Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 23, 2014

George F. Kennan's Prediction On NATO Expansion Was Right

After the U.S./EU/NATO supported coup in Kiev Russia took steps to secure its vital seaport at Sevastopol on the Crimea. With their plans to use Sevastopol for themselves and to thereby blockade Russia from influence in the Mediterranean stopped by the Russian move various reactionaries immediately demand an expansion of NATO to somehow stop further "Russian aggression":

[T]he US should work with its allies in NATO to build consensus for an immediate announcement by the alliance that NATO membership will be extended to Montenegro and Macedonia and make the commitment to a Membership Action Plan for Georgia at the NATO summit in Cardiff.

These people invert cause and effect. Russia reacted like it did because of NATO's expansion since the late 1990. Such a reaction was utterly foreseeable and was foreseen when the very first NATO expansion towards the East happened.

George Kennan was the U.S. diplomat and Russia specialist who developed the cold war strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, though he later criticized its militaristic implementation. In 1998, when the Senate voted to extend NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Kennan was asked to comment. He responded:

"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever."
"It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong."

NATO expansion and the putsch in Kiev are, as Kennan predicted, the reason that Russia acts as decisive as it does. A harsh Russian reaction because of NATO extension is NOT a good reason to extend NATO further. The Russian (and Chinese) reaction to that would likely be even harsher. No one serious should wish back the times when nuclear war often looked imminent. Luckily neither the public in the U.S. nor in the EU is willing to go that way.

Posted by b on March 23, 2014 at 17:12 UTC | Permalink

next page »

What the public wants is irrelevant. That is what happens when you live in a pretend "democracy".

Posted by: par4 | Mar 23 2014 17:45 utc | 1

@ #1: Yep!

The whole point of NATO's expansion was to encircle Russia. Like any Corporately run society, they will not tolerate any form of competition. Business ueber alles, ya' know.

Posted by: ben | Mar 23 2014 17:56 utc | 2

Americans need to be reminded that Bill Clinton cold lied to Boris Yeltsin about NATO expansion plans, before they give Hillary the presidential nomination in 2016.

Posted by: Jon Lester | Mar 23 2014 17:58 utc | 3

Here's a presentation by Morris Berman that confirms Mr. P's and others take on US society and culture: "Why America Failed"

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 23 2014 18:19 utc | 4

And a third "I second that" #1. Across the board, at home and abroad, on every major issue public opinion means nothing or next to nothing.

Posted by: Colinjames | Mar 23 2014 18:23 utc | 5

Yep. It is obvious that Russia got provoked.

Public opinion counts. If they want to go to war they need people who actually do it.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 18:36 utc | 6

While I understand b's position - which evidently is right - I suggest to move away from MoAs strongly zusa centric perspective. Because it's increasingly, and increasingly obviously, irrelevant.

What we learn here (in this blog article) is that there actually are some very few zamericans with a brain and the capability to use it, and that the zusa policy shapers and makers reliably don't care batshit about the few intelligent and knowledgable people it has.
Well, the value of that lesson is roughly equal to the value of opening yet other faucet to experience that water consistently shows a tendency to flow downward.

Well noted, my anger is not directed against b, it's directed at the wide spread disease to continue acting as if zusas perspective (if one wants to overly generously call it that) were of any not insignificant relevance or even just capability to surprise.

So, Russia didn't calmly and passively watch the attempt to prepare a zato extension (I don't mention the attempted attack on Sevastopol because it's anyway completely misunderstood). OF COURSE Russia won't stand by idly if zato tries to grab ukraine anyway.

Anything new? Maybe some tasty crumbs for the muppet animal?

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 23 2014 18:44 utc | 7

Seemingly if we all agree, this was a neocon move to isolate Russia as they are not happy with the status quo and want to challenge Putin to put pressure on him in other parts of the world, mainly in the Middle East which is a neocon darling.
I assume we also agree, Obama wasn't exactly in on the plans or was deceived and has a rogue state department that took the initiative led by nulan likely with kagan persuasion.
One thing that puzzled me still, what is Canada's motivation in this mess. Canada's fm john Baird was also in ikraine encouraging the demos and now Canada is taking a frontal row to show support for the nazis in Ukraine and pushing for Putin punishment. What the hell is Canada up to and what is their stake in this mess. Any ideas?

Posted by: ana souri | Mar 23 2014 18:55 utc | 8

"A harsh Russian reaction because of NATO extension is NOT a good reason to extend NATO further."

Harsh? Why use the western media hyped propaganda in describing their response? The Russian reaction to the coup in the Ukraine, and the accompanying western provocations, and hysteria has been extremely mild. So mild, in fact, it's driving the western leaders and media completely bonkers. They are working so hard to get the Russians to actually do something harsh, that what they've been saying looks like the ravings of total lunatics to those standing outside their fantasy world. Those photos of Powers bloviating while the people in the back are laughing and Churkin just looks at her like she stark raving mad, is a case in point.

There isn't going to be a harsh response from Russia. Expect well thought out counter moves that will use the west's negative energy against it.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 23 2014 18:56 utc | 9

I assume we also agree, Obama wasn't exactly in on the plans or was deceived and has a rogue state department that took the initiative led by nulan likely with kagan persuasion.

Et voila. Here we are in yet another completely irrelevant reflection. Who cares, it's zusa centric and so it must be important ...

One thing that puzzled me still, what is Canada's motivation in this mess.

Absolutely. Urgently.

In fact, even more puzzling is Mrs. Blooms (blaroad 17, right behind the birch tree in somecity, anystate) decision to prepare pork for diner rather than the expected beef. Sure enough this warrants a considerable amount of reflection!

(And I'm not even mentioning her dog who looked in a strange way)

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 23 2014 19:02 utc | 10

ana souri #8

Canada's PM Harper is a (very greedy and not very bright) Christian Zionist. Google an image or two of the Alberta Tar Sands to see what he will do to the environment and, oh yes, the people living there -- and then wonder what his bank accounts really look like.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 19:04 utc | 11

scalawag #9

But calling Putin's very measured and well-thought-out response "harsh" or "aggressive", etc., is doing what Karl Rove did to innoculate Dubya against any criticism: claim whoever might criticize you is doing what you are, and try to get it out there before they do. After all, truth or facts don't matter, we're Americans and therefore always right. It worked quite well for years against the Dems -- but Putin is smarter, more savvy and, thank God, not bound to "The American Way".

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 19:11 utc | 12

@#1(par4), #2(ben) and #6(somebody);

I think there is a confusion here about what people like 'b' mean when they say:

" the public in the U.S. nor in the EU is [NOT] willing to go that way"

What they mean is NOT that we are living in a "democracy" where state is ruled by the true representatives of people for the people according to the wishes of the people. So when they talk about "public opinion" and its significance they don't mean that the "representatives" of people in the congress will act according to public's wishes. What they mean is that people's opinion count as they would start to struggle against ruling elite. It will be harder and harder to keep people pacified as you go more and more blatantly against their collective opinion and make military expenses against their wishes while their life standards deteriorate on yearly basis. The power of people and the potential of people to act collectively to exert that power is a force to reckon with and be mindful of!

At least this is what I understand them to mean.

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Mar 23 2014 19:14 utc | 13

Mr. Pragma: Thanks for mentioning Alexander Dugin in the other thread. I didn't know about him. So that's where many of Putin's ideas come from!

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 19:15 utc | 14

From Interview with Alexander Dugin:

Russia is a great power where there is an acute awareness of what is going on in the world, historically speaking, and a deep consciousness of its own eschatological mission. Therefore it is only natural that Russia should play a central part in this anti-status quo coalition. Russia defended its identity against Catholicism, Protestantism and the modern West during Tsarist times, and then against liberal capitalism during Soviet times. Now there is a third wave of this struggle – the struggle against postmodernity, ultra-liberalism, and globalization.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 19:23 utc | 15

TomGuard is Zionist hasbara and the proof is his last comment on the Kagan thread in response to my earlier post.

somebody - same
thomas - same
rememberinggiap - same
fairleft - same

It's time to challenge their duplicity.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 23 2014 19:32 utc | 16

Actually, it's the "Empire of Slavery" thread.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 23 2014 19:35 utc | 17


You are welcome. I want to remark though that it's (almost certainly) not the vase that "Putins ideas come from Prof. Dugin".
Sure enough, Putin being brilliant himself, has recognized that Prof. Dugins thoughts are definitely worth to be looked at and the fact is profoundly loyal to Russia heave certainly supported that but it's by no means as simple as "Dugin thinks, Putin takes it and acts".

It should also be noted that Prof. Dugins thoughts are rather abstract (after all, he is a scientist) and naturally related to a certain (albeit very important) perspective, but Dugin - reasonably and wisely - offers no concrete policy "recipes".

If at all it's, at least for the most part, the other way round, i.e. not Putin follows Dugins lead but rather Dugin includes Putins actions, thoughts, and concepts in his analysis.

But yes, seen from an outside perspective desiring to understand Putin, Prof. Dugin is one of the most interesting thinkers around.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 23 2014 19:37 utc | 18

13) I don't know what b. means. But for Angela Merkel to go against what Germans think has the potential of huge setbacks for her party
There is a new anti European party in Germany whose constituency is conservative. They have come out in support of Putin. If Angela Merkel continues to alienate her voters (and German business) under US pressure, this will break up her constituency.
What Angela Merkel is saying publicly almost certainly is not what she is saying on the phone to Putin, Obama, Cameron or Hollande and is almost certainly not what she is thinking herself.

Military war with Russia is no option. The only option is a trade war, and it is not in Europe's interest - and that includes European elites - to get rid of a cheap gas supplier who imports European goods.

It is possible to bribe and blackmail politicians, however I would be very surprised if the US could make a whole continent go against its interest.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 19:41 utc | 19

@somebody #19:

The very fact that NATO continued to exist after the breakup of the USSR shows that the US can make a whole continent go against its interest.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 19:45 utc | 20

NATO didn't just "continue to exist" after the USSR broke apart, it expanded exponentially, thanks to Bill Clinton, once a good ole boy, now an oligarch. Anyone, anywhere, have any doubt what his wife will do?

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 19:55 utc | 21

Seemingly if we all agree, this was a neocon move to isolate Russia as they are not happy with the status quo and want to challenge Putin to put pressure on him in other parts of the world, mainly in the Middle East which is a neocon darling.

I don't agree there was an exclusively neocon push for this.

I assume we also agree, Obama wasn't exactly in on the plans or was deceived and has a rogue state department that took the initiative led by nulan likely with kagan persuasion.

I don't assume this. Obama chose Nuland and other neocons to be part of his team. And as others have already repeatedly mentioned, don't forget Zbigniew Brzezinski's desire to isolate Russia, as well as Obama's history of playing at new cold war in other cases. Nor do I think Obama has demonstrated any moral compunction about who the U.S. partners with to achieve foreign policy goals (see the use in Libya of the sort of Islamists Obama might otherwise reserve the right to kill with drones). I could see him possibly objecting to things not being handled with as much subtlety and deniability as he would prefer.

One thing that puzzled me still, what is Canada's motivation in this mess.

Canada's government looks pretty Zionist owned to me.

Posted by: RudyM | Mar 23 2014 19:58 utc | 22

The only two prominent Republicans who advocated dismantling of NATO are Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
Don't trust Rand, who has betrayed his dad's legacy.

ana souri

Obama, IDF Rahm's boy, wasn't in on it? He appointed Nuland. Oh well, maybe he believes he can mellow out
Zionist Jewish supremacist neocons because a generation ago they were touting affirmative action.

Posted by: amspirnational | Mar 23 2014 20:01 utc | 23

#23 Yup. Affirmative Action until all quotas against Jews were dismantled. (Yes, they were there and yes, they were nasty -- and still are, for all sorts of other people.) I.e., the fairly substantial Jewish voice for Civil Rights got real quiet once academia and various neighborhoods and professions no longer limited their entry.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 20:21 utc | 24

Excellent intro to Dugin-thought

He's wrong about Communism. Thinks it's been tried and found lacking. But it sounds a lot like his 4th Way, which questions everything, and is only just fledging.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 23 2014 20:27 utc | 25

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23, 2014 3:45:23 PM | 20

Why should NATO be against European interest?

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 20:37 utc | 26

@#8 Ana, you’ll see Canada “boasts” the world's third-largest Ukrainian population behind Ukraine itself and Russia. (I don’t know where that leaves Kazakhstan) but what matters is that it explains what puzzles you: Canadian Ukrainian are many (over a million) and are influential. Canada was one of the first countries to recognize Ukraine’s independence and it has recognized the Holomodor too… and most of those who chose Canada were anti-Russia.

In short don’t be surprised! Canada is also an excellent friend of Israel and has many other special relations which can all be explained.

Posted by: emmanuelle | Mar 23 2014 20:46 utc | 27

French national front doing very well in municipal elections.

They are pro Putin and anti Europe, amongst more nasty things.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 20:53 utc | 28

Re: Mr. Pragma @7 and @10
There is value in pointing out the lies and propaganda. The US and NATO cannot be allowed to create their own reality unchallenged, there must be a counter-narrative. For most people in the West would not support the aggression of the US and NATO if they only were able to get the facts instead of propaganda.

Posted by: ess emm | Mar 23 2014 20:55 utc | 29


NATO is the means of the US colonization of Europe. Do you think it's good for a society to be colonized?

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 20:57 utc | 30


I wouldn't be surprised if a greater proportion of Canadian Ukrainians are anti-Russian (and hence support a violent coup instead of thinking that the opposition should have just waited for the elections) than Ukrainians in Ukraine. Immigrants often become nationalistic regarding their country of origin as a way of preserving their identity.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 21:02 utc | 31

Canadian Ukrainians - here we go.
Stepan Bandera - the galician SS-Division -
defeated by Russians - relocated to Slovenia/Austria -
surrendered to the Brits - and over to Canada.
Nice gift!

Posted by: slirs | Mar 23 2014 21:05 utc | 32

I agree. Putin and Russia should annex Germany and MOA. Home at last. Home at last.

Afterall, the big reason for the Iron Curtain was to act as a bulwark/buffer against the aggressions of Germany. A new Iron Curtain should include the entirety of Germany this time, not just half. Merkel better learn fast how to iron, wash dishes and make Borscht.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Mar 23 2014 21:08 utc | 33

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23, 2014 4:57:00 PM | 30

Standard of living in Germany for the average person is probably better than in the US. The school system is quite good and free, including free university, health care is guaranteed.

We have the NSA spying on us but so do Americans.

What do you mean by colony?

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 21:30 utc | 34

slirs | Mar 23, 2014 5:05:31 PM | 32

Yep after WWII the surviving Ukrainian fascists fled west and then transformed themselves into democracy loving anticommunist freedom fighters. They immigrated to the Great Lakes region, most in the US but many in Canada. They have kept the cause of Ukrainian nationalism burning brightly ever since.

A similar migration of Croatian fascists occurred about the same time. Those US communities played a role in the break up of Yugoslavia and urging Clinton to bomb Serbia into submission.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 23 2014 21:41 utc | 35


You are aware that Germany is riddled with US bases, aren't you? That means it's still an occupied country.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 21:44 utc | 36

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23, 2014 5:44:49 PM | 36

Actually, I haven't met a US soldier for a long time now. They are busy elsewhere. But yes, there are still US installations here, as presumably British and French ones, just the Russians lost interest and left for good.

These installations are indistinguishable from NATO, though, and Germany is part of NATO.

Is Germany in a less souvereign position than France or Britain with their own nuclear power, but also members of NATO? I doubt that.

I also doubt the US could force a policy on Europe against Europe's interests. They tried to in the run up of the Iraq war, and of course, though Germany said no, its bases were used and the US got all kinds of help, but no German soldier took part in that war.

You haven't answered my question why being part of NATO should not be in Europe's interest. It is cheap security.

There just is not anything to rob in Europe. Occupation does not make sense.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 22:10 utc | 37

@ 33, the cold war and post (Soviet) cold war periods were an aberration in European history. Before that, Western Europe somehow managed to exist with a very large Czarist Russia. Granted, not always peacefully, but then again nowhere was particularly peaceful at that time. Also note that Russia suffered a number of invasions from the west. I don't recall any invasions of the west by Russia.

It is a fairly recent development where it was thought that Western Europe could only survive with US protection. It will become clear in time that this is not the case at all. That Russia could not plausibly intend to invade western Europe, or even Poland, for that matter, and simply has no reason to even want to. But of for some very odd reason it did, then Germany, France, etc. have the capacity for collective self defense without any US assistance at all.

So perhaps you should stop worrying and let Europe sort itself out as it has for the past thousand years.

Lastly, NATO is a fiction that gives the former Warsaw pact and FSU countries a very false sense of security. But As I often tell friends from there: if you really believe for an instant that the US will absorb a nuclear strike for the sake of Warsaw or Vilnius or wherever, you had better WAKE THE FUCK UP. Because it wont. Thinking otherwise only encourages these countries to antagonize Russia under the false umbrella of US protection. When it really starts raining, that umbrella simply wont be their.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23 2014 22:12 utc | 38

I also doubt the US could force a policy on Europe against Europe's interests.

Well, if ukraine happens to be in Europe then you are obviously mistaken.

As for zato = cheap security, security from whom or what? Mongolia attacking France? Iceland invading Germany?

About the only one starting war after war is zato.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 23 2014 22:15 utc | 39


Exactly. With NATO and the US gone from Europe, European countries would be just as secure, and Europe will be more stable. The reason a European country was destabalized and its elected government overthrown in a violent fascist coup was to expand NATO. No NATO = greater European stability.

European countries would not have to increase their defense spending if NATO is dissolved, since they face no security threat other than the US.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 22:21 utc | 40

It's just astounding how hard it is to find this kind of simple, honest analysis in US media.

A little sanity -- that's all we're asking for. Can we get it? No.

Posted by: gemini333 | Mar 23 2014 22:23 utc | 41


What Lysander said.

Also, Mr. P, left a comment for you on the old thread.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 22:28 utc | 42

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23, 2014 6:12:53 PM | 38

Frankly, what NATO seems to have done is protect Western Europe from each other. There used to be regular war between Britain, Germany and France.

Russia never threatened Western Europe but got invaded by Western Europeans on a fairly regular basis. Though Putin threatens to protect Russians and Russian speakers whereever they are, we are probably safe.

Today's wars are run in a completely different way anyway, by color revolution protests and by arming extremists/by snipers/ by car bombs/by special forces in unmarked uniforms.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 22:30 utc | 43

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23, 2014 6:21:51 PM | 40

The threat assessment is certainly business driven.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 22:39 utc | 44

Back to Kennan. I was at a reception in Moscow given in his honour by the Soviet government in 1987. It was quite a do, and showed how much they respected the man, who in many ways had caused them a lot of trouble. He seemed very old and frail, and quite frankly I'm surprised he lived long enough to comment on NATO's expansion. He knew Russia, which is a lot more than one can say for many of his successors, though Matlock was pretty good.

As to the obsession with the US, a lot of us here are or were (in my case) US citizens, and still care for the country, which has millions of decent people who don't deserve what they are getting or not getting from their government. The other thing is that we are witnessing a turning point in world history as the US fantasy of full spectrum dominance gets destroyed by the facts. This is a wrenching reality for the elite, and it will take some time for them to move from denial to (hopefully) acceptance. As you know, anger and rage are intermediate steps, and they are the dangerous ones. All we can do is watch and talk, and hope someone is listening.

Posted by: Knut | Mar 23 2014 22:39 utc | 45

On "Global [TV] News" moments ago: Re: Canadian P.M. Harper et al in Ukraine/G7 exact or very close paraphrase: "...the hot topic will be how to put the squeeze on Russia...." ...Discourage countries like Russia from bullying others ...." "... A new response from the world would be to [banish the Russian ogre from the G8]" And a placard waving hostile to Russia crowd, cold looking, mostly older looking, presumably mostly Ukrainian Canadians.

Harper was previously momentarily infamous, while not yet P.M., for a berserk but politically savvy call for Canada to take an active role in making war on Iraq in 2003. He has recently gained some standing among Canadian hockey book circles for his book A Great Game. His plucky immediate support for the Ukrainian Putsch and long years spent concentrating on hockey lore in his spare time will surely reap him some considerable segment of the Ukrainian and the Hockey Night in Canada vote in the next federal election.

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Mar 23 2014 22:41 utc | 46

Lord Ismay, Restated

The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". [...]

The purpose of NATO is to attract the Russians Westward away from reactionary Slavophile tendencies...

Yeah, NATO has really attracted the Russians to the West.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 22:41 utc | 47

@ 43, I'd like to think that Europe has matured and is not made up of a bunch of squabbling school children in need of an adult from the other side of the Atlantic. At any rate, I imagine that in an era where every country in Europe either has nuclear weapons or can produce them in short order, a major war would be unthinkable with or without NATO. (Smaller wars of secession are still possible)

Also, if NATO is acting as the big boy, then what is the benefit of eastern expansion? How is it in Germany's interest to be obligated to go to war against Russia on behalf of Estonia? Do you believe that when push comes to shove, that Germany is prepared to do that? If not, is it not more ethical to inform Estonia of that fact now, so that they might conduct their policies accordingly? Is it not unethical to lead them to believe they have US/French/German back up, when in fact they don't?

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23 2014 22:46 utc | 48

As an American, I do criticize my fellow Americans, Knut. They're lazy, complacent, too willingly led, easily distracted by just about anything and tragically unwilling to question a word of what they've been spoon-fed. We've also lived high off the hog at the expense of millions of people both here and abroad. I don't like what's coming, but we absolutely deserve it.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 22:46 utc | 49

Open Letter to President Obama: Secure Ukraine, Isolate Russia, and Strengthen NATO

The list of signatories is a pretty comprehensive list of neocons.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 22:51 utc | 50

@ Knut 45,

"was a US citizen?" Have you expatriated? If so, to which country, if you don't mind my asking? Apologies if you'd rather not discuss it.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23 2014 22:51 utc | 51

@ 50 Demian Thanks for the link. I notice a dearth of retired military in that list. Perhaps they know better.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23 2014 22:54 utc | 52


Well that was said at a time when zamerica actually *was* a superpower, albeit one with next to no culture.

Reading what zamericans say today I can't but consider them arrogant and completely self-delusional retards.
Yes, they remote control Germany, a low ranking colony, and zuk because zuk seems to somehow like to live in zusas ass. But Russia? What ridiculous retards.

And btw. I just read that the "right wing" Le Pen people increased their weight by about 7 times! In some cities they are even the strongest party now. Similar development are to be expected in other European countries.
When my partner (German) heard it she said sth. like "I hate the nazis but if that is the only way to get rid of the zeu plague I'll vote for them".

Pretty much everywhere in Europe people are in financial troubles and afraid of worse and from what I hear most of them - correctly - attribute the problems to zeu and zusa.

This is quite probably the 2nd real victory of Putin. To dramatically accelerate zeus breaking apart and, in particular, to break the european countries away from zusa.

And my partner said something else, too, that might indicate the sentiment around europe, "Putin seems to do more for us (in western europe) than our politicians".

Quite probably that's correct.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 23 2014 23:07 utc | 53

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 23, 2014 6:46:00 PM | 48

You do not have to tell Estonia - they know it.

Should Russia ever decide to invade Estonia (why should they?), Estonia will be begging NATO not to respond as a war in their territory would destroy the country no matter who wins.

Of course the continuation of the cold war on the part of the West was driven by warmongers and military business.

But Eastern European countries did have very good reasons for escaping the Russian sphere of influence and Putin's insistence on protecting Russians and Russian speakers does not really help.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 23:12 utc | 54


Yeah, Latvia has done really well under neoliberalism.

For reasons beyond comprehension, the country now sticks to that ideology which has just devastated the Western economies. Latvia itself is experiencing one of the world’s worst economic crises – indeed, demographic as well as economic. Its 25.5 percent plunge in GDP over just the past two years (almost 20 percent in this past year alone) is already the worst two-year drop on record. The IMF’s own rosy forecasts anticipate a further drop of 4 percent, which would place the Latvian economic collapse ahead of the United States’ Great Depression. The bad news does not end there, however. The IMF projects that 2009 will see a total capital and financial account deficit of 4.2 billion euros, with an additional 1.5 billion euros, or 9 percent of GDP, leaving the country in 2010.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 23:19 utc | 55

@50 We also think Putin should be caught and handed over to Pussy Riot for castration.

Posted by: dh | Mar 23 2014 23:20 utc | 56

50) Demian, thanks, too.

They are asking for Russian regime change.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 23:21 utc | 57

NATO Dominated by USA Dominated by a cabal/conglomeration of the usual suspects. CIA and company kill the Kennedys, try to kill DeGaulle, ruminate overthrow of Harold Wilson, run Gladio, dominate mass media in Europe generations ago. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was always a multi-purpose vassal military organization variously useful to those who control the US. One previous core agenda was to play an important role in inhibiting radically contrarian political/social movements from gaining leverage in any European country. The 'Soviet Menace' provided the fear/rationale.

In short, NATO has also always been about controlling Europe. But NATO's transmutation into an offensive war maker, culminating in the destruction of arguably one of the most impressive social political experiments and success stories on the planet - Libya - in 2011, is much more horrific than an "expansion" of NATO, as in b's missive. NATO as purveyor of wars of aggression is its recent designated vassal role.

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Mar 23 2014 23:24 utc | 58

55) Yeah, there is also big trouble in Spain.

Latvia seems to have more than twice the GDP of Ukrainians though.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 23:30 utc | 59

"Reading what zamericans say today I can't but consider them arrogant and completely self-delusional retards."

They truly are. I, like some others here, am from the Empire's Homeland. Even in metropolitan melting-pot NYC, we are simple-minded idiots. Not only do we not care about what the US gov does around the world in our name, we don't CARE to know. They tell us to hate Putin this week, we hate Putin. Last week it was Assad, before that get the idea.
And of course in NY it is Israel Uber Alles...even our Mayor said it was his duty to protect Israel...the fucking MAYOR of NYC, for Chrissakes!
You can't talk politics with most people, they all regurgitate the same tired talking points. I lost friends and do not speak to some family members because they are so cozy with being lied to, and I can't stand it.
I see a population that by and large, deserves whatever karma it has coming to it...unfortunately there are a number of informed, well-meaning people in der Homeland who will also suffer.

Posted by: Prey4 Justice | Mar 23 2014 23:38 utc | 60

Yep, the neocons want to give Russia another Afghanistan

Robert Zoellick, the former World Bank president and a leading Republican national security voice, said the Crimea annexation has “fundamentally changed the post-Cold War set of norms and expectations” in ways that will echo all across nations near Russia’s border.

He said while the United States and NATO won’t intervene militarily in Ukraine directly, western nations must consider giving military aid to Ukraine if leaders there demonstrate they are willing to stand up to Russia’s superior forces.

Although financial sanctions more severe than those imposed to date could be punishing, Zoellick argued, “I think the key point for President Putin’s view of the world is he’s not going to be seriously affected by slaps on the wrists of [revoked] visas or this sanction or that sanction. … But what he could be affected by is if he gets himself into a military mess and that ultimately depends on the Ukrainians. That’s going to be an issue that the transatlantic community is going to face.”

As only the fascists will be crazy enough to do this, he now expects Western Nations to support fascists.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 23 2014 23:41 utc | 61

Actually, I have a question about Kennan. Wasn't he the architect, proponent and creator of the Cold War with that letter he wrote?

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 23:46 utc | 62

Oh, and Mr. P,

'nother one for you on the other post.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 23 2014 23:48 utc | 63

@Nora #62:

Yeah, b implicitly mentioned the infamous Mr. X letter.

By the way, Kennan later called the US a "monster state", suggesting it should be broken up into about six smaller states.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 23 2014 23:52 utc | 64

Lovely. "The European Union and the United States, which have supported and funded for years all neo-Nazi groups and other radical extremist factions in Eastern Europe, have given the order to these new fascists never to brandish the swastika..."

Since voltairenet also has a piece on the 23 summer camps now being used by Kiev to train paramilitaries,, apparently using the goons is ok, they just can't wear their pretty pictures. The Klan wore hoods to hide their faces but you still could tell by their voices or shoes -- these guys, I'll bet there'll be a way...

Posted by: Nora | Mar 24 2014 0:02 utc | 65


Stupidity is not a sin. Whats going to happen to the average american is bad, and almost noone deserves it, even if its light compared to what America is doing to many places right now.

Just because theyre not very smart politically doesnt mean theyre not honest, good people. I dont like people bandying around rhetoric about what people 'deserve'.

Some of my loved ones are rather... No not rather, but incredibly ignorant. But I still love them. What else am I to do?

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 24 2014 0:03 utc | 66

@46 - Robert Snefjella, you certainly don't underestimate the stupidity of canucks.. of course voting harper in would be another example of stupidity which you seem to be encouraging.. everything harper does is for image whether it be writing hockey books or washing his hands at church on sunday for all the bs he rubber stamps all the other days of the week..

Posted by: james | Mar 24 2014 0:06 utc | 67

@65 Wow, that order is funny. Its not like they will stop being nazis if they stop using swastikas.

But on the other hand, are people stupid enough to not realize theyre nazis as long as they dont use swastikas? Is the only way people can spot nazis these days is if you point a giant red arrow at them that says NAZI in big black letters? Kind of sad. Swastika or no, you would think most people could easily identify nazis by their rhetoric and behavior...

And its not like the Ukrainian fascists are going to stop using other signs like Wolfsangels and stuff.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 24 2014 0:07 utc | 68

@61 Expects western states to support fascists?

You realize they are already doing that?

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 24 2014 0:08 utc | 69

@67 re 46

I'll place an (Irony) tag upon any attempt at irony, heretofore.

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Mar 24 2014 0:14 utc | 70

Wow, that order is funny. Its not like they will stop being nazis if they stop using swastikas.

Absolutely correct. But then, zusa and zeu isn't about content but about looks and PR.

Btw., something nobody seems to have thought of. My partner angrily remarked "Great! Yeah! Let's give israel a reason to condemn and terrorize us another 70 years for supporting nazis in kiev".

But then, merkels brain has been formed out of zamerican poop it seems.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 0:15 utc | 71

Land locked Belarus, under western sanctions, seems to have double the per capita GDP of Ukraine, which has wide access to the sea (until recently) and all the great "support" of the west for the past 20 years. Not to mention collecting transit fees for the gas pipelines.

Keep in mind Ukraine sent a detachment to the US 'coaltion' in Iraq, and that was back in the days of President Kuchma (Yanukovich was PM) before the whole 2004 Orange scamolution. Ukraine has basically been in the western camp for the last 23 years. Despite all this, Russia has put up with it and even sold them subsidized gas. Putin is showing a lot more patience and restraint than I ever would have.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 24 2014 0:25 utc | 72

Vitally Churkin made a comment to Charlie Rose, who didn't hear it, because Rose wouldn't shut up long enough to hear it, which contained these words: "during the cold war we were preparing, very seriously,to attack each other with nuclear weapons"...Churkin would certainly have some insight into that. That's a pretty heavy statement. It should drive home the reality of what the constant danger of the cold war was. Americans tend to regard words very lightly. Words are used to sell your junk or keep the other party distracted while you steal theirs. I'm learning that Russians try not to say things they don't mean. I think a lot of Americans even Americans who know a whole lot more than we do still approach this geopolitical "brinksmanship" as if it were a game - it IS a game to them, and they always expect to win. They are gambling our world though,and that's another common presumption of American plutocrats - its always THIER world .

Posted by: Marc | Mar 24 2014 0:29 utc | 73

More interesting news:

Posted by: Nora | Mar 24 2014 0:34 utc | 74


Judging by a search on Google News, the NY Times, Wash Post, and LA Times don't find it to be an interesting story, although Reuteres and USA today have covered it and Netenyahu is currently in LA.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 24 2014 0:51 utc | 75

pragma & kalithea

find out, what 'empirical evidence means

if that's too hard, cut out the middle man & join the golden dawn, they share your fundamentalists relation to facts

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 24 2014 0:54 utc | 76

To know what neocons and zionists are up to, just check what the canadian govt is pushing for. It will give you a pretty good idea. There was even an indirect remark aimed at Iran during ziopuppy PM Harper during his speech in Kiev.

Posted by: Gregg | Mar 24 2014 0:59 utc | 77


Oh that one is easy. Empirical evidence is what you didn't offer so far.

And that's why you are farting since days.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 1:00 utc | 78

I'm with r'giap on that. Those two have turned these boards into something out of the Army-McCarthy hearings.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 24 2014 1:03 utc | 79

Biden's not very smart.

To help "NATO emerge from this crisis stronger ... than ‘ever’," the United States repledged its commitment to the "missile defense" of Europe. However, by correlating the "missile defense" to the Ukrainian crisis, Joe Biden gave his game away. Washington had persistently maintained that the U.S. "shield" in Europe is not directed against Russia, but against the threat of Iranian missiles. In Moscow, on the contrary, this was always perceived as an attempt to gain a decisive strategic advantage over Russia: the U.S. could hold it under the threat of a nuclear first strike, relying on the ability of the "shield" to neutralize the retaliation effects.

Needless to say, European leaders have gone along with this persistent US lie.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 24 2014 1:05 utc | 80

@76 Its funny, since youre not offering empirical evidence, just ad hominems.

Hypocritical much?

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 24 2014 1:10 utc | 81


Loser! You didn't get it. You must use an image with "right-wing" or "nazi".

Try better next time.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 1:18 utc | 82


Believe me; you couldn't be more right about Harper; Harper is a Christian Ziocon.

Just one reservation with what you wrote; Neocon is a misnomer and a cover for who's really leading this movement. The Neocon movement was started by ZIONISTS, and Neocon is a cover for a political movement that is led strictly by Zionists with Christian Zionists on board for the ride.

So let's stop using Neocon and start using ZIOCON, because Zionists were the real authors of the policy that drives this movement. Their insane policy is all driven on Zionism's behalf.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 1:29 utc | 83

no, but we are comforted to no you could turn b's post on ulan bator or paraguay into another exercise into your supposed anti zionism, which is in fact just ernst kaltenbrunner all dressed up as j edgar hoover

copeland, dont waste your brath on these beasts who besmirch b's rigor

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 24 2014 1:30 utc | 84

Why don't you try better, Pragma? I notice your writing style is curiously unstuck, when it comes to what we call "voice" in writing. Sometimes you're a homily-spinning simple man, who complains of his bad English, effecting little blotches second-language style; and then for thousands of lines, you take off in textbook-perfect English prose. You're a fraud Mr. P, in more ways than one.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 24 2014 1:32 utc | 85

@76 rememberinggiap

I see you're trying to disparage me on this thread when I haven't even been on this thread until now; I've been commenting on another.

How far will you stoop to validate yourself? Oh yeah, you'll stand on the back of another to get noticed. Pathetic.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 1:35 utc | 86

@ 70 - Robert Snefjella. okay thanks. i am slow to pick up on irony.
@77 - gregg.. the bimbos under head bimbo harper have been pushing this type of b.s. strongly since they got in power..

Posted by: james | Mar 24 2014 1:39 utc | 87

r'giap, copeland, and all the other zio-bots

You just don't get it, don't you.

Your relentless personal attacks won't convince anyone nor will you reach anything but becoming increasingly visible as what you are.

It was up to you to attack *what I said* - but - you chose to attack *me* the person.

That in itself it more verbose than you might like.

And frankly, you are boring. Do you really seriously belief you are the first ones arriving at the super-duper-smart idea to distract from the matter and to instead attack the person?

So, just go on and try to fart me to death.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 1:40 utc | 88

@85 Copeland

You're a fraud Mr. P, in more ways than one.

Oh that's rich! The pot calling the kettle black? Speaking of fraud; I'll bet no one knew you're a Zionist until today!

p.s. I'd rather read Pragma's intuitive yet factually-aligned take on issues than your pseudo-drivel any day of the week.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 1:42 utc | 89

To Rgiap, Copeland:

I dont think the Ad Hominem attacks are doing you any favors in public perception

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 24 2014 1:45 utc | 90

Zio-bots have to attack people because they have no facts or empirical data with which to counter any points that have been made, and they're terrified our discussions will bring up even more evidence of Zionist malfeasance. So they get rather ridiculous. And swarm like flies whenever there's something they *really* think might implicate Jews.

So, the more they swarm, the more you know you're onto something.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 24 2014 1:47 utc | 91


Oh well, that was actually the part I liked.

After all that now makes me a *fake* democracy-loving right-wing program created by KGB on a rusty typewriter.
And yes, he's right. Because I'm not a *real* 8 bit program but merely a 5 bit program. You see, we don't have that many bits in Russia and the few bits we have are rusty and 35+ years old. Shameful, shameful but, oh well, we must somehow do with what we have.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 1:50 utc | 92

@50 Demian

Correction: Ziocons There are more Zionists in the Neocon movement than neos. Check the list.

Neocon = misnomer that hides who started this movement and who leads this movement.

This neocon movement or political departure on conservatism (and I'm going to abandon that word neo word from this day forward it's that misleading) was really the Zionist conservative movement from day one! Find me one member that isn't either a Jewish Zionist or a Christian Zionist...I dare you.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 1:52 utc | 93

you are so fact less - there is nothing to attack except your crude impulses & that work for others. niether you or the other fools say 'anthing'

as reich would suggest it is pure impulse - something not so strange to the fascist character

but i will wait to see how you & your pals will turn ulan bator into the same squalid syntax you stretch

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 24 2014 1:54 utc | 94

kalithea #93

You're right. I'm never going to use the word Neo-Con again. Why sanitize it?

Posted by: Nora | Mar 24 2014 1:55 utc | 95


Know what? I for one, unlike you, *will* honor b's efforts by not commenting your relentless personal attacks any more.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 24 2014 1:58 utc | 96

@80 Demian

The missile shield was always as Putin suspected meant for Russia not Iran. Iran would never attack Europe; everyone with a brain knows this; it's not even interested in attacking Israel. Iran wants deterrence capabilities, like everyone; but after the Iran-Iraq war; Iran will not look for war unless it is provoked.

Yes, Iranians hate Zionism, no doubt because aside from the Palestinians; they were the first to recognize how threatening Zionism is. But they seem confident that Zionism will eventually be shunned by everyone for the supremacist, racist ideology it is. Iran knows no nukes will be required for Zionism's certain demise.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 2:03 utc | 97


blech! Eat my shorts.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 24 2014 2:07 utc | 98

@kalithea #93:

To be honest, I always thought that neocon is a "codeword" for Jewish Zionist who makes pronouncements about US foreign policy.

And according to some accounts that I've seen, neoconservatism arose when American Jews who were interested in Israel who saw Henry Jackson as their main man came to think that the Democrats are not sufficiently hawkish, and so switched to the Republicans. (Of course now with Obama, necons are present in influential positions even in Democratic administrations, despite the "movement" having brought about the greatest US foreign policy disaster in history.)

Posted by: Demian | Mar 24 2014 2:17 utc | 99

Pushkov: US should consider dissolving NATO

"“The idea of ​​demilitarization of Crimea is a stillborn one. It is in the competence of neither Ukraine, nor the United States. Why not discuss the dissolution of NATO?” head of the committee wrote Friday in his Twitter account."

Hey, works for me.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 24 2014 2:23 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.