Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 19, 2017

"Sovereign Nations" Is Main Theme Of Trump's UN Speech

Today the President of the United States Donald Trump spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly.

The speech's main theme was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized Westphalian principles.

[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.

All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition."

The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger

Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign.

The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes.

This year's "axis of evil" included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary."

Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is.

But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president made the same threat Trump made today:

President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its “erratic” and “irresponsible” leader that America’s nuclear arsenal could “destroy” his country.

The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent:

A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said, "will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".

Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios.

The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all.

There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S. presidents also delivered. Trump may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.

The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors.

But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.

Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 17:05 UTC | Permalink

next page »

The transcript is here - you are linking to Obama's speech b.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 19 2017 17:26 utc | 1

There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the souvereignty of countries is bad but the souvereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told".

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.

And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 19 2017 17:32 utc | 2

@1 somebody - thanks - link corrected.

@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national sovereignty.)

Posted by: b | Sep 19 2017 17:51 utc | 3

"sovereign nation" = a country that obeys the US over its own interests

"rogue nation" = a country that has actual sovereignty

If there is more to this than the usual US double-speak, I don't see it.

Posted by: Luther Blissett | Sep 19 2017 17:53 utc | 4

thanks b... ''the criminal regime of donald trump'' is much more on target....

Posted by: james | Sep 19 2017 17:57 utc | 5

"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in"

It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Perimetr | Sep 19 2017 18:02 utc | 6

The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.

The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011.

I think Libya was a major turning point. I don’t think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site)

The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.

I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby Chris Hedges Prashad

He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion.

Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011.


The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya.

Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc.

The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :) ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric

Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19 2017 18:22 utc | 7

The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days) ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for us, there will be no World War 4.

Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Sep 19 2017 18:24 utc | 8

How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?

How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.

Posted by: Christophe Douté | Sep 19 2017 18:27 utc | 9

beyond hypocrisy, refined doublespeak

Posted by: Robert Beal | Sep 19 2017 18:34 utc | 10

Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?

No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology

Posted by: OJS | Sep 19 2017 18:40 utc | 11

The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter--

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 19 2017 18:43 utc | 12

Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his base of supporters.

The "Trump world: appears to be getting very crazy given the agendas of the people who handle Trump:

To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.

Posted by: Krollchem | Sep 19 2017 18:46 utc | 13

I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was supposed to accomplish.

Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations - essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and destroy any country it chooses to.

While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.

The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better about their own humiliation.

Very, very scary.

Posted by: Linda O | Sep 19 2017 19:05 utc | 14

Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....

America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 19 2017 19:10 utc | 15

His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.

Posted by: duplicitousdemocracy | Sep 19 2017 19:27 utc | 16

Trump's speech is Orwellian!

Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell quote, to wit:

“All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others.”

I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods.

It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of lizard-brained degenerates at the UN.

But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging.

At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth, silver-tongued liar.

Posted by: Ort | Sep 19 2017 19:32 utc | 17

@OJS 11

Putin, Xi and other leaders did not attend this year’s UN gathering. They are busy attending the affairs of their citizens.

We are being distracted from the game changer ahead – de-dollarization now on the fast track.
While the toothless dog barks,

Putin orders to end trade in US dollars at Russian seaports

This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD) and China’s gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in worldwide demand.

The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?

Posted by: likklemore | Sep 19 2017 19:50 utc | 18

I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech

Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it.

How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system?

But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.

The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into the bottle and is counterproductive to all.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 19 2017 20:08 utc | 19

John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.

If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.

How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN recognized govts.

Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.

Posted by: Christian Chuba | Sep 19 2017 20:46 utc | 20

Trump - the Republican Obama

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 19 2017 21:02 utc | 21

If you like your sovereignty, you can keep your sovereignty.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 19 2017 21:12 utc | 22

Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?

Posted by: Andy | Sep 19 2017 21:12 utc | 23

Sorry, somewhat off-topic --

While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to the rebels?

Posted by: chet380 | Sep 19 2017 21:26 utc | 24

Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who launched the war against Yemen.

59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 19 2017 21:42 utc | 25

Hypocrisy - huuuge hypocrisy, believe me it was tremendous hypocrisy!

Posted by: Taxi | Sep 19 2017 21:46 utc | 26

trump is mr thunder thump

Posted by: mcohen | Sep 19 2017 21:47 utc | 27

He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos."

Like the pundits who shadow him, he really has no understanding of irony.

Posted by: Bart in VA | Sep 19 2017 21:50 utc | 28

#4 - "Failed State" - A country too poor for us to exploit.

Posted by: Bart in VA | Sep 19 2017 21:52 utc | 29

The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it, something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by talking big but remebering Bannon’s comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.

What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As Talking Heads said, “We’re on the road to nowhere.”

Posted by: Lochearn | Sep 19 2017 22:01 utc | 30

It's the swamp. Sounds like Pete Seeger's 'Waist deep in the Big Muddy' all over again.

Posted by: Extra | Sep 19 2017 22:12 utc | 31

The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction of whole planet Earth.

In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of example is this:

There some people in the US who knows what is going on:

For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945—especially if victory is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost—except against enemy forces that essentially didn’t exist.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 22:15 utc | 32

@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more.. however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..

Posted by: james | Sep 19 2017 22:24 utc | 33

@ 52

I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.

Posted by: Lochearn | Sep 19 2017 22:26 utc | 34

@Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

Read this Nazi.

"The sanction game is over. It’s only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality.

The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The “ISIS” boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA. Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?"

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 22:28 utc | 35

Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

You like a movie. Of course, it is for morons.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 22:29 utc | 36

Comment @4 is spot on..

Posted by: Lozion | Sep 19 2017 22:38 utc | 37

@Lochearn aka Nazi

I recognize you from before, but how do you like these links?

Where have you raised, under rock or in cave?

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 22:39 utc | 38

For a Nazi.

A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to figure this out?

"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"

you are lost case anyway but here is good text from fellow Amerikkaan. But "Rise" from where? I would argue not from Zero but from 60 on scale of 100.


Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 22:51 utc | 39

Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here, and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any better.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 19 2017 22:56 utc | 40

@Lochearn aka Nazi

How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your associations are still here. You stay stupid.

I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn, before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more credit cards and quantitative easing.

That's is Trump's speech for.

Wall Street bought them — and is now leasing them out and driving up rents.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 23:09 utc | 41

Oh my terrible English. Forgive me, would you?

Instead "stave" should be "starve".

All this has to do with shitty Europe, Germany first and foremost.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 23:13 utc | 42

Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting. Enjoyable. Cheers.

US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word 'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.

The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.

The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid reaction from the press....

Posted by: MadMax2 | Sep 19 2017 23:14 utc | 43

"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."

Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols, threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth... It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.

The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.

Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to the obvious, and that may help my mood...

Posted by: Oilman2 | Sep 19 2017 23:42 utc | 44

Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets. Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism, rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.

In par with Trump's speech.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 23:48 utc | 45


is that you?

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19 2017 23:56 utc | 46

What is Trump's speech for?

Senate backs massive increase in military spending

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 20 2017 0:05 utc | 47

karlof1 | Sep 19, 2017 6:56:49 PM | 40

Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam; it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 20 2017 0:12 utc | 48

Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking the USA.

Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE from the US. How evil is that?

Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!

Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:

"...good, virtuous, upright, upstanding, decent; ethical, principled, moral, high-minded, law-abiding, honest, honorable, blameless, irreproachable, noble; saintly, angelic, pure..."

Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.

The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.

Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the FBI wasn't up to the task.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding Terrorist.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 20 2017 0:12 utc | 49

PavewayIV | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:34 PM | 49

Spot on...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 20 2017 0:14 utc | 50

Chauncey Gardiner@ 32

Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?

I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.

As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.

As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).

Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep state!

Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.

Posted by: Krollchem | Sep 20 2017 0:26 utc | 51

Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it...

Posted by: John Gilberts | Sep 20 2017 0:44 utc | 52

@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 20 2017 0:51 utc | 53

"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"

Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.

"The word occurs 18(!) times."

While the word Sovereignty

Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech.
Putin: ‘Russia will be a sovereign state or cease to exist’

FM Lavrov as well is its recent speech.

Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov. debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist class.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 20 2017 0:56 utc | 54

I was looking for Putin and Sovereignty and I've found this:

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 20 2017 1:04 utc | 55

File under "propaganda for domestic consumption"

Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with Syria (during the Obama era).

Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as Iran-Pakistan, or Iran-India (undersea), Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up). Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge (much smaller) will have little effect on that either.
TAPI pipe dreams continue, Sep 17 2017

There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old "great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Sep 20 2017 1:21 utc | 56

@ 54/55
Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 20 2017 1:26 utc | 57

addendum to 57
I was in a hurry ... "They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 20 2017 1:30 utc | 58

[throws meat to the lions]

Orlov has a great read up

Posted by: b4real | Sep 20 2017 2:12 utc | 59

It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ of empire foreign policy dot com, the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:

"“We’re ready to fight tonight,” Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force’s Global Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. “We don’t have to spin up, we’re ready.”"

Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy drones, is just too awful to consider.

So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?

A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.

Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's 'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.

Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the 1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged, advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.

In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.

At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.

So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly the navy as well, their moment in the sun.

The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the summer of '18'

*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).

Posted by: Debsisdead | Sep 20 2017 2:16 utc | 60

Ah sovereignty vs. solvency.

There's the rub.

Posted by: Forest | Sep 20 2017 2:45 utc | 61

Debsisdead | Sep 19, 2017 10:16:10 PM | 60

The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 20 2017 2:47 utc | 62

The other possiblity the U.S. won't attack DPRK is that the U.S., cowardly as it is; hasn't attacked a country of any military consequence since WWII.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 20 2017 3:00 utc | 63

There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --

The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. “I liken the NEO operation to being a scaffolding. It’s not a fully fleshed out plan because it’s preparing for a million different worst-case scenarios,” 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating in her third NEO — so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list — clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries — before driving with her two children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.

Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again) conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 20 2017 3:36 utc | 64

Karlof @ 40

re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.

Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?

Posted by: Stumpy | Sep 20 2017 3:54 utc | 65

Luther Blissett @ 4 said:"sovereign nation" = a country that obeys the US over its own interests

"rogue nation" = a country that has actual sovereignty

Succinct but true..

The fucking hypocrisy in that UN speech takes my breath away. Trump and his mannerisms sure do remind me of "il Duce".

Posted by: ben | Sep 20 2017 4:16 utc | 66

@ V Arnold # 62
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will 'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home' right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election from Gore in the MSM.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Sep 20 2017 4:19 utc | 67

Ignoring Trump.

What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth. There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in the past few decades.

And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with any sort of attack by the US regime.

But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was not about Korea, but China.

Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of millions of North and South Korean lives for.

I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the United States right now.

Posted by: Linda O | Sep 20 2017 4:20 utc | 68

Talking of Westphalia... Here is an excerpt from an article of mine which which appeared in the Vineyard of the Saker's site earlier this year:

The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936) distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and “Civil Society”; community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus to “agree to disagree” and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be reached, paving the way to a “conventional” polity (agreed to by secular-humanist convention). This “agreement to disagree” which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West’s long and excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church’s malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the “Enlightenment” that followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian order of “Civil Societies”, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem nation of Iran.

Posted by: Nuff Sed | Sep 20 2017 4:33 utc | 69

I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.

The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria

He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to break the fierce resistance and liberate
more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24 hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a two-fold increase of the speed of its current
after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be a man-made discharge of water at the dams
north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the international coalition led by the United States, he said.

Russia accuses U.S., opposition of hampering Syrian gov't troops' advance

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 20 2017 4:49 utc | 70

@59 b4real.. thanks.. great article.. here it is again for anyone interested..

Posted by: james | Sep 20 2017 5:43 utc | 71

@ james #72 with Orlov link

Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period take?

What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite" directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon (weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 20 2017 7:10 utc | 72

Pistachio imperialism ! Bring it on !

Posted by: dirka dirka | Sep 20 2017 8:15 utc | 73

these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots, their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.

but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.

of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty, possibly even more stealthily treacherous ones...

like the alien scourge of mass tourism.

Posted by: john | Sep 20 2017 9:25 utc | 74

Others pointing out the "sovereignty" contradictions:

Obama lover and liberal (zionist) interventionist Peter Beinart:

A Radical Rebuke of Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy -
Donald Trump used his first address at the United Nations to redefine the idea of sovereignty.

On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded that America’s enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that “our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests and their well-being.” That’s like saying that my respect for your right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop growing weed.
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it doesn’t like. That’s not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the realism of some of Obama’s most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in the Philippines, would have approved.

The Saker at UNZ:
Listening to the Donald at the UN

In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their “bitch” the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2017 9:35 utc | 75

Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their 'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much

Posted by: ashley albanese | Sep 20 2017 9:57 utc | 76

what a contradictory set of pressures much U S business will be under . That's the nature of Capitalism , isn't it ?

Posted by: ashley albanese | Sep 20 2017 9:59 utc | 77


Actor Morgan Freeman featuring in cold war warmongering propaganda campaingn directed against Russia and Putin.

Posted by: anonymus | Sep 20 2017 10:49 utc | 78

anonymus | Sep 20, 2017 6:49:13 AM | 79

I would think that most of Hollywood is neolib heavy on foreign policy.....

Posted by: notlurking | Sep 20 2017 11:10 utc | 79

My god...

That Morgan Freeman video is bizarre and sickening.

I see that dimwitted lowlife Rob Reiner was one of the people who funded that garbage.

Posted by: Linda O | Sep 20 2017 12:03 utc | 80

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:32 PM | 48

Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a nationalist).t

Ho was most assuredly a communist, and a patriot. A nationalist, if you will. The myth about communists not being attached to their country is just that: a myth.

Who said "Patria o muerte" (Fatherland or death)?

Fidel, that's who.

Who repeated this motto in front of the UN?

Che, that's who.

And Stalin was fiercely patriotic.
So was Lenin.
Which is what what led Ho to Leninism.

And you can carry on with the whole lot of them. Most of the commies were either 1) intensely patriots and lethal to capitalists, or 2) "universalists", dissolved in late-night debates or academia and totally harmless to capitalists (Orwell called those "shock-headed Marxists chewing polysyllables").

Guess which variety capitalist propaganda chose to push?

Posted by: Lea | Sep 20 2017 13:25 utc | 81

The 'Empire' still holds a lot of power and sway. The threat to DPRK is really a threat against China as the stationing of nuclear missiles in South Korea would target China with very little time for a reasoned response should a launch take place.This is why we see China going along, or giving lip service, to the new American imposed sanctions via their sock puppet the UN. North Korea is the foil for the American pivot to Asia so as to remain relevant in the region. No doubt China understands the bigger picture and is trying to rein in her North Korean satellite to these ends while giving a wink and a nod to the DPRK as far as assuring the DPRK will not suffer appreciatively under the new sanctions. Whether China has full control of the situation as regards the DPRK will be seen in the short run as China moves to try and make the USA an irrelevancy in her near Pacific.

The Chinese oligarchy wants a bigger seat at the table where world economic planning takes place and is implemented while the western oligarchs are adamant they retain full control of these processes that all the differing oligarchs agree on with the coming "One World Order." The common person does not figure into this equation at all except as a means via their labour for the creation of wealth which all these oligarchs appropriate for themselves leaving just enough crumbs so that the working classes will procreate more working class slaves.

Posted by: BRF | Sep 20 2017 13:46 utc | 82

Lavrov on Trump's speech

"But I paid attention to another part of the president’s speech," Lavrov continued. "He said he respects sovereignty and equality in international relations, that the United States wants to live by example and not otherwise, and that the US would not impose its way of life on others and will accept the plurality of the nations, cultures and civilizations. I think it’s a very welcomed statement which we haven’t heard from an American leader for a very long time."

Posted by: b | Sep 20 2017 14:50 utc | 83

b | Sep 20, 2017 10:50:06 AM | 83

Its my fervent hope Lavrov doesn't hang too much importance on the rump's bullshit...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 20 2017 15:05 utc | 84

@ V. Arnold

Its my fervent hope Lavrov doesn't hang too much importance on the rump's bullshit...

Yeah, I'm thinking Lavrov just forgot the snark tag.

Posted by: sleepy | Sep 20 2017 15:19 utc | 85

V. Arnold @48--

Thanks for your reply. Yes, Ho was a patriotic nationalist that first tried to gain independence for French Indochina at the Versailles Conference after WW1 thanks to the words of Wilson--the 14 Freedoms--but was told those Freedoms didn't apply to Asians. It was that rebuff that provided the motivation for his becoming a nominal Communist. I've seen several other essays being written to protect the historical record from being altered by Burns's immoral fiction--this production causes him to lose all credibility for me.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 20 2017 15:23 utc | 86

larvov would like to remain positive, in spite of the usa's actions to date.. my take...

Posted by: james | Sep 20 2017 15:31 utc | 87

@83 b

Lavrov pounced on that word. As a commenter on another site said this morning, Russia can now place a kind of burden on the US to honor that word in the future.

Peskov is out there talking about sovereignty also. The more the word gets used, the more the global discourse changes, and even the US domestic discourse.

Improbable - no. We've seen entire paradigms change over the last 2-3 years, and come around to Russia's view. It's a gradual and practically invisible process. But we've seen that Russia and the multi-polar world pay attention to these words, and Russia indeed beats them into swords that kill.

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 20 2017 15:33 utc | 88

Posted by: Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:01:13 PM | 30

I agree. Trump's UN address will eventually inflict more damage on the SWAMP's schemers than on any other segment of humanity - especially in regard to (anti-US/NATO) defense alliances.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 20 2017 15:42 utc | 89

Excellent recap of Iranian President Rouhani's rebuttal of Trump at The Duran,

Meanwhile, Poroshenko is MIA from the podium at the UNGA, failing to appear repeatedly.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 20 2017 16:34 utc | 90

@90 He's talking now. You need a strong stomach to listen.

Posted by: dh | Sep 20 2017 16:47 utc | 91

The sick Hillary Clinton: "Putin hates me, Russia is a threat!"

Posted by: anonymus | Sep 20 2017 16:52 utc | 92


I've never been one to attribute events to supernatural forces, but the new McCarthyists are acting like they're possessed or deluded beyond what can be explained by textbook psychology. Even the slightest bit of logical scrutiny would unravel their hyperbole, but they refuse to even consider the idea that conflict with Russia is a bad thing. It's like the Devil was counting on Hillary get the apocalypse started, and when that plan failed, Plan B was start the war by making it politically impossible to come to a peaceful agreement.

Posted by: Timothy | Sep 20 2017 16:56 utc | 93

Russia's strategy seems to be to kick the USA out of Iraq and the KRG...besides expanding in Syria and in Libya.
Contrary to the USA, Turkey it has NOT opposed the referendum of independence.
By overtly opposing the referendum, the USA and Turkey have spoiled their good relation with the KRG. Russia is moving in, whether the referendum is in favor of independence of not.

Russia becomes Iraq Kurds' top funder, quiet about independence vote

Posted by: Virgile | Sep 20 2017 16:56 utc | 94
Catalans want their own sovereignty
Cataxit or EUgheddon?

Posted by: Mina | Sep 20 2017 17:25 utc | 95

Posted by: Mina | Sep 20, 2017 1:25:51 PM | 95

No, Catalans want to stay in the EU - if the EU lets them.

Which means they would have to pay to Brussels what they now pay to Madrid.

They for sure would want to keep the Euro and free movement in Europe.

Their unemployment rate is good for Spain but bad enough. To get stuck in Catalonia without the possibility for employment elsewhere would not be in young people's interest.

The referendum is economic madness.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 20 2017 17:42 utc | 96

Fresh conspiracy theory by yours truly. The context is the theory of recent electoral events in USA that achieved rather wide circulation, and was very nicely recited in deep, melodious, almost hypnotic voice of Morgan Freeman in a TV advertisement (this actor more frequently promotes Visa cards and insurance companies, and at occasion even stars in movies). To wit, a malevolent creature got trained as a Communist spy, and developed a deep resentment of democracy in general and USA in particular. After relentless climb it achieved autocratic rule over All Russias and developed a devilish plan to undermine the democracies, chiefly USA. Using an army of troll, sock pupets etc. it spread mental maladies among unsuspecting good natured folks in USA, chiefly, mistrust of well established reliable media and gullible credence in fake news.

Interestingly, there is a big competition among individuals and organization aiming to influence election results and legislation. Today, NYT published an estimate that in 2016 elections for federal offices in USA, 6.4 billions were spent in campaigns, and another half of that on lobbying. Close to 10 billions. 16 years earlier it was about half of that. How much was spent by the malevolent creature in the East? Hard to tell, but difficult to imagine that it was more that 1% of that, perhaps much less. Now, suppose that someone shouted "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and afterwards there was a panic. Is cause and effect clear? What if another 99 persons shouted in the same time at least as loudly?

One can also observe that independently of campaign spending and lobbying, news organizations do spend something to promote their good name. Perhaps, in aggregate, also a few billions. Thus I wondered, is there a historical precedent of undermining well established sources of information that were very well funded with a very strategic effort that had very small cost? Yes! Early in 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church was a uniting institution in Western and Central Europe, with many institutions to propagate one and only True Faith. Then some no-goodnik nailed 95 heretical theses to a church door.

Recently declassified archives of Russian Tsars show that in fact it was a Russian ploy that undermined the West and plunged it into a very long period of internecine wars.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 21 2017 3:54 utc | 97

And as a consummate player at the table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he [Trump] has his status. Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:01:13 PM | 30

??? When Trump was a "player at the table of power"? He spent his carrier running businesses that required permits on municipal and state level, so he "played" by cultivating politicians by attending their weddings, funeral and what not, whining and dining them, inviting to his clubs etc. He was contributing to election campaigns rather indiscriminately. And he usually got what he wanted, be it zoning changes, casino permits, leniency from fines when regulations were violated etc. And he was relentlessly building his brand as purveyor of tacky but expensive good for the wealthy with no sense of taste. From that he diversified to charming hoi polloi as a TV star (I guess, he started it when the larger businesses were not particularly rewarding). And most lately he worked on getting visibility among Republicans by harping on the theory that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan impostor. Hard to see the "table of power" here.

Nothing in Trump history and current behaviors disproves the conjecture that while he is aware that there are numerous different countries out there, to him they represent the locations of hotels, casinos, condo developments or stores selling goods with Trump brand that exist now and potentially in the future, plus countries that lack of any of these (for shame, North Korea to be so worthless!).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 21 2017 4:22 utc | 98

Piotr Berman@98 - "Hard to see the "table of power" here."

Maybe I'm too cynical now as an American, Piotr but that's pretty much how I view all the players at the table today - at least in US domestic politics.

If one were to closely examine the careers of most of my US government leaders, one would find behavior pretty much identical to Trump's private career. It's a meritocracy that rewards those with the ability to get their way - or their masters' way - without exposing the filthy processes or unethical action frequently used. It is most decidedly not one that rewards public servants for working hard or doing the right thing.

The current 'Players at the Table of Power' ARE self-serving, manipulative, control-seeking individuals with 1) a carefully-groomed, expanding web of connections to the politically or financially powerful, and 2) the ability to market themselves to little people when needed.

Trump's past wonderfully illustrates those behaviors in a context that should make them obvious to most Americans. Greedy, slimy corporate types - who doesn't hate those guys? Unfortunately, you'll never get beyond the for/against Trump part with most Americans.

The US public has devolved morally and intellectually to the point where psychopathy is seen as a desirable trait in leaders. You need to elect someone who can get more stuff for you (or your city, state, country, corporation, etc.) - psychopaths are great at that. Who cares what kind of person Trump (or Hillary or any other president) was?

Americans want more money and cheap stuff and... oh yeah, to be great again! We don't need no stinkin' morality or humanity in our leaders. Those kind of people are terrible at getting us more money and stuff - they would be eaten alive at the table of global psychopathic powers.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 21 2017 12:52 utc | 99

Looks like KJU is a bit pissed off about the Trump speech and insisted on a harsh and personal(!) reply.

(Sorry for unusual length of quotes, but the KCNA originals seem to vanish after a short time so one needs to keep copies)

Kim Jong Un Makes Statement

Pyongyang, September 22 (KCNA) -- Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army, released a statement as regards a speech made by the president of the United States of America at the UN General Assembly.

The Supreme Leader of the Party, state and army of the DPRK issued the statement in the name of the chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK at the building of the Central Committee of the WPK on September 21, Juche 106 (2017). -0-

Statement of Chairman of State Affairs Commission of DPRK
Pyongyang, September 22 (KCNA) -- Respected Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK, released a statement on Thursday.

The full text of the statement reads:

The speech made by the U.S. president in his maiden address on the UN arena in the prevailing serious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean peninsula has been rendered tense as never before and is inching closer to a touch-and-go state, is arousing worldwide concern.

Shaping the general idea of what he would say, I expected he would make stereo-typed, prepared remarks a little different from what he used to utter in his office on the spur of the moment as he had to speak on the world's biggest official diplomatic stage.

But, far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors.

A frightened dog barks louder.

I'd like to advise Trump to exercise prudence in selecting words and to be considerate of whom he speaks to when making a speech in front of the world.

The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to "totally destroy" a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.

His remarks remind me of such words as "political layman" and "political heretic" which were in vogue in reference to Trump during his presidential election campaign.

After taking office Trump has rendered the world restless through threats and blackmail against all countries in the world. He is unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country, and he is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.

His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his will have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.

Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the DPRK, we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.

Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say.

As a man representing the DPRK and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the DPRK.

This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump.

I am now thinking hard about what response he could have expected when he allowed such eccentric words to trip off his tongue.

Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.

I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U. S. dotard with fire. -0-

That KJU responds in a first person letter is a first.

One might read this as an announcement of
- a big atmospheric thermonuclear test (over the Pacific(?)),
- probably launched with a life missile (would be very unusual),
- at a time that will be most inconvenient for Trump (?).

North Korea had likely already planned for such a test and now uses the Trump speech to execute it.

It is likely less the speech that incited KJU but the continuous denial (in the "west" of DPRK's progress in missiles and nukes. (It desires to be taken serious and seen as equal.)

After the recent thermonuclear tests lots of loud voices claimed that the DPRK could not do thermonuclear and must have used a spiked fission bang instead of a fusion bang. Likewise people denied or played down it's intercontinental missile capabilities. Each time when such doubts of DPRK capabilities are officially voiced, DPRK sets out to disprove them.

Its next nuke test will therefore be a BIG thermonuclear test that leaves no doubt. Its next missile shot will demonstrate increased (New York distance) reach. (Alternative a shorter range launch from a submarine.)

Posted by: b | Sep 22 2017 4:13 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.