surely makes Putin a very bad guy.
  • He  builds troops along his border as NATO points its missiles toward Russia and Obama has asked him not to do this so Putin must be a very bad guy
  • Obama feels insulted and hurt when Putin doesn't agree with him so he is sulking and has decided to stop communicating with him because he is clearly a very bad guy.
  • Putin is supplying natural gas to Western Europe and this stands in the way of promoting US fracking and shipping liquified gas to Europe at much higher prices and this is not good for US business and again clearly makes him a very bad guy.
  • The twin tower attack in Volgograd by a Saudi financed Jihadist killed 32 people and this is just one of similar Saudi inspired attacks. Putin threatens a retaliation on our beloved Saudi allies who also brought down New York's twin towers, and supplies arms and money to Jihad rebels in Syria so he must be a very bad guy.
  • Putin described the Victoria Nuland led gang in Kiev as an orgy of unelected radicals, fascists and corrupt misfits. That is true but he is insulting our Washington and EU allies so he must be a very bad guy.
  • The mostly Russian speaking population in Eastern Ukraine show more trust, loyalty and affection for their Russian neighbours across the border than for the collection of unelected misfits in Kiev and this is surely because of the influence of Putin who must be a very bad guy.
  • Obama has ordered spying to find out whether Putin is richer than the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson (who enrich the US Congress) and if so this will prove that just like them he is truly an evil and bad guy. 
  • Putin's popularity rating in Russia averages around 85% according to the Washington Post. This compares with a very popular Merkel at 69%, Obama at 41% and Hollande at 26%. This proves that the Russian people know something that we don't know about this truly evil and bad guy.
Summary: Does all this seem totally insane? Of course it is. Vladimir trades insults with Obama and fails to show the respect that this Nobel Prize winning US President so richly deserves. From this I am sure you will agree that he must be a very bad guy or just maybe he might be a very good guy.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

NATO and Victoria Nuland - Ugly Cold War Relics

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

 “War is what happens when language fails.”
Margaret Atwood

  I bear solemn witness to the  fact that NATO heads of state and government meet only to go through the tedious motion of reading speeches, drafted by others, with the principal objective of not rocking the boat
Pierre Eliot Trudeau

 Critics of NATO claim its noble sounding ideals of “establishing peace” and constant “humanitarian intervention” during times of conflict are really euphemisms for a strategy of Western powered and financed imperialist expansion.
 Ashahed M. Muhammad

NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was founded in 1949. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. The Treaty member states at the time included the USA and Canada in North America plus 26 West European countries. It has since expanded to include East European countries originally members of the Warsaw pact. Today NATO members maintain a military strength of 3.3 million active and reserve military personnel and with an annual budget in excess of one trillion dollars. Clearly NATO provides a lot of employment. 

Much has changed since 1949 but NATO retains the same goals to keep an enemy out, and to keep anyone opposing the alliance down. With so many careers dependent on thinking within the box NATO is a mental trap they can't escape. Currently there are no enemies threatening the alliance so one has to be invented otherwise NATO becomes an unwieldy and inflexible behemoth that serves no unified purpose. It is self-evident that conflicts such as in Syria and Ukraine and tensions with Iran can be better handled by bringing together nations that include those outside NATO's orbit such as Russia, Iran and China.  For example Russia has negotiated the destruction of Assad's chemical arsenal and curbed the excesses of a mixed bag of rebels while American policy has floundered. NATO with its antagonistic view of Russia and Iran should not have any involvement in any of this. NATO has become a barrier to rational commercial and military alliances by identifying enemies where none exist. Its ancient mission is searching for a cause.

An overwhelming majority of Crimea's citizens (predominately Russian speaking) voted to rejoin Russia for a better life rather than continue as part of a corrupt Ukraine whose inept and unelected leader ( supported by a meddling US) stupidly threatened to deny Russian speaking citizens the right to use their language. The south eastern region of Ukraine is made up of 8.3 million Russian speaking citizens, amounting to 33% of Ukraine's population. If the Canadian Prime Minister decided to deny French Canadians the right to their language it is unlikely that the country would survive. This is the situation in Ukraine. By Crimeans voluntarily deciding to break away from Ukraine it rekindled the cause of NATO's old warriors who have viewed the Ukraine as their battle ground for placing missiles  pointing at  Russia's along its borders. They found their justification to bring back the Cold War.  The usual robotic response of Europe's NATO members was to accept American direction to apply sanctions and more sanctions and the fracking industry has found a justification for polluting the environment to produce this highly expensive gas to replace cheaper gas from those evil Russians.  Happily this is falling apart as German business barons are aggressively objecting  to any breakdown in their growing commercial ties with Russia. Also good news in Crimea when MacDonald halted their operations Burger King immediately announced they would take over, so the silly season is  breaking down.
 Helmut Schmidt, the much respected ex chancellor of Germany has commented that Russia's actions in Crimea are completely understandable and the idea of sanctions "a stupid idea" The BRICS group (Chinese, Indian, Brazilian,South Korean) take the same position supporting Russia, so NATO's American "Old Warriors" and their servants in Europe's members of NATO face quite a head wind. What we have here is a very large and obsolete institution  in search of a mission and unable to change course. With Russia, its targeted enemy a nuclear power, NATO is impotent and floundering.

The West is broke so all they can offer the Ukraine is the arrival of the IMF who as in Greece, Portugal and formerly in Yeltsin's Russia, undertook IMF programs of propping up banks while implementing severe austerity programs to pay for it. The end result is a lowered standard of living, the country faced with selling off its heritage and assets to the highest bidder to pay off the bankers and the emergence of carpet baggers who become a wealthy oligarchy. Putin brought this to an end in Russia and brought the nation out of poverty. He has also subsidized the Ukraine, offered additional funding as an alternative to the West's cashless IMF program and approached the EU to sit down and discuss it.  But NATO members cannot consider talking to the enemy although cracks are showing.

The Trouble Maker - Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs

 Contributing to chaos in Ukraine and irritating Russia along its borders seems to be its only course of action for NATO and this is  being assisted by the notorious Victoria Nuland,, (of "Fuck Europe" fame), who claims that the US has invested 5 billion dollars meddling in the Ukraine. Ms Nuland's specialty is 'Regime Change'. Her husband is historian Robert Kagan, Council on Foreign Relations member, and co-founders of the think-tank "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). The PNAC called for, among other things, regime change in Iraq and a strategy for securing America's global control.
As Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2005 and later as U.S. Ambassador to NATO from July 2005 to May 2008, Victoria Nuland previously held important insider roles during Washington’s decisions to invade Iraq, occupy the country and later increase the number of American troops during the “Surge” of 2007.

Victoria Nuland's 'Regime Change'  objectives in Ukraine and now in Venezuela are consistent with realizing PNAC objectives. Founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan (her husband). The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) stated goal is "to promote American global leadership." In other words world dominance or global hegemony.

A leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt clearly reveals their meddling in governing issues in Kiev. The EU and US have carried out a classic coup d'état in Ukraine using ultra-right forces as human resources that includes anti-Semites, Nazi movements, and racial purists. What's the objective in all this? Clearly the setting up of an American/EU puppet leader and the arrival of NATO as a bayonet pointing to Russia. Understandably Putin's response has been to place a strong military presence on its border. Its a Mexican Standoff. Putin defused Nuland's attempt to initiate regime change in Syria by negotiating the destruction of all chemical weapons. She is angry and is using regime change through Kiev to get back at him.

Where do we go from Here?

NATO can't offer a solution; it's the core problem by thinking of nations as friends and enemies. Its also largely financed and driven by US leadership (75% of its military budget). Since WWII US leadership hasn't performed very well; defeated in Vietnam, destroyed Iraq, entangled in Afghanistan, messed up Libya, currently confused in Syria and propping up and forming alliances with right wing and backward governments like Saudi Arabia who finance radical movements throughout the Middle East.
Where do we go from here and what do we stand for? I really don't know. I just know that NATO is obsolete and a dangerous communications barrier that no longer needs to exist.  All nations need alliances but not through NATO's monolith .

I would like  to hear the comments of anyone who has taken the time to read this.