The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.
source: The Anti-Empire Report
Louis XVI needed a revolution, Napoleon needed two historic military defeats, the Spanish Empire in the New World needed multiple revolutions, the Russian Czar needed a communist revolution, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires needed World War I, Nazi Germany needed World War II, Imperial Japan needed two atomic bombs, the Portuguese Empire in Africa needed a military coup at home, the Soviet Empire needed Mikhail Gorbachev … What will the American Empire need?
“I don’t believe anyone will consciously launch World War III. The situation now is more like the eve of World War I, when great powers were armed and ready to go when an incident set things off. Ever since Gorbachev naively ended the Cold War, the hugely over-armed United States has been actively surrounding Russia with weapons systems, aggressive military exercises, NATO expansion. At the same time, in recent years the demonization of Vladimir Putin has reached war propaganda levels. Russians have every reason to believe that the United States is preparing for war against them, and are certain to take defensive measures. This mixture of excessive military preparations and propaganda against an “evil enemy” make it very easy for some trivial incident to blow it all up.” – Diana Johnstone, author of “Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton”
In September 2013 President Obama stood before the United Nations General Assembly and declared, “I believe America is exceptional.” The following year at the UN, the president classified Russia as one of the three threats to the world along with the Islamic State and the ebola virus. On March 9, 2015 President Barack Obama declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”.
Vladimir Putin, speaking at the UN in 2015, addressing the United States re its foreign policy: “Do you realize what you have done?”
Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:
- Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
- Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
- Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
- Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
- Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.*
- Plus … although not easily quantified … has been more involved in the practice of torture than any other country in the world … for over a century … not just performing the actual torture, but teaching it, providing the manuals, and furnishing the equipment.
*See chapter 18 of William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
On October 28, 2016 Russia was voted off the UN Human Rights Council. At the same time Saudi Arabia won a second term, uncontested. Does anyone know George Orwell’s email address?
A million refugee from Washington’s warfare are currently over-running Europe. They’re running from Afghanistan and Iraq; from Libya and Somalia; from Syria and Pakistan.
Germany is taking in many Syrian refugees because of its World War Two guilt. What will the United States do in the future because of its guilt? But Americans are not raised to feel such guilt.
Continue reading A Collection Of Thoughts About American Foreign Policy, by William Blum
Source: Fort Russ
The mountain of lies grows exponentially as the declining Empire moves heaven and Earth to launch as many wars as possible in line with its “strategic” hubris.
We read the lies every day in almost all publications in the Western sphere of influence. These lies then are repeated by talk show hosts, jokes cracked, columns written by hacks and even courses taught on “Putin’s Wars”. Then your colleague at work or neighbours regurgitates the lies in an effort to talk politics. Its quite frustrating an experience, watching grown men and women utter such drivel with a straight face.
According to programmer Alberto Brandolini, “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
What people often forget,are unaware off or, as is the modus operandi of Western “media”, never told is that this type of “reporting” is ‘Propaganda for War. This was and remains to be a war crime, in fact the Nuremberg trials has Goebbels’s staff in the dock for it.
The below – meticulously documented – piece by Joaquin Flores is crucial in understanding how this form of propaganda works. Please share widely.
In a rare western interview of the leader of the Donetsk Republic, Zakharchenko was given ‘the full treatment’ by Bloomberg. In doing so, they indeed may have violated international law, and committed crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.
Today’s article in the US publication was indeed particularly instructive. It tells us how the US and the European Atlanticists will try to spin the actual Ukrainian violations of the Minsk II Agreement and ceasefire. The US and its direct and proxy agents working in the ostensibly ‘private/independent’ (but de facto state controlled) media are creating the pretext to use the UN Security Council resolution which enshrines the Minsk II Agreement against those which it favors; against those whose battlefield victories made it possible. Barring that, at the very least they are breeding an internal climate and setting the national discourse to justify things which are in violation of international law.
Western media is going to do it by twisting Zakharchenko’s words to fit a tremendous lie. Specifically they will do this by taking what he said out of context and then inserting them into a fictional context of western media invention.
As things unfold, we will no doubt hear that ‘Zakharchenko himself’ said that he intended to break the ceasefire all along.
If you do not mind being insulted or enraged by what passes for news, analysis, or commentary in the west, then we suggest you have a read for yourself : “Gunfire in Donetsk as Rebel Leader Refuses Ukrainian Unity”.
In this review, we will highlight some of the most dangerously misleading and dishonest parts of the Bloomberg article. Insofar as these are used to encourage the US public to support the US government in increasing its illegal wars in the world, these are war crimes as understood by the precedent established at Nuremburg and subsequent prosecutions by the ICJ in The Hague in decades that followed.
Naturally, according to the theory of ‘trickle down hubris’, even the flies yelling ‘charge’ whilst sitting on the chariot wheel of history, such as the article’s author Stefan Kravchenko, embody the imperial arrogance which originates at the very top. It may escape these criminals, big and small, that what they peddle is no different than what Julius Streicher was hung for.
Yes, the convictions at Nuremberg were not just those in the military command, or policy making – but also in media. We must remember Streicher, like Joseph Goebbels – only wrote words. They only created a discourse which justified aggressive wars of conquest.
American media bosses clearly believe they are on the winning side of history, arrogantly assuming they will never be made to account for their documented crimes.
With US power now in decline, we are fast approaching a time when various US statesmen and media tycoons will have to face trial similar to Nuremberg, under the watch of the international community. That will be an important time for truth and reconciliation.
The Minsk II Agreement came at a time when thousands of innocents were being killed by UAF forces, and was later backed by a UN Security Council resolution. Working to undermine this UN enshrined agreement for peace is clearly a crime against humanity and a crime against peace, which are war crimes. In this context we can see what is in fact the most optimal end-game scenario for those in media who are guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, possibly inclduing Kravchenko and his employer, Bloomberg.
Understanding how US media conducts its propaganda is very important. One of the primary methods is the destruction of the English language. Grammar and words are very important, as these define specific concepts. When words and grammar are butchered, the very concepts and thoughts which these represent are also destroyed.
Additionally, when critical context is subtracted, the impoverished result is a form of language which lowers the cognitive capacity of the reader. It makes us stupid.
Certainly since at least last weekend, we have seen a real uptick in the reports of clashes. Around Donetsk Airport, there have been many hundreds wounded on the UAF side, according to DPR reports. Not only are some of these clashes reported to have occurred between the various forces fighting for the Kiev Junta and the revolutionaries in the Donbass, but also between the various groups of the Kiev Junta. Indeed, the UAF is confirmed to have had a few serious skirmishes with the OUN in the last week alone.
For Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign policy, if we study it on the long term, includes several constants. First, the desire to find a national identity and to integrate the European concert; then the desire to establish common rules —international law— to which each state will comply, so that peace may reign.
International relations have entered a very difficult period, and Russia once again finds itself at the crossroads of key trends that determine the vector of future global development.
Many different opinions have been expressed in this connection including the fear that we have a distorted view of the international situation and Russia’s international standing. I perceive this as an echo of the eternal dispute between pro-Western liberals and the advocates of Russia’s unique path. There are also those, both in Russia and outside of it, who believe that Russia is doomed to drag behind, trying to catch up with the West and forced to bend to other players’ rules, and hence will be unable to claim its rightful place in international affairs. I’d like to use this opportunity to express some of my views and to back them with examples from history and historical parallels.
It is an established fact that a substantiated policy is impossible without reliance on history. This reference to history is absolutely justified, especially considering recent celebrations. In 2015, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Victory in WWII, and in 2014, we marked a century since the start of WWI. In 2012, we marked 200 years of the Battle of Borodino and 400 years of Moscow’s liberation from the Polish invaders. If we look at these events carefully, we’ll see that they clearly point to Russia’s special role in European and global history.
History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France. Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.
Sam offers below a fresh perspective on how there could still be hope left in the most unlikeliest of places, the police state of America.
After all, the country still claims to be a democracy so why not call it out on that? At the very least it advances the debate beyond the goebbelsesque headlines being pumped out of the “media”. The establishment has always fed off hate at every turn and the common man is manipulated,isolated and disenfranchised.
300+ million Americans are being “informed” by 6 media companies on what they should eat,drink,write,think,see,accept,vote and well you get the picture. Anything that leads to a distortion in a false reality – which promotes endless war – is positive.
Sam has done a great job at bringing a viable solution to the table, check out his excellent initiative at votepact.org
The establishment so wants everyone else to unfriend Trump supporters on Facebook. There’s even an app to block them. That’ll teach them!
Yes, Trump plays a bully boy and is appealing to populist (good), nativist, xenophobic, and racist sentiments (bad).
Those things need to be meaningfully addressed and engaged, not for self-styled sophisticates to raise their noses, dismissing them.
But focusing only on the negative aspects of Trump’s campaign has blinded people to the good — and I don’t mean good like, oh, the Democrat can beat this guy. I mean good like it’s good that some of these issues are finally getting aired.
Trump appeals to nativist sentiments, but those same sentiments are skeptical of the militarized role of the U.S. in the world — as was the case during Pat Buchanan’s 1992 campaign.
The New York Times recently purported to grade the veracity of presidential candidates. Of course by their accounting, Trump was off the scales lying. But he recently said the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State “killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity….The Middle East is a total disaster under her.” Now, I think that’s pretty accurate, though U.S. policy in my view may be more Machiavellian than stupid, but the remark is a breath of fresh air on the national stage.
But I’ve not seen anyone fact-check that assertion, because that’s not an argument much of establishment media wants to debate. Of course, a few sentences later Trump talks about the attack on the CIA station in Benghazi, causing Salon to dismiss him as embracing “conspiracies,” which is likely all many people hear.
Shouldn’t someone who at times articulates truly inconvenient truths be noted as breaking politically correct taboos? Trump says such truths, such as this nugget from the Las Vegas debate about U.S. wars:
“We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.”
This I think is a stronger critique of military spending than we’ve heard from Bernie Sanders of late.
At the opportunity of the Sea Breeze naval exercise, vice-admiral James Foggo, commanding officer of the USA Sixth Fleet, declared on September 2 that the USA will tend to maintain a presence as permanent as possible in the Black Sea, which the US naval magazine Navy Times calls, nicely enough, “to wave its flag at Russia’s front door”.
It is actually a provocation.
The USA have been running yearly joint maneuvers with the Ukraine for years, without so far considering a permanent presence. Last year they have been reminded the existence of the Montreux Convention. And on the other hand they realised the vulnerability of their navy, first thanks to the Russian Sukhoï 24 that really blinded, desarmed and paralysed the Donald Cook in the very Black Sea (april 2014), and then thanks to the French attack submarine Saphir which virtually (during an exercise) destroyed half of the naval group of the Theodore Roosevelt, included that aircraft carrier just recently modernised, in Florida (february 2015); without any budgetary constraint, the USA do equip their armed forces with their best technology, but their technology is not the most advanced. These two warnings, therefore, could have incited them to a lower profile on global seas, but it seems that tactical superiority (the ability to win a confrontation) doesn’t interest them as much as the assertion of their omnipresence, at sea as well as on land where, for example, they violate every day the Minsk agreements prohibiting the presence of foreign troops in ex-Ukraine (in Malorussia as well as in Novorussia).
Therefore, the intention of a permanent US presence in the Black Sea must be considered as a new and determined policy. The USA may have not signed the Montreux Convention, but they accept it while crossing the Straits, since it was conceived, by the Black Sea bordering countries, as the condition for the opening of this sea to non-bordering countries who don’t have anything do do there since it is a locked sea and not a passing way like the Malacca strait or the English Channel. They are not totally right when pretending that these are international waters where transit is free, since they are multinational waters opened to non-bordering states under certain conditions. The Black Sea is not a navigation corridor, even if the Montreux Convention makes a favour to commercial fleets, that only underlines the specific regime of military vessels, which are precisely the ones that the USA, not geographically prone to Bulgaro-Romanian commerce, intend to deploy permanently… and if the bordering countries were to offer them an exception to the Convention, the next US step would, with no doubt, be the Azov sea, “international” since it is bordered by Russia and the ex-Ukrainian Malorussia (and now Novorussia too).
Indeed the USA are putting their allies in a difficult position, on one hand Turkey which is obliged, by the Convention, to control the straits (otherwise they would not have been left to Turkey), and on the other hand France which is obliged, by the same Convention, to warn all bordering countries in case a non-bordering power infringes the text, that is, either lets a military vessel for more than 21 days, or introduces (what Turkey is supposed to prevent) a total tonnage above 30000 tonnes.
Since the USA, who already violated this rule last year, are now announcing their intention of a permanent installation, although they know that their fleet is vulnerable and that this announcement puts their allies in a difficult position, it can only be a provocation, like all the ones seen for already a year and a half in Europe, as for example the multiplication of aerial missions likely to provoke incidents.
If the systematic disregard of the Montreux Convention by the USA was to become permanent, and if the partners of Russia were to refuse to play their role in the application of the Convention, it would be difficult not to see there a direct provocation and, in the current state of declared war, an invitation to Russia to adopt the Just Cause solution applied by the USA to the Panama Canal in 1989.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.