|
Ukraine: Another German “Leak” Against U.S. Policy
A week ago I sensed that there is resistance in Europe and especially in offical Germany against the U.S. led aggressive campaign against Russia:
Even the most staunch transatlantic tabloid in Germany, Bild, today reports (original here) that the CIA and FBI with dozens of agents are running the show in Kiev. The report is based on "German security sources" which lets me believe that the German government is looking for ways to counter Washington's moves.
More intentional "leaks" were published today in the same media, the high circulation Bild am Sonntag print edition. According to this online summary (in German by the Bild sister paper Welt ) two different issues were revealed:
- According to the German secret service BND some 400 U.S. mercenaries from the company Academi, previously Blackwater, are leading and coordinating with the Ukrainian army and police in operations against "guerrilla" in east Ukraine.
- According to NSA sniffing on Russian military communication, released to the BND, Russian pilots were ordered to violate Ukrainian airspace.
Both claims are sourced to BND security briefings in the German chancellery.
The first claim seems plausible as it confirms accusations made earlier in several Russian media. Commentators in the German media seem to accept it even while expressing some doubts about the second claim. Hardly anyone in Germany today believes anything claimed by the NSA :-).
Within just seven days two significant "leaks" to Bild, a chancellor Merkel supporting and staunchly transatlantic paper, blame the United States for the trouble in Ukraine. These "leaks" must have come from the chancellery and, them being true or not, confirm that there is some antagonism in the central political and security branches in Berlin towards the U.S. plans.
We can only hope that such antagonism will also find ways to express itself in political results restraining the U.S. from inciting civil war in Ukraine and a possible huge conflagration in Europe.
There is a learning curve involved in the initial study of international affairs, obviously. For people at a certain stage in that learning curve, such alternative analysts of geopolitics as Michel Chossudovsky and Rick Rozoff are valuable, not just as synopticists but also as authoritative confirmations of the fact that everything – absolutely everything – in the standard western presentations of western activity across the world is wrong, is a system of conscious lies. You need that support, mentally, at that stage in the learning curve. Subsequent to that, you reach a point where they become increasingly redundant, because they are not bringing new information but merely recycling the already known. It’s clear where the emotional bond to them comes from: it comes from the experience of being intellectually supported at that stage in one’s learning development when one needed it. It is after all quite emotionally draining to have to face the world in this demystified way. It’s bleak, frightening and so forth.
But there is a perceptible downside with Prof C, I’m afraid. He is a religious man, and the choice of material on Global Research often reflects that fact. It’s also a technically poor site, and self-promoting in an irritating way, and addicted to horrible little thumbnail photos, so horrible they remind me of Ynet. But many Russian news sites also use these irritating thumbnail photos. Life is full of small irritants.
In general I find myself in less and less need of pundits, ‘authorities’, and opinionators. There are a few I still enjoy because of the sheer delirium of their style (Felicity Arbuthnot, for instance, usually but not always still entertains me). Tarpley’s weekly World Crisis Radio show is usually though not invariably an entertaining and stimulating listen, for all his obvious limitations, the most relevant of which is this really obtuse endeavour to reach mainstream Dems by pretending that Obama is an innocent surrounded by villainous military and intel schemers who outflank him. I have no need at all of idealisation regarding Obama, or for that matter, Putin.
Anyway, all of the above just reflects where I am in my personal curve. But I will say one thing about the permanent government, and it is this: it’s quite well-known I hope that historically, modern state intelligence services in capitalist countries have been run principally by what used to be called ‘merchant bankers’. Besides being the possessors of the only power that counts, which is money itself, they are also the possessors or extensive and far-flung private international intelligence services of their own. This is pretty much what successful international banking is all about: knowing who to invest in in any given country and why, and who not to invest in and why. The one thing naturally morphs into the other. Any competent history of British or Usaian intelligence will admit that, right at the outset. These are the people who run things.
On ‘deep state’ analysis, Peter Dale Scott (another Canadian, BTW) is demanding but absorbing. In a way, he just keeps writing and rewriting the same long long article, bringing new angles, sometimes really obscure and deeply buried, to light. After a while, one’s learning curve surpasses him, but his accumulation of detail and his excellent methodology in tracing conspiracy links and establishing their actual probability, is pretty well unique. Where an ordinary writer would just assert a conspiracy link, Scott teases it out with amazing thoroughness. For those who need this.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | May 12 2014 3:44 utc | 70
|
