|
Russia, Ukraine – Neocon Ceasefire Sabotage Fails To Change Trump’s Mind
There are serious signs that the Trump administration will continue to seek better relations with Russia. It declines to get involved in the hustling in Ukraine. It is ready to give up on the catastrophic regime-change agenda the neocons implemented in Kiev with the help of Ukrainian Nazi organizations.
Let us recap. On New Year the neo-conservative Senators McCain and Graham were in Ukraine to fire up Ukrainian troops at the front lines for a new fight with Russia supported rebels in Donetsk and Lugansk. A few days later then Vice President Biden also dropped in on Kiev. The three are declared enemies of Trump's more friendly position towards Russia. They obviously intended to reignite the conflict in Ukraine to sabotage Trump's new foreign policy.
The former Georgian President Saakashvilli has once fallen for the Bush administration's incitement and attacked Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. When that war went badly he received none of the hoped for backup from Washington and NATO.
Poroshenko should have learned from that. Instead he fell for the incitement and assurances from the senators and restarted the war with the separatist. Multiple news outlets and even Ukrainian generals first admitted that it was the Kiev government that started the current round of fighting by "creeping" into the no-man's zone that was supposed to separate the belligerents. But as usual the "western" media now try to change history and to put the guilt on Russia. They press for a U.S. "response" to the "Russian aggression".
At first it looked that this impressed the Trump administration. The new U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley held a speech that might have been written by her "wailing banshee" predecessor Samantha Powers. It condemned Russia for about everything and promised that sanctions on Russia would stay. But two days later she visited the Russian UN ambassador Churkin in his private home in New York city to make nice. The speech was probably just a head-fake or some uncoordinated screw-up.
The Ukrainian President Poroshenko had tried for several days to get a phonecall scheduled with President Trump. But on Thursday Trump met, very shortly though, Poroshenko's opposition in Ukraine Yuliya Tymoshenko. She is a former prime minister and – said mildly- a controversial figure: always scheming, lying and ready to be offered and take huge bribes. But with some help she could probably win an election in Ukraine should Poroshenko step down.
Only on Saturday Trump finally had a phonecall with Poroshenko. The very short readout is a blast. It speaks of "Ukraine's long-running conflict with Russia" and adds:
"We will work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the border," said President Trump.
Ukraine's conflict is not with Russia and the fighting is not along the border. It is a genuine civil war, ignited by a U.S. regime change operation in Kiev, in witch both side have external support. That Trump does not describes it that way leaves lots of room for interpretation. Is there a new "Russian border" along the current line of the ceasefire? What about the Minsk2 process which Ukraine has failed to implement? What about sanctions?
But the most important points: There is no mention of weapon or other support for Kiev. There is no blame on Russia for the renewed violence at the front-line.
My instant micro interpretation of the readout was:
Trump to Poroshenko (translated): I know you started this on order of McCain/Graham/Biden. Screw you. You will win nothing. You are out.
Poroshenko had fired up his troops and promised to fight the rebels throughout their autonomous area up to the Russian border. The intend behind that was to sabotage Trump's policies. Poroshenke will now have to revise those plans.
Trump topped the above readout in an interview with Fox news a part of which was previewed last night (partitial transcript):
Bill O'Reilly: Do you respect Putin?
President Trump: I do respect him but –
O'Reilly: Do you? Why?
President Trump: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn't mean I'm going to get along with him. He's a leader of his country. I say it's better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us to fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world – that's a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.
O'Reilly: But he's a killer though. Putin's a killer.
President Trump: There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think – our country's so innocent?
Whoa – Trump is rejecting the U.S. national religion – exceptionalism. The Republicans would have eaten Obama alive had he ever said something like that. "Are you suggesting that Russia which is always killing civilians is morally equal to us who only kill terrorists?" Now the Republicans will be silent about this and the Democrats will howl.
Taken together the recent statements by the Trump administration are positive for renewed U.S.- Russian cooperation. The Ukraine case will be a non-issue. Poroshenko listened to the wrong master's voice. He will (have to) see the light and leave immediately or he will be kicked out of the way.
@ Posted by: james | Feb 6, 2017 3:19:41 PM | 110
Longish(sic) post …
Watch the O’Reilly interview and compare with the Amanpour one. Note how they always ‘Frame’ the interview, establish the false ‘context’ re the ‘approved’ narrative and then direct the questioning to ‘force’ compliance or highlight ‘non-compliance’/’non-conformance’. Amanpour is lazy, not very bright and has developed an inflated ego, so she is exceedingly obvious/blatant in the Le Pen ‘interview’. With Amanpour, it was just a pre-planned exercise to deligitamize, character assassinate, Le Pen, not an ‘interview’, at all, really.
There is no ‘true’ Right nor is there a ‘true’ Left in politics, not in US, CAN, AUS, NZ, UK, especially, IMV. It is all ‘Hollow’, yes ?
Such political definitions became a meaningless fraud, how long ago … 30, 50, 70 years ? It is most apparent in the US of A’s past, as there was effectively one party, with two factions, each taking turns at the ‘trough’ … the Dems & the GOP. Probably still is …
For all intents and purposes, other than in some various ‘social’ and domestic policies, of little interest to the 0.01%, why are the ‘Policies’ that matter within the particular country, for all intents and purposes, effectively/essentially largely, the same ? Oversimplifying & generalizing, yet, ’tis true ?
And one of the key reasons it is so, especially in the above nations, is a result of the Five-Eyes primary function, to monitor, suppress and control dissent, to maintain the political ‘status quo ante‘, regardless of the ‘elected’, government of the day.
Up and coming capable leaders/influencers who cannot be suborned/compromised are suppressed/destroyed … one way or another … by reputation/financially/politically, etc. The same also occurs throughout Unions/NGO’s/Associations … the leaders and potential future leaders/deputies are always the ‘target’. Activists, for example, who are ‘aware’, will likely have observed this, up close, in person.
Key members of the political parties are handled by Case Officers, indirectly or directly, often even via the local Embassy, to obtain the inside ‘dope’, to identify threats and ‘targets’. See Wikileaks re publicly available examples re the State Department/Embassy cables leaks around the globe.
Why is it that even with countries we have severed all other ties, diplomatic/political/economic/etc, we always maintain military liaison ? Because through the military contacts we can, compromise/suborn, even if just young but potential officers for future action, and in a worst case, execute/induce/influence a coup.
The Chinese are well aware of the process, hence they actually have a separate Corps of PLA officers assigned to ‘Liaison’ with foreign Military, with the exception of as required trusted already Senior & committed/proven Officers. NO PLA officer who serves and advances in the Liaison Corps, will EVER be given a PLA Operational Command. Ever. They can never be fully trusted … they follow a similar process with Law Enforcement/Intelligence/Economic contacts/liaison, yet not as ruthlessly strictly/enforced …
Ten men, ably led, will defeat a hundred, without a head.
So, why not just nullify the ‘Head‘. Or better still, suborn/compromise, the ‘Head‘. In the latter case you won’t even need the ‘ten men’ or even have to defeat the 100 … their yours now, even though they may well not likely realize it.
Posted by: Outraged | Feb 6 2017 21:26 utc | 113
@116 The Patrick Cockburn piece is up at the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-iran-twitter-iraq-mosul-middle-east-instability-a7561611.html
In any case, bombast alone is capable of reshaping the political landscape. Paradoxically, White House actions in the Middle East are creating the very conditions for Iran to displace US influence in Iraq in a way that Trump wrongly imagines has already happened. Responding to the travel ban, the Iraqi parliament declared that US citizens proposing to enter Iraq over the next 90 days should be subjected to the same restrictions. The Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi refused to go along with this, saying it was more important to keep cooperation with the US while the battle for Mosul is still going on.
Russia has sidely firmly with Iran but wants tensions lowered between Iran and the US:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-iran. . .
“Russia has friendly partner-like relations with Iran, we cooperate on a wide range of issues, value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further,” said Peskov. . .
Russia’s ambassador to Iran, Levan Djagaryan, said Moscow was concerned by escalating rhetoric between the United States and Iran, while Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said Washington’s decision to impose new sanctions on Iran was a source of regret.
And, some of the sanctions on Iran are impacting China:
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/6/14522040/iran-sanctions0china
On Monday, China lodged a formal protest against the sanctions, and warned that it will increase challenges for the international community’s coordination on Iran.
“We have consistently opposed any unilateral sanctions,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said at a news conference. “The sanctions will not help in enhancing trust among the different parties involved and will not help in resolving international problems.”
But on Ukraine, Trump is portrayed at CNBC as a mediator between Putin and Poroshenko (Trump the diplomat? That’s a new one):
. . .trump-putin-ties-now-seen-as-key-to-peace-in-eastern-ukraine.html
Trump has signaled his intent to have a closer relationship with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. And with an open line of communication with Poroshenko, Trump could well prove to be instrumental.
What to make of all this? Here’s one plausible notion: it has a lot to do with the price of oil and the petrodollar’s status as global reserve currency. Iran threatened the petrodollar, didn’t it? And threats against Iran are likely to drive up the global price of oil. That would benefit ExxonMobil and Tillerson is ExxonMobil; on the other hand, lifting sanctions on Russia will help ExxonMobil which has several deals there. But Russia would probably like a higher price for oil too. Not that this will necessarily work, since global oil demand is slumping. Also, ExxonMobil has holdings in the South China Sea via deals with Vietnam and the Philippines. . . Which explains the row with China, too.
Are we seeing the ExxonMobil foreign policy in play here? It’s the most consistent explanation, so far anyway. But it also argues against anything more than bluster with China and Iran, since actual war would destroy the region.
P.S. on the potential selection of Elliott Abrams, Rand Paul has formally said he’ll oppose him:
With 21 members—11 Republicans and 10 Democrats—if the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold strong against Abrams should Trump select him, Paul’s vote would be the deciding vote and he would fail in Committee.
Not that some sleazy Democrats might roll over for Israel-approved Abrams, though. Might be even odds; but it would be a political disaster for Trump, given everything he just said about opposing the Iraq war.
Posted by: nonsense factory | Feb 7 2017 5:45 utc | 129
@Toivos 127
Condoleeza Rice visited Georgia in July 2008 directly before Georgia moved on South Ossetia:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/west-marches-east-part-two.html
In July of 2008, following her visit to the Czech Republic where she signed an agreement to base part of a new U.S. missile defense system in the country, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Georgia to meet with the country’s leadership. At that time, U.S. military forces in the region had begun joint exercises with soldiers from Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. The exercises were taking place less than 100km from Russia’s border, with roughly 1,000 U.S. soldiers and an equal number of Georgian troops. . .
Then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev later explained that as tensions escalated into July of 2008, he was in contact with his Georgian counterparts. However, following Secretary Rice’s July 2008 visit to Georgia, he claimed, “my Georgian colleague simply dropped all communication with us. He simply stopped talking to us, he stopped writing letters and making phone calls. It was apparent that he had new plans now. And those plans were implemented later.””
In addition, U.S. military contractor trainers were recently arrived in Georgia, days before Aug 7:
The two contractors, MPRI and American Systems, both of which are based in Virginia, were responsible for training the Georgian special forces as part of a program run by the Pentagon. The Pentagon had previously hired MPRI to train the Croatian military in 1995, just prior to the Croatian military’s invasion of the ethnically-Serbian region of Krajina, “which led to the displacement of 200,000 refugees and was one of the worst incidents of ethnic cleansing in the Balkan wars.” MPRI, of course – in both cases – denied “any wrongdoing.” The first phase of the training in Georgia took place between January and April of 2008, and the second phase was due to begin on August 11, with the trainers arriving in Georgia on August 3, four days before the war broke out.
However, Senators Graham and Biden and Lieberman immediately moved to travel to Georgia within a week after the attack and the Russian response:
Senate staffers report Senators Biden, Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham are considering travel to Tbilisi as early as August 17. – US State Department cable Aug 15 2008 (Manning Cablegate @ wikileaks)
The U.S. also immediately transported Georgian troops from Iraq back to Tbilisi, which must have required some pre-coordination, you’d think:
The last of the USAF C-17 flights bringing Georgian troops from Iraq landed in Tbilisi, according to Embassy Tbilisi. The Russian DATT contacted Embassy Tbilisi to request the removal of all U.S. C-17 aircraft from the airport immediately as Moscow is considering bombing the airport in the near future. – US State Department cable Aug 12 2008 (Manning Cablegate @ wikileaks)
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08STATE86156_a.html
That seems kind of reckless, there. . . Lunatic brinkmanship, really.
Victoria Nuland of “I’m handing cookies out to the Ukrainian neo-Nazis” fame was also involved. McCain doesn’t show up directly – though his wife travels to Tbilisi Aug 26th. McCain features in Germany’s decision to hold out on supporting NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, which the U.S. was pushing very hard for in spring-summer 2008:
In particular, German officials question whether Senator Obama, if elected, would pursue the NATO relationship with Ukraine and Georgia as energetically as they anticipate a McCain administration would. – US State Department cable Jun 05, 2008
Rabid Democratic and Republican maniacs, what’s their problem? When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I suppose. But make no mistake, the State Department was obsessing over the energy picture in Georgia:
TFGG01: ENERGY AND THE CONFLICT IN GEORGIA, Aug 15 2008
Posted by: nonsense factory | Feb 7 2017 6:26 utc | 130
jfl @ 118 said:
so periodically we break silence. and mention the fact. might as well break wind for all the good it does.
I have been breaking silence/wind about the issues you describe in college history classes for going on three decades now, and while I truly believe that the average American college student is infinitely more aware of and/or open to such wind (say, as opposed to my students of 2001-2003) I feel like their/our capacity to do anything meaningful about it has and continues to be been greatly diminished. How (if at all) can we effectively employ our collective understanding of the dynamics that have enabled eternal war and empire to turn the ship around and keep it from sinking (to paraphrase the title of Martin’s interview with Lawrence Wilkerson)?
The reason why this is my first post on MoA after lurking for almost two years is a good example of this perplexing phenomenon (that is, knowledge seemingly way up, options/context to respond seemingly way down). I used to spend many, many hours online correcting lies, addressing historical misconceptions, and calling out B.S./Hasbara. It was like, “If I don’t mention the ’53 coup here (or Iran Air #655, or Operation Susannah, or the fact that there is no evidence of an Iranian weapons program, etc) no one will, so it is my duty.” Hearteningly, over the past ten years I have increasingly found it unnecessary to chime in, since any time I see some blatant myth, B.S., or misconception (in an article, or in comments) I now ALWAYS find several commenters setting the record straight and/or making the point(s) I would have made… often with an edge or style that makes me chuckle, cheer, and/or yell “F-yes! Thank you!!!” This is a palpable, and seemingly positive change for someone who has been surfing these waves since they invented the Internets. But…
Now, enter MoA as perhaps the best example. B and this community provide an absolutely amazing trove of insights and views, which, though often at odds with each other re. interpretation, are IMHO infinitely more reliable, relevant and accurate to historical and contemporary reality than certainly anything in the MSM, and arguably much of the alt media. Hence, I have been a daily reader going on two years now, and not once have I found it necessary to chime in to “correct” anything or put in my 2c. On the contrary, I usually depart having learned something new, and/or with something new to research for myself. If my goal in life was simply to see or facilitate the spread knowledge of the issues that most interest and concern me (stopping wars) I could drop the balloons, cite MoA and say “Mission Accomplished. Behold!”
Alas, spreading knowledge is not my goal. Stopping eternal war, global empire, and the growing stack of bodies is my goal. Thus here we are–regular posters and seasoned lurkers alike–with all of this collective wisdom, moral conviction, and energy, 99% of which seems to be channeled towards less war/death/suffering rather than more, and yet we’re “all dressed up with [knowledge and motivation but] nowhere to go.”
To bring it back to jlf/#118, how do we set this broken wind on fire?
Sincere thanks to this community for your insights and your passion.
Posted by: HD | Feb 7 2017 6:29 utc | 131
@ Posted by: HD | Feb 7, 2017 1:29:35 AM | 131
Hearteningly, over the past ten years I have increasingly found it unnecessary to chime in, since any time I see some blatant myth, B.S., or misconception (in an article, or in comments) I now ALWAYS find several commenters setting the record straight and/or making the point(s) I would have made… often with an edge or style that makes me chuckle, cheer, and/or yell “F-yes! Thank you!!!” This is a palpable, and seemingly positive change for someone who has been surfing these waves since they invented the Internets. But…
@ Posted by: jfl | Feb 6, 2017 9:32:47 PM | 124
not arguing for zombaism. just noting the inefficacy of ‘testimony’. especially among the choir. it is cathartic. and it’s soothing to hear ‘amen’. but such testimony has no observable effect on the state of affairs that inspired it. if change were to come, and we were to remark upon it as we do upon stasis, our remarking it would have no more effect upon change than it does upon stasis. i guess that’s something to look forward to.
The MSM comments are now often 50%-75% ‘pushback’ against the ‘narrative’, frequently with detailed reference links & especially, context. US, Wahhabists, Saudi/Qatar/Kuwait/GCC are openly identified re ISIS, the Cold War 2.0 narrative re Russia/Ukraine/Crimea/Donbass/Coup, as examples. And the myths re Iran nuclear/terrorism are directly challenged and no longer carry water. Comments are often shut down when the comments light up the falsity of an article in bright neon lights. Ever more frequently the ‘narrative’ articles are published, with no comments allowed. Frequently now the response by paid hasbara/trolls is simply, ‘putinbot!’, which actually achieves the opposite effect intended 😉
This has built up incrementally and gradually, primarily since the Iraq Invasion concurrently with the growth of social/alt media and a search for alt trusted news. A terminal decline in the faith & trust in, and therefore influence, of the the 5 Mega-Media-Corpses working hand in glove with the MICC & the 0.01% goals.
‘Awareness’ of the truth, the facts, re the reality of the suborned incredibly concentrated & co-ordinated MSM ‘narrative’, is a beginning, and if nothing else, that is now clearly well in train. And the MSM only undermines it’s influence further as it ‘fights back’ seeking to maintain control of the narrative, with ever more disproven, false ‘assertions’ and wilful misuse of the #Fake news label. That is the start of a foundation to build upon, if only a start.
Great first posts HD! Welcome, coming in from lurking in the shadows 🙂
Peace.Shalom.Salaam.
Posted by: Outraged | Feb 7 2017 13:38 utc | 146
|
