Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 16, 2019

Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims

On Tuesday Russia's President Putin again rejected U.S. claims that his country interfered in the 2016 elections in the United States. Additional statements by Foreign Minister Lavrov provide that there is more information available about alleged Russian cyber issue during the election. He pointed to exchanges between the Russian and U.S. governments that Russia wants published but which the U.S. is withholding.

On Tuesday May 14 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Sochi to meet with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov and with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. It was Pompeo's first official visit to Russia. Pompeo's meeting with Lavrov was followed by a joined news conference. The statements from both sides touched on the election issue.

The State Department published a full transcript and video of the press conference in English language. The Russian Foreign Ministry provided an official English translation of only Lavrov's part.  Both translations differ only slightly.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the opening statements with regard to cyber issues.


We agreed on the importance of restoring communications channels that have been suspended lately, which was due in no small part to the groundless accusations against Russia of trying to meddle in the US election. These allegations went as far as to suggest that we colluded in some way with high-ranking officials from the current US administration. It is clear that allegations of this kind are completely false. [...] I think that there is a fundamental understanding on this matter as discussed by our presidents during their meeting last year in Helsinki, as well as during a number of telephone conversations. So far these understandings have not been fully implemented.


[W]e spoke, too, about the question of interference in our domestic affairs. I conveyed that there are things that Russia can do to demonstrate that these types of activities are a thing of the past and I hope that Russia will take advantage of those opportunities.

During the Q & A Shaun Tanron of AFP asked Pompeo about the election issue:

[I]f I could follow up on your statement about the election, you said that there are things that Russia could do to show that election interference is a thing of the past. What are those things? What do – what would you like Russia to do? Thank you very much.

Lavrov responded first to the question. He said that there is no evidence that shows any Russian interference in the U.S. elections. He continued:

Speaking about the most recent US presidential campaign in particular, we have had in place an information exchange channel about potential unintended risks arising in cyberspace since 2013. From October 2016 (when the US Democratic Administration first raised this issue) until January 2017 (before Donald Trump's inauguration), this channel was used to handle requests and responses. Not so long ago, when the attacks on Russia in connection with the alleged interference in the elections reached their high point, we proposed publishing this exchange of messages between these two entities, which engage in staving off cyberspace incidents. I reminded Mr Pompeo about this today. The administration, now led by President Trump, refused to do so. I’m not sure who was behind this decision, but the idea to publish this data was blocked by the United States. However, we believe that publishing it would remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make these exchanges public, but I would still like to make this fact known.

The communication channel about cyber issues did indeed exist. In June 2013 the Presidents of the United States and Russia issued a Joint Statement about "Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)". The parties agreed to establishing communication channels between each other computer emergency response teams, to use the direct communication link of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers for cyber issue exchanges, and to have direct communication links between high-level officials in the White House and Kremlin for such matter. A Fact Sheet published by the Obama White House detailed the implementation of these three channels.

One inference from Lavrov's statement is that the "fundamental understanding on this matter"  between the two presidents that has "not been fully implemented" is the release of the communications about cyberspace incidents. The Russians clearly think that a release of the communications with the Obama administration would exculpate them. That would also exculpate Trump from any further collusion allegations. Why then does the Trump administration reject the release? Who is blocking it?

Pompeo did not respond to Lavrov's points. His next meeting that day was with President Putin.

Putin let him wait for three hours. Both sides issued short opening statements. The English translations of what Putin said differ. In the version provided by Russia Putin explicitely denies the alleged election interference:

For our part, we have said many times that we would also like to restore relations on a full scale. I hope that the necessary conditions for this are being created now since, despite the exotic character of Mr Mueller’s work, he should be given credit for conducting what is generally an objective inquiry. He reaffirmed the lack of any trace or collusion between Russia and the current administration, which we described as sheer nonsense from the very start. There was no, nor could there be any interference on our part in the US election at the government level. Nevertheless, regrettably, these allegations have served as a reason for the deterioration of our interstate ties.

The State Department version does not include the Russian denial of election interference but doubles the rejection of the collusion claim:

On our behalf, we have said it multiple times that we also would like to rebuild fully fledged relations, and I hope that right now a conducive environment is being built for that, because, though, however exotic the work of Special Counsel Mueller was, I have to say that on the whole he had a very objective investigation and he confirmed that there are no traces whatsoever of collusion between Russia and the incumbent administration, which we’ve said was absolutely fake. As we’ve said before, there was no collusion from our government officials and it could not be there. Still, that was – that was one of the reasons certainly breaking our (inaudible) ties.

An English language live translation of that paragraph (vid) by the Russian sponsored Ruptly does not include the word 'election' in the highlighted sentence, nor does a live translation (vid) by PBS.

It seem that the Kremlin later inserted the explicit denial of election interference into Putin's statement. It is quite possible that Putin, who did not read from a prepared paper, mangled the talking point that Lavrov had already made.

After the meeting Putin, Pompeo held a short press availability with the U.S. journalists accompanying him. There is no mentioning of Lavrov's point.

There were secret communications between the Obama administration and the Russian government about the alleged election interference and 'hacks' of the DNC and of Clinton's campaign manager Podesta. They are not mentioned in the Mueller report nor in any other open source. As Russia wants these communications released it might be possible to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to press for their publication. The Trump administration response to such a FOIA request could at least reveal the reasons why it is withholding them.

The allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections are partly based on the fact that a commercial Russian enterprise used fake characters on Facebook to sell advertisement. A review of the themes and ideological positions those fake characters provided demonstrates that they were not designed to influence the U.S. elections.

In contrast to those Russian fakes other fake characters on Facebook, provided by an Israeli company and revealed today, were clearly designed to influence elections:

Facebook said Thursday it banned an Israeli company that ran an influence campaign aimed at disrupting elections in various countries and has canceled dozens of accounts engaged in spreading disinformation.
Many were linked to the Archimedes Group, a Tel Aviv-based political consulting and lobbying firm that boasts of its social media skills and ability to "change reality."
On its website, Archimedes presents itself as a consulting firm involved in campaigns for presidential elections.

Little information is available beyond its slogan, which is "winning campaigns worldwide," and a vague blurb about the group's "mass social media management" software, which it said enabled the operation of an "unlimited" number of online accounts.

Don't expect any protest from Washington DC about such obvious election interference in other countries.

Hat tip to Aaron Maté for pointing out Lavrov's statement

Posted by b on May 16, 2019 at 18:11 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Why don't the Russians just go ahead and put the information out themselves?

Antoinetta III

Posted by: Antoinetta III | May 16 2019 18:29 utc | 1

@1 - Because it would not be proper to do so without agreement of the other party. Russia generally follows diplomatic and security protocol, unlike the US.

Posted by: worldblee | May 16 2019 18:43 utc | 2

This just confirms what I've been saying all along: the new McCarthyism is policy and that it was deliberately planned to be initiated during the 2016 election.

The only one's who are surprised that USA will not reveal exculatory info about Russian interference are those that refuse to accept the truth that I've said many times: MAGA was proposed by Kissinger in a 2014 WSJ Op-Ed to meet the challenge posed by Russia and China to US NWO hegemeny, and was implemented by the Deep State (McCain, Clintons, Bushes, Brennan, Mueller, and friends). The result was a nationalist as President (Trump was the only MAGA candidate and the only populist on the right), a new McCarthyism, and smearing Wikileaks as an agent of Russia.

Welcome to the rabbithole.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 18:50 utc | 3

The Jrabbit @ 3 speaks, IMO, the truth.

Over and beyond that truth, is another truth. That, the DJT regime hates the truth, about anything they do.

It's all about perception management and theater.

Posted by: ben | May 16 2019 18:57 utc | 4

The US gov is truth incapable. They have not earned any trust whatever. They are now so rotten that the truth becomes a lie in their mouth.

Posted by: mike k | May 16 2019 19:14 utc | 5

Have always liked this one:
Hypocritical how US attacks others for election interference while they interfere in other countries elections on a daily basis. The only one allowed to interfere in US elections is the US government itself.

Posted by: Joe | May 16 2019 19:23 utc | 6

Any link to the Russian transcript of Putin's speech?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 16 2019 19:24 utc | 7

Well, i think we have to seperate 2 different "issues":
1. The allaged "collusion" between Trumps campaign and Russia
2. The alleged "inteference" by Russian sponsored hacking groups.

The first is obvious nonsense, as most here knew pretty much from the start.
The second though, is pretty much a fact, even though i fought against accepting it for many months. But why fight to accept this?? After 20 years of US interference, after Ukraine, after Syria, the Russians now decided to hit back. On the same level (and at least as effective) as the US has done on Russia.
IMHO they HAD to, and it was their moral right and obligation to strike back. With strike, i mean using their state sponsored hacking collectives to publish and leak material that every US voter should have a right to know about. Unbloody, and even positive for democracy, as it brought to light even more details about Clintons psyche and motivations.
And i know all the points made that Russia could not have hacked them, but all the opposing evidence is much stronger IMHO, including analysis and inside knowlegde from current intelligence personal at SST.

My point it: Dont mix those 2 different issues. When the 2. one turns out to support the narrative, no one will believe someone who says the 1. point is wrong too.
The Russians build their hacking groups precicely for this reason, and they use them cleverly and amazingly effective. The had to hit back, and i am sure as the patriots they are, they did.

And even Putin only denies the "GOVERNEMNT LEVEL COLLUSION" = the alleged Collusion between Trumps campaing and Russia, NOT the intelligence operations / hacking ops.
I further recommend to watch the "Putin Interviews", where there is a pretty telling passage to this topic.. ;)

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | May 16 2019 19:25 utc | 8

As to the current Iranian stragey i mentioned in the last comments (meaning striking US by proxy in Israels style where everyone knows who did it, but no one can be 100% sure), read Elijah J Magnier latest blog post:

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | May 16 2019 19:35 utc | 9

"... a release of the communications with the Obama administration would…" be the logical, necessary first step in removing all the anti-Russian sanctions, theft of diplomatic property, and so forth--except--that isn't what the actual policy is toward Russia: Russia's the declared "existential threat" #1 of 2 to Outlaw US Empire National Security; so, any actual accommodation--"normalization of relations/communications--with Russia remains off the table.


The Controlling Oligarchy still believes it can overcome what's becoming an Eurasian Alliance to its Zero-sum plan for the planet. Such a conclusion clearly isn't determined by facts or logic but by the long entrenched metaphysical dogma in the Controlling Oligarchy's exceptionalism and that its God of Mammon is on its side. Fantastical delusion, certainly, that only operates within the alternative reality the Controlling Oligarchy's constructed for itself and its slaves/disciples. That construct has its roots in the ongoing denial of historical reality over the past 2,000+ years, whose true reality was recovered by Michael Hudson's Peabody Museum Team.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 16 2019 19:44 utc | 10

The Trump administration probably wants to stretch this nothingburger well into 2020 to give Democrats a little taste of their own medicine.

The toxic cocktail of Ukrainian oligarchs/operatives and the Obama/Clinton/Kerry/Biden mafia is best served around election time.

Posted by: Symen Danziger | May 16 2019 19:47 utc | 11

thanks b.. fascinating and opens up more questions, unless you want to immediately have the answer with @3 jr and etc..

Posted by: james | May 16 2019 19:58 utc | 12

DontBelieveEitherPropaganda @8 Russian sponsored hacking groups ... cleverly and amazingly effective.

What "hacking groups"?
The DNC 'hack' is suspected of being a inside job: a 'leak' instead of a 'hack'.

Gluccifer2 was one guy and his 'hacking' looks like a CIA op to blame Russia/Wikileaks.

Other alleged 'hacks' haven't been conclusively tied to Russia despite the enormous capabilities of the NSA, CIA, and FBI.

What are they alleged to have done?
Obtained embarrassing emails that provided truthful and important info to US voters. Obtain info related to election officials but no evidence that that was used to pressure those officials.

What effect did it have on the election?
There is no evidence that it changed the result of the election.

Hillary's failures (which I believe were intentional) caused her to lose, not Russia. Hillary:

> alienated important voter groups like progressives (especially wrt her treatment of Sanders), blacks (she was infamously condescending to a Black Lives Matter activist and otherwise ignored blacks), and non-progressive whites (which she characterized as "deplorables");

> in the last weeks of the election, she chose not to campaign in the 3 mid-west states that would decide the election - despite the fact that her running mate (Tom Keane) grew up in the mid-West.

Furthermore, many have contented that Hillary "won" the election because she won the popular vote. From this viewpoint, any alleged "Russian interference" had no effect.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 20:14 utc | 13

james @12

I'll go with the open questions, thank you very much. Claims that everything is the intended outcome of the machinations of an omnipotent establishment, and that even the omnipotent establishment's self-defeating failures are somehow parts of their mind-bendingly intricate 57 dimensional chess game... well, such a religious take on geopolitics doesn't appeal to old fashioned rationalists like myself.

In fact, I very much like the open questions that articles like this one raise. Only people who already know everything that there is to know don't like open questions.

Posted by: William Gruff | May 16 2019 20:19 utc | 14

Again, this is WWE kayfabe by Trump. He is such a bull shitter. If you can stand to watch without upchucking...

... There you have it, one glorious president, same guy different year. But Lavrov, again shows grace under fire. This guy is amazing. He is more than a match for Trump, or any low brow now representing the USA.

Posted by: Taffyboy | May 16 2019 20:28 utc | 15


Claims that everything is the intended outcome of the machinations of an omnipotent establishment
Good think I'm not making such claims.

I recognize that Syria didn't go as intended. And Russia's regaining the Crimea wasn't intended. And Wikileaks publishing Vault7 wasn't intended. And Russia re-gaining superiority in important weapons systems wasn't intended. And Guido's looking foolish on a bridge wasn't intended.

Yet they keep plotting. Why is that when it's so futile? Maybe because they do get some things right.

... mind-bendingly intricate 57 dimensional chess game...
And yet when Obamabots and Trumptards claim that their hero plays such games there are few objections.

Why do we give the benefit of the doubt to scumbag asshats and look askance at informed cynics that warn us about their plans?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 20:39 utc | 16

1 and 2:

What about just a teensy taste, a teaser, released to, say the NYT and WaPo, the WSJ, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, to let the world know what kind of info resides there and ideally general demand (anchored in curiosity and salivation generated by the teaser) that all info be released now.

Posted by: Really? | May 16 2019 20:39 utc | 17

Taffyboy @15: kayfabe by Trump

Trump does engage in a lot of kayfabe - like his "fake news" conflict with our controlled press.

But the new McCarthyism is much more. This is a serious Deep State-approved policy to weaken Russia, kettle Europe, and stifle dissent.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 20:45 utc | 18

It may be that the Controlling Oligerchy does not think that its victory is guaranteed by its God of Mammon, but that it thinks that the results of its failure to win would be unacceptable, so that it has to try.

Posted by: lysias | May 16 2019 20:46 utc | 19

"And i know all the points made that Russia could not have hacked them, but all the opposing evidence is much stronger IMHO, "

This statement is quite worrisome.
It is akin to the Mueller investigation itself: evidence-free, or evidence bending and distorting.
IMO any hypothesis/theory of the crime has to account for all available physical evidence and forensics. If it doesn't either there is something wrong with the hypothesis, or with the evidence. Unless you can provide counter-evidence to Binney's assessment and evidence that there was a leak, not a hack, then I don't think your conclusion has much value--becomes a garbage in, garbage out situation.

Posted by: Really? | May 16 2019 20:46 utc | 20

The problem with Jackrabbit's @3 account is that it takes seriously the notion that Trump is a "nationalist," which he's not. His rhetoric is nationalist, as is arguably his "trade war" with China, but every major foreign policy action he's undertaken could have been undertaken by any of the last four Presidents and most would have been undertaken by Clinton. I agree with Jackrabbit that the correct inference to draw from the Trump administration's failure to publish the exonerating correspondence is that the new McCarthyism is policy, on some level. The only difference between Trump and Clinton is that she knew this was the new policy going into the election and even had a hand in creating its pretext, while Trump was informed only later.

Why is this policy? Not because Henry Kissinger says so. It is because the last years of the Obama presidency leading into the 2016 election witnessed a noticeable rise of social and political disaffection among Americans due to rapidly increasing inequality post the 2008-09 bailout and this was perceived as threatening the viability (ie propagandistic utility) of the two major parties and corporate media narratives, these being the two institutions most captured by and useful for the oligarchic elites. The Russia-meddling narrative would have been put forward even if Clinton had won, though probably under a different guise. Its main function was to recapture domestic politics and party stability by creating a foreign enemy that could be presented to the masses as the cause of American social unrest. The masses, being stupid and gullible, would soon fall into line, and yearn for a "return" to the "normalcy"--ie the status quo iniquities--of the political order. This, in fact, is the very premise of Biden's--the favored restorationist's-- presidential campaign.

If there is a "reason" that Trump was allowed to be elected, it is probably that the collapse of the Democratic Party poses a bigger threat to the elite than the collapse of the Republican Party does, because the Democratic Party is meant to absorb and neuter social democratic movements coming from the Left. Hence there needed to be a mechanism whereby Democratic Party allegiance was strengthened. Russia-meddling narrative did exactly this. It successfully present social democratic critiques of Party leadership as suspicious and illegitimate and presented the Party itself as the victim of nefarious influence, thereby reinspiring the allegiance of its

The whole theater surrounding the 2020 election is to prevent the populist upsurge of the 2016 election from taking hold. It is largely working. I suspect Biden will be nominated as Democratic nominee during the second ballot of the election, and he will narrowly beat it narrowly lose to Trump. Of course there are multiple parties that benefit from the Russia-meddling narrative. But I think that reestablishing narrative control over domestic politics was the chief purpose of the narrative, not Kissinger's foreign policy op ed.

I think that events subsequent to 2016 support this narrative.

Posted by: WJ | May 16 2019 20:57 utc | 21

The problem is with the artificial construct of "election interference" which lots of countries do in the US by funding certain politicians. The Clinton Foundation is a big elephant.

Cambridge Analytica which has been closely connected to the British establishment pitched to all countries including Russia. As they deal in psychological warfare everybody must have been asleep - or not.
This is a Scottish take on Cambridge Analytica

Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment.’ A freedom of information request from August 2016, shows that the MOD has twice bought services from Strategic Communication Laboratories in recent years.

In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the “provision of external training”. Meanwhile, in 2014/2015, it paid SCL £150,000 for the “procurement of target audience analysis”.

In addition, SCL also carries a secret clearance as a ‘list X’ contractor for the MOD. A List X site is a commercial site on British soil that is approved to hold UK government information marked as ‘confidential’ and above. Essentially, SCL got the green light to hold British government secrets on its premises.

Meanwhile, the US State Department has a contract for $500,000 with SLC. According to an official, this was to provide “research and analytical support in connection with our mission to counter terrorist propaganda and disinformation overseas.” This was not the only work that SCL has been contracted for with the US government, the source added...

So Britain interfered in the US elections in two ways - as a psychological warfare company laying a trail to Russia and as a "private" secret service company - Orbis - claiming that there was a Russian conspiracy.

Posted by: somebody | May 16 2019 21:06 utc | 22

In order to believe that Russia tried to influence the US election by releasing information to American voters, you would have to believe that
1) Russia preferred one candidate over the others, (although Putin has pointed out that US policy marches on, unencumbered by any particular front man in the White House)
2) That Russia believes that American voters carefully research the candidates and base their votes on facts and reason. Why would Russia believe this? I certainly don't. And the reaction of the Dems to the Mueller Report makes it particularly obvious that facts don't penetrate into the minds of Dems. (It should go without saying that Reps are equally resistant to facts.)
3) That Russia knew that the DNC had emails which showed that the Clinton campaign rigged the primaries against Sanders. Why would Russia know that? And did Russia also shoot down Seth Rich, in order to make it look like Clinton racked up another body? As Jackrabbit points out, above, we are told that Clinton actually got 3 million more votes than Trump, so clearly, the leaks, the information and the dead body meant very little to American voters.

I also agree with Jackrabbit that this hysteria against Russia started before the 2016 election. Does no one remember the coup in Ukraine? The propaganda started then.

And the purposes of this propaganda push are obvious, and are playing out now.

A big part is the attempt of our owners to regain access to the wealth of Russia, as they had under their drunken puppet Yeltsin, in the 90s. The sanctions, the NATO expansion, the military "exercises" on the border...all justified (in their propaganda) by the "Russian threat".

Also to push for censorship and control over social media. Listen to their speeches, watch their actions, and it is very clear that they intend to shut down the horizontal flow of information between humans around the world that social media made possible, for a few, brief years.

And the ramping up of the divisions in the US population, by calling anyone who voted for Trump a "racist", which annoys the hell out of people, leading to anger and increased hostility, which is then blamed on the Russians, in a transparent (to normal people) case of psychological projection. They are pushing for civil war, in order to divide and conquer the people, and they are blaming the obvious increase of tensions on the Russians.

Posted by: wagelaborer | May 16 2019 21:08 utc | 23

The “Russian interference” theory is useful for diverting attention away from the Israeli interference FACT. Trump is a willing stooge of the Israelis and therefore will do nothing substantial to bury the Russian interference theory.

Posted by: Kevin | May 16 2019 21:09 utc | 24

Do you know of any links to the full Kissinger piece that are not hidden behind the WSJ paywall

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 16 2019 21:17 utc | 25

On comments 8 and 20:
8 Claims to have inside knowledge from active analysts and agents at SST! Presumably this information contradicts Bill Binnie's assessment? Tried to figure out what SST might stand for assuming it's not Samoan Standard Time or Supersonic Transport; seems it's most likely an in-house acronym at Defense or Homeland Security. It's so nice to be treated to fresh LHO
(Limited Hangout) Thanks no. 8
In search of the real SST came across this interesting item:

Posted by: NOBTS | May 16 2019 21:19 utc | 26

meant Binney's of course.

Posted by: NOBTS | May 16 2019 21:34 utc | 27

"It seem that the Kremlin later inserted the explicit denial of election interference into Putin's statement. It is quite possible that Putin, who did not read from a prepared paper, mangled the talking point that Lavrov had already made."

Imo this claim is an exaggeration and ignores the context in which Putin's statement was made. The topic under discussion was Russian election interference so it doesn't matter if Putin omitted the word "election" from his closing remarks. He explicitly denied interference and the only thing he could have been referring to, in a discussion about election interference, was the election.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 16 2019 21:37 utc | 28

Peter @25--

It's here at hangthebankers.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 16 2019 21:38 utc | 29


Sic Semper Tyrannis

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 16 2019 21:39 utc | 30

WJ @21--

You raise some good points. Russiagate is very much about Narrative Control and thus about Masses Control since that's Narrative Control's purpose. However, enough insurgents were elected who are quite savvy and fearless, and who are getting media exposure to advance their issues. Furthermore, reality is crushing Narrative Control, and the insurgents are very good to link real life context to the issues they champion--that FOX in some respects is no longer a member of BigLie Media (Tucker Carlson, Sanders Town Hall, and others) is very important. Toss in the 737-MAX scandal and its immediate connections to 2008, and the Controlling Oligarchy has more than one big problem. As for Biden, IMO his association with Obama and Clinton along with his own gaffs will sink him well before the Convention.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 16 2019 21:59 utc | 31

I don't spend a lot of time at Col. Lang's blog nowadays, but a cursory review doesn't show anything supporting the" Russians hacked the DNC" narrative. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: NOBTS | May 16 2019 22:12 utc | 32

@32 nobts... true, but look how @8 dbtp is framing it...

many good comments.. thanks...

Posted by: james | May 16 2019 22:16 utc | 33

In the last weeks i dont have much time to comment, though seeing how my comment has triggered some folks, a short PS:
What i meant (and wrote) was: That i have come to the conlusion after reading and researching all (to us) known arguments pro and con (all in all at least several 100 hours over the years, likely much more as i normally spend multiple hours daily on reading and researching, and this topic has taken a significant amount of space in MSM and alt media):
Sometimes the official narrative is closer to the truth that one (and i) would like. And it took me many months to get to the point to also admit the validity of the official narrative on this issue.
And as i said, even for a leading contributer at SST (with the actual inside knowlegde) who is as repected as B in our small Alt-Media world the evidence is pretty clear, even though classified (This contributer has always fircely resisted the collusion claims, and would also like me want the inteference not to be true, but is not ideologically blind and able to accept a fact that he does not like.
Can anyone be 100% sure? No, at we can not be. Only securtiy services can, and that is as far as i goes. At some point we have to weight the pros and cons. And when overwhelming pros point into one direction, one better not just try to look for the one evidence that suits ones world view.
And again, why try so hard to think otherwise? Why would it be so bad if Russia finally did hit back the same way it has been treated? Again, Putin himself does only deny the collusion, and there are no smoking gugs. And even if there were, they could be faked. Thats todays reality.
But most when most indicators point in one direction, it can not be dismissed because one does not like it (Or attack the messenger for the message).

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | May 16 2019 22:22 utc | 34

it seems to me pompeo and etc must really think russians are stupid... everything he says, or doesn't say conveys this underlying theme as i seeand read him.. obviously i view it exactly opposite pompeo...

did you all listen or read the transcript from aaron mate's interview with his father gabor mate? i have read a few of gabor mates books.. he is quite insightful.. he has worked on the downtown eastside of vancouver dealing with a lot of social problems... for anyone interested - here is a transcript of aarons interview with his dad..

Posted by: james | May 16 2019 22:22 utc | 35

Peter AU 1, et al--

Like many, I hadn't read Kissinger's "Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order" since it resided behind the WSJ's paywall. And it's hidden there for a very good reason--it's premised on a totally false version of the post-WW2 world and the actions of the Outlaw US Empire. Indeed, it's an excellent example of the alternative reality believed by the Controlling Oligarchy, which is the essay's intended audience. Here's a whopper from paragraph 2:

"The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries."

Please compare that with the actual events--covert and overt--immediately following WW2 and the implementation of the UN Charter and Organization. The Cold War was already ongoing policy; the fundamental tenets of the UN Charter were already being undermined, and unilateral action was seen as required to control peoples deemed unreasonable--because they didn't want to follow the diktats of their former colonial masters. And that's just the beginning of a complete, utter fabrication of history.

Here's the paragraph that introduces the notion of a Rules-based Order:

"A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages."

Of course, such an order already exists--the UN and its and additional codices of International Law. Is Kissinger trying to remind his audience of the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full Spectrum Domination--since enthusiasm for it was waning thanks to the Ukraine Crisis (which was deemed a crisis because Crimea wasn't taken)?

What pathology is Kissinger displaying? He's clearly lying deliberately, but how many in his intended audience know he's lying? Chomsky famously noted that delusional ideas can still be rational. I'm sure others will comment now that Kissinger's essay's no longer hidden.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 16 2019 22:48 utc | 36

James @ 35:

That is an interesting transcript to read. Much of what it says dovetails with the conversation Peter AU 1 and Karlof1 were having in the comments forum attached to B's previous post (comments 85 - 87) and my addition @ 96 with regard to psychological projection and the phenomenon of shared psychosis, the latter which is now well known in Australia due to a case involving five members of a family in Victoria in 2016.

It's possible that what we have been seeing in Washington DC for decades (and what we are still seeing in one form or another) is a form of shared psychosis or mass hysteria. The hysteria over Communism during the 1950s never really went away; it has transformed into the Russiagate scandal of today with its focus on the Trump government.

Maybe there is also a class warfare aspect to Russiagate as well, just as there was to the mass hysteria directed at Communism: both phenomena focus on particular scapegoats made to represent the manifestation of the fears of a ruling class that knows it does not deserve its position in society.

Posted by: Jen | May 16 2019 23:03 utc | 37

DontBelieveEitherPropaganda @34--

"Why would it be so bad if Russia finally did hit back the same way it has been treated?"

Because it would constitute a great moral error for Russia and a blow to its rapidly rising credibility and trustworthiness. Here are several maxims: First and foremost--The Golden Rule; Second--you don't stoop to the level of your opponent; rather, expose the difference as much as possible. Third, and almost as important as #1--Honor & Dignity.

In the eyes of the genuine International Community, Russia and China have striven extremely hard to differentiate themselves and their goals from that of the Outlaw US Empire and can now count @2/3s of the world's nations behind them, and that number grows daily while the reputation of the West sinks. Even stalwarts of the West admit this as Merkel did earlier today, which I linked on the previous thread. Thirty years ago, the USSR was coming apart at its seams because for decades it tried to continue a fantasy, a non-reality. Putin and his cadre demand honesty, reality, and accountability. Today Putin took part in the plenary session of The Truth and Justice Regional and Local Media Forum, which is part of an ongoing series aimed at the uplifting of Russia and Russians, and to try and attain the desired results, Putin must have unimpeachable credibility. And he does.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 16 2019 23:16 utc | 38

@34 DontBelieve.....

Unless you have inspected the DNC servers and established that Craig Murray, Julian Assange, and Larry Johnson are all lying--for they have all averred that the DNC and Podesta leaks were just that, and have done so on basis of first-hand (Murray, Assange) and second-hand (Johnson) knowledge of the leaks in question, then I don't care that you claim to have thought hard about the "arguments." The fact remains that there is no evidentiary basis for the arguments claiming to show Russian interference. Unless and until you provide such evidence then there is no reason to listen to you. This is because arguments are only as good as the evidence adduced for their support.

Posted by: WJ | May 16 2019 23:30 utc | 39

DBEP@34 "evidence is pretty clear, even though classified"

Okay, so what that means is: you believe this "evidence" though you do not know what it is, because someone claiming to be an "intelligence insider" has seen it and you believe them? In what way is this qualitatively different from the famous" 17 intelligence agencies agree" meme? If you have any evidence disproving Bill Binney's analysis how about trundling it out? The effusive limiting is very nice but I can't see how it validates the hangout.

Posted by: NOBTS | May 16 2019 23:30 utc | 40

Assuming this theory is right (and I doubt it), then there's two main possibilities as to 1) why the USA is witholding it and 2) why Russia is in no hurry to release it. My guess is a combination of:

a) the information is simply deemed too damaging to the USA soft power, to the point even Trump doesn't want to release it to the public; and/or the deep state is essentially blocking it from going public for the same reason.

b) this Russophobe situation is not all that bad to the political faction in Russia who wants it to remain sovereign relative to the USA (i.e. the Eurasianists). Trade between the two countries was already almost null before the sanctions (less than 5% of each country's total trade), so they aren't really affecting their economies. Besides, Russia gains the rationale to stifle its neoliberals at home (Yeltsin and the liberals) and maintain United Russia in power. It also gives Putin a legitimate excuse to dump US Treasury bonds, build its own internet servers, increase its relations with China and drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

c) if Russia released unilaterally, it would be born lifeless, since the Western MSM would accuse this info was fake news fabricated by the "Russian propaganda machine", thus defeating its own purpose.

d) it would hurt Trump's own base, since his doctrine is that of the "Clash of Civilizations", i.e. that the world is defined at a macro level by a cultural war, whose ultimate antagonism lies between the Caucasian "Western Civilization" (Christian and white plus their honorable whites: the Japanese and South Korean) and the "Yellows" (Chinese). If the info released could paint a picture of cooperation between those "LGBT-loving" Democrats and the "Strong, Orthodox" Russians, then this fantasy world would shatter to pieces.

Posted by: vk | May 16 2019 23:40 utc | 41

The MSM portrayed this NOT as Russian denial of interference but Russia using US interference as an excuse for their own. It's the usual spin.

Haaretz. Isn't it amazing what they can print but our own media won't touch? That's why the alt-media in the US does so well and why the MSM and tech giants fight it.

Posted by: Curtis | May 16 2019 23:43 utc | 42

Piotr @7:
The Russian transcript which matches the Russian words Putin is shown speaking on video) does indeed speak specifically of elections [выборы]. That seems an important difference, and it is possible that Putin included that comment off-script. In which case, the english-language media, rather than actually translating what was said, simply transcribed a pre-conference script document prepared for them in advance.
Given the way the english-speaking media behaves, such behavior seems like it would be true-to-form.

Posted by: ДжММ | May 16 2019 23:45 utc | 43


India joined the US and betrayed Iran.

MK Bhadrakumar (who is not a fan of the US) himself admits it.

India’s betrayal of Iran is only the beginning -

What happened with the "US is rapidly collapsing" , "The breathtaking weakness of the Empire", "No one takes the US seriously" "World to US - you are fired" and so on alt media retardations?

You underestimate your opponents. Which makes a lot of your analyses garbage. And i don't like reading garbage. Improve the quality of your analyses, please.

Posted by: Passer by | May 16 2019 23:53 utc | 44

WJ @21

You're right, Trump is not actually a nationalist. I've often written that he's a faux populist.

Trump was the only MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist on the right.

His hiring of Manafort furthered the 'Russian collusion' narrative as well as his very public requests that Russia deliver Clinton emails and his praise of Putin.

Trump said he wouldn't prosecute Hillary within days of winning, saying "they've been through a lot" and has strangely brought friends and has associates of his Deep State enemies into his Administration:

- VP Pence was close to McCain;

CIA Director Gina Haspel is associated with Brennan;

AG Wm Barr is a long-time friend of Mueller (and Mueller is Comey's mentor);

Bolton is a neocon - neocons were "Never Trump".

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 23:53 utc | 45

Peter AU 1 @25: ... links to the full Kissinger piece that are not hidden behind the WSJ paywall?

Sorry, I don't know of any.

I have a copy but I don't know if it's legal to post it.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16 2019 23:55 utc | 46

"And i know all the points made that Russia could not have hacked them, but all the opposing evidence is much stronger IMHO, including analysis and inside knowlegde from current intelligence personal at SST."

Hmm, you sound just like all of the many clowns who have have been peddling the risible Russiagate hoax for the last 2 & 1/2 years! Always chirping about big fat masses of "evidence" that somehow they just can't reveal to the sorry unwashed masses of us, you know, "for reasons of national security," although they, just like you, evidently, will generously deign to provide us with "analysis and knowlegde [sic] from current intelligence personal [sic] at SST," -- whatever the Hell that silly esoteric acronymn is supposed to denominate, -- who are, of course, to be believed implicitly even though they have a very well-documented, seventy year record of spouting the most egregious lies in their quest to maximize their own increasingly mafia-like power. No thanks, "Don't believe either propaganda" I personally don't find your non-evidentiary propaganda nearly so compelling as the meticulous VIPS' refutation of the whole nonsense about "Russian hacking" of the DNC, a refutation which, by the way, has also been repeatedly corroborated by Julian Assange, whose record of veracity, I dare say, would put to shame any comparable record that could possibly be produced by you, or even any of the other self-appointed "analysts" at your so trusted "SST," -- if indeed that acronym refers to anything at all!!

Posted by: Billosky | May 16 2019 23:56 utc | 47

... also, per what Putin actually said, "Mueller confirmed the absence of any kind of traces and any kind of arrangements between Russia and the current administration, which [russia] has characterized since the beginning as total nonsense."

I am constantly dissatisfied with the quality of Russian-to-English translation from such official sources. It's no 'overload' button, but still, precision in words and grammar matters....

Posted by: ДжММ | May 16 2019 23:59 utc | 48

Mr. Lavrov said, "we believe that publishing it (emails between the two entities communicating about cyberspace issues) would remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make these exchanges public..."
I haven't seen the fabrications to which he is referring. Has anyone seen the fabrications of the messages he is speaking about?

Posted by: roza shanina | May 17 2019 0:18 utc | 49

karlof1 @36

This is the part that's relevant to Trump as the MAGA candidate:

Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course.

This is his prescription given after listing all the problems facing his cherished international order.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

This was my reaction when I first read it in 2014:

I was skeptical of Kissinger’s Op-ed of March 5th, saying (on April 28th): “Kissinger penned a “lets be reasonable” Op-ed in an attempt to head off Russian action and maintain the gains made via “facts on the ground”.

Kissinger again feels the need to join the public conversation but I see his contribution very differently than Banger. My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through loud and clear despite his ‘triage’ formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.

There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I’ll point to one more thing: Note how he forms an equivalence between all the troubles that the ‘West’ now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer’s (in today’s links) work on Ukraine and many links regarding ISIS (like this one).

This comforting message is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent oberservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland’s obnoxious and misguided “f*ck the EU” with an exceptional! “f*ck the World”.

God help us.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 17 2019 0:21 utc | 50

@ Passer 44
India joined the US and betrayed Iran. MK Bhadrakumar (who is not a fan of the US) himself admits it. . . i don't like reading garbage. Improve the quality of your analyses, please.

MKB didn't "admit it," he rued it. You left that part out.

Delhi falls in line with the US diktat on Iran sanctions, which of course will hit the Indian economy very badly, while the US is also at the same time aggressively demanding that India should open up its market for American exports. Why can’t the Modi government prioritise India’s economic concerns?. . .here

And MKB chastised India as cowards:
The running theme in all this is that India’s strategic ties with Iran, Russia and China are coming under challenge from Washington. But the big question is how come Washington regards the “muscular” Modi government with a 56″ chest to be made of such cowardly stuff? Are the ruling elites so thoroughly compromised with the Americans? There are no easy answers.

I don't like reading garbage. Improve the quality of your analysis, please.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 0:24 utc | 51

Passer by @44--

Modi, if he gets reelected and given this decision that's a huge IF, India's economy will crash as Iranian oil was being bought at a discount. Also, this will greatly damage future BRI prospects and a host of other matters. IOW, Modi did NOT act in his or India's fundamental interest. Of course, it's even more likely now that he'll lose and the flow of Iranian oil will resume in order to keep India's economy alive. A more apt title for that item would be Modi's suicide.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2019 0:26 utc | 52

DBEP @ 8, 34:

Aside from the burden of proof you need to provide to back up your belief that the DNC emails were hacked by Russians - which others here have pointed out is not supported by available evidence - you need to say why you believe the moral and right thing for Russia to do is to get involved in a tit-4-tat cycle of revenge for wrongs both real and perceived.

The other problem with your argument is that it appears to be based on a narrow range of sources, and quite dubious sources at that, which happen to agree with one another. Intel agencies are as likely to rely on rumour, innuendo and fake news, to the extent of shaping reports of real events into something completely different, if they believe that will advance their aims.

This is why the CIA was mightily upset when in 2017 Wikileaks revealed the infamous hacking tools known as Vault 7 that the agency uses to hack information and then attach fake metadata to its hacking efforts to cover them and implicate foreign agencies.

Posted by: Jen | May 17 2019 0:26 utc | 53

I suppose that we can all agree that Kissinger is a terrible person, a demonstrated fact with no further proof required.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 0:31 utc | 54

roza @49

MFA transcript
The word Lavrov used, "измышления", means more literally, "things that have been made up". You are reading nuances into a word that was poorly-chosen as a translation.

Posted by: ДжММ | May 17 2019 0:33 utc | 55

@ karlof1 52
As MKB pointed out, it's also in India's fundamental interest to retain its interests in Iran regarding the Chabahar port entrance into central Asia, in competition with China & Pakistan's Gwadar port. Modi is basically an anti-Muslim loser, keeping in mind that India has about as many Muslims as Pakistan has. I suppose he thinks it will help him in the election.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 0:39 utc | 56

Jackrabbit @50--

As I wrote, Kissinger was knowingly lying. If he actually believed those myths, he's more delusional than I imagined.

I highly suggest reading the transcript james linked @35. Kissinger can be lumped in with all the other deniers.

As I wrote above, the USSR crashed into an impenetrable wall called Reality. The USA is in the process of doing the same although the results will differ. Trump isn't MAGA; he's MAW--Make America Worse as that's the reality.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2019 0:44 utc | 57

Don Bacon @57--

Thanks for adding that. Our assessments of Modi are quite similar. I hope he's replaced. India has so much potential, but it's rarely had a leader to match.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2019 0:54 utc | 58

@ karlof1 59
Yes India has potential, but meanwhile is quite backward especially compared to China in terms of transport and infrastructure. It's too bad, the people are wonderful, Hindus, Muslims and Christians getting along with no help from Modi.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 1:04 utc | 59

Don Bacon | May 16, 2019 8:24:54 PM | 51

Did i say that they are not cowards? Does it matter? Does it matter if MK did not like it?

Are you an idiot? What kind of low quality thinking is that?

The point (at least for me) is not whether MK likes what happened or not. Or whether i like it. Sometimes in life bad things happen, no matter what your side is.

The point is already mentioned in the second part of my first comment.

karlof1 | May 16, 2019 8:26:07 PM | 52

Yes, India already has plenty of issues with BRI, especially CPEC. They refused to participate recently in one of the forums if i remember correctly. Yes, there is no doubt that there is a price to pay for India. Yet you can see what is happening with India and Brazil. The US is working towards the weakening of BRICS and multipolarity in general.

So: how do you explain the US gaining power in India and Brazil if the US is collapsing? Unless they are stronger than some people think.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 1:05 utc | 60

@37 jen.. yes - a bit like the previous conversation, but of relevance here too... i don't know how much of it is intentional, or a result of all drinking the same kooaid for so long, they become immune to an alternative viewpoint.. lots of room for speculation..

Posted by: james | May 17 2019 1:13 utc | 61

This does not show the strength of the dying US empire, it shows the weakness of India's ruling class.

Posted by: Indrid Cold | May 17 2019 1:14 utc | 62

Passer by @61--

In a word--Corruption. I'll leave it to you to explain to the hundreds of homeless I just finished walking amongst in Portland, Oregon, and the additional million+ nationwide that the USA isn't "collapsing."

In continuation of our discussion on the psychological issues at play within the Outlaw US Empire, I offer this assessment just published by The Saker which is filled with links to prove his assertions:

"[Sidebar: this issue is crucial to the understanding of the United States. The US is an extremely developed country, but not a civilized one. Oscar Wilde (and George Clemanceau) had it right: “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between“. There are signs of that everywhere in the USA: from the feudal labor laws, to the lack of universal healthcare, to absolutely ridiculous mandatory criminal sentences (the Soviet Penal Code under Stalin was MUCH more reasonable and civilized than the current US laws!), to the death penalty, to the socially accepted torture in GITMO and elsewhere, to racial tensions, the disgusting “food” constituting the typical “SAD” diet, to the completely barbaric “war on drugs”, to the world record of incarcerations, to an immense epidemic of sexual assaults and rapes (1/5 of all women in the USA!), homosexuality accepted as a “normal and positive variation of human sexuality“, 98 percent of men reported internet porn use in the last six months, … – you can continue that list ad nauseam. Please don’t misunderstand me – there are as many kind, intelligent, decent, honorable, educated, compassionate people in the USA as anywhere else. This is not about the people living in the USA: it is about the kind of society these people are living in. In fact, I would argue the truism that US Americans are the first victims of the lack of civilization of their own society! Finally, a lack of civilization is not always a bad thing, and sometimes it can make a society much more dynamic, more flexible, more innovative too. But yeah, mostly it sucks…]"

Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2019 1:17 utc | 63

Indrid Cold | May 16, 2019 9:14:03 PM | 63

Sounds good. So India is retarded, Brazil is retarded, Europe is retarded, etc. You are smarter than them. (It is possible though :).

Well, if there are so many retards around in this world, no wonder the US has been ruling it for some time.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 1:19 utc | 64

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 16, 2019 7:55:46 PM | 46

I have a copy but I don't know if it's legal to post it.

Try sending it offshore. You could send it to b with a request. I am mystified at you obedience to law.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | May 17 2019 1:22 utc | 65

Passer by, are you alright? It is just...I don't sound a bit disturbed. Who said retarded other than you? Are you retarded? Hmmmm...

Now if you asked whether there are corrupt and worthless "leaders" in India and other places who are either too frightened or too greedy to stand up to murican demands.... oh wait, never mind....

The short bus is coming for you.....

Posted by: Indrid Cold | May 17 2019 1:24 utc | 66

On the other hand, the US has many secular and religious groups doing what they can alleviate the suffering that surely exists, a very civilized behavior. Community groups in action, the kind of society we live in, in areas where the government has failed. . .But I do feel left out, 98 percent of US men reported internet porn use in the last six months and I didn't get any. . . Had to do it myself!

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 1:25 utc | 67

@ Peter AU 1 #25

Try this:

Posted by: Zachary Smith | May 17 2019 1:27 utc | 68

karlof1 | May 16, 2019 9:17:13 PM | 64

Thanks for the comment. Tommorrow i may answer something.

Indrid Cold | May 16, 2019 9:24:00 PM | 67

Ok then. You can reread the same comment using your word "worthless" instead of my word "retarded". What i said in it still stands.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 1:30 utc | 69

@44 passer by.. have you always been such a simpleton? jesus.. i took you seriously in the previous threads, but not anymore!

Posted by: james | May 17 2019 1:34 utc | 70

And it is still meaningless. You deliberately confuse the people of a nation with their leaders. What I said is on firmer ground and you know it's true. There will always be men who favor lining their own pockets in the short run rather than sticking to a course that pays off better in the long.

Posted by: Indrid Cold | May 17 2019 1:37 utc | 71

@49 ДжММ - Spacibo for the link! Mr. Lavrov is my hero. Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko 2.0 for ColdWar 2.0 ®.

Posted by: roza shanina | May 17 2019 1:47 utc | 72

james | May 16, 2019 9:34:09 PM | 72

I see a problem with rose colored articles or over optimistic assessments. That's it.

Indrid Cold | May 16, 2019 9:37:52 PM | 73

I do see leaders as some kind of representation of their people. Did't they say that people get the leaders they deserve? What you said is that their elites are corrupt or worthless.

Well, what i say is that if there are so many worhless elites on this world, in the various parts of it, it is no wonder the US has been ruling it for some time.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 1:49 utc | 73

karlof1 shared the link peter au was looking for.. i know it is some effort to read others comments, and i am as guilty as the next, but if you want to read the link see @29 karlof1 where he shares what kissinger says in the wsj...

Posted by: james | May 17 2019 1:49 utc | 74

@ 75 passer by...i think most folks here do too!

india is in the middle of an election.. it happens this weekend... politicians at election times have a habit of saying things that they don't necessarily keep... i think you overlook important details like this here... i think it makes your commentary that much weaker.

Posted by: james | May 17 2019 1:52 utc | 75

james | May 16, 2019 9:52:23 PM | 77

It is not me who says this is "only the beginning". But ok, let's wait for the elections.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 2:01 utc | 76

No, sadly, a people get the leaders they get...that is all. The choices are just not there. I mean, we got a choice between an orange freak of a reality show host and a gangland matriarch. Wonderful times! American leadership is the most corrupt in the world, no wonder their kindred souls in other lands gravitate towards them.

Posted by: Indrid Cold | May 17 2019 2:01 utc | 77

Zachary Smith @70

Yeah, that's it.

The context is important.

Russia was instrumental in causing US to back down from their planned bombing of Syria in September 2013.

In February 2014 forces friendly to the West seized control of Ukraine. Nuland was recorded planning for the new Ukrainian government and saying "fuck the EU!". But Russia acted to support pro-Russian elements in Ukraine. Kissinger attempted to intervene as a 'voice of reason' saying that Russia and US should seek the least worst outcome for the two of them. But Russia didn't back down and accept the "facts on the ground". Crimea voted to be part of Russia in May and the Donbas rebels beat back Ukraine's army for the last time in August.

This was very different behavior that what the West had come to expect from Russia. It became clear that Russia had outsmarted the West (the parts of Ukraine the West got was a basket case) and was willing to act decisively when their interest were threatened. The Russia-China alliance was suddenly realized to be a real threat to Western NWO hegemony.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 17 2019 2:03 utc | 78

Passer by

Passer by is right in this regard: the US Deep State are attempting to beat back the challenge from Russia and China.

It's not clear which side will win. Each side has a set of advantages and disadvantages that should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 17 2019 2:11 utc | 79

American leadership is the most corrupt in the world.

A big part of the "leader" problem is that we really don't need them, especially in a claimed (not actual) democracy. The president is constitutionally supposed to be an executive, one who executes laws.
Edward Abbey: "No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the next -- if not a damn sight better."

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 2:21 utc | 80

@72 james

I have always regarded Passer by as a troll. Usually he is ignored. He scored a lot of engagement tonight. Who could have guessed that such an obviously confrontational and insulting approach would cause others to waste their time on him. It's a trick straight out of the manual.

I never understand why confrontational language prompts a response. One would think that in a world of courteous discourse, it would prompt complete disregard.

Posted by: Grieved | May 17 2019 2:27 utc | 81

Posted by: Grieved | May 16, 2019 10:27:03 PM | 83

Then you are lucky because i won't bother you for the rest of the day like i'm supposed to. I will just say that i get called names in various places, even in places i'm supportive of. I'm pretty critical person and do not easily agree with others. This is how i'm. From time to time, not very often, i'm may come here, when i feel disturbed by something in geopolitics, to see what intelligent people think. That's it.

Posted by: Passer by | May 17 2019 2:44 utc | 82

@ Grieved
I understand not responding to confrontation; I was responding to misstated facts. They shouldn't be allowed to stand. I didn't touch "Are you an idiot." . . .How would I know? :)

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 2:46 utc | 83

@35 james

Thank you for that link to the transcript of the Aaron Maté interview with Gabor, his father. I had downloaded the interview but not found time to watch it. Wonderful perspective from Gabor.

I think I've now read the first true diagnosis of US society and polity and they grapple with the appalling fact of Trump. All the terms he uses to describe the nation are terms we are very familiar with in describing individuals, but not quite with nations.

If this were an individual we were describing - an individual deeply traumatized and seeking to blame the external rather than to own the internal - them we would say the recommendation is for emotional intelligence. This is what we're seeing the US needs in its societal and institutional life: emotional intelligence. And the obvious lack of it describes the current time of the US perfectly.

Immense sanity from that interview. Thanks again for the link, and let me offer my own recommendation also to others to read it: America in denial: Gabor Maté on the psychology of Russiagate (Interview transcript)

Posted by: Grieved | May 17 2019 3:00 utc | 84

@ Grieved
The "appalling fact of Trump" was entirely due to the appalling facts that caused Americans to vote for him, including professional politicians who entirely disregarded the populace in deference to themselves, especially starting wars and exporting jobs.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 17 2019 3:08 utc | 85

@ Grieved #83

Troll? Probably. Previous samples:

2018 - Guys, Russia is in deep trouble. No wonder Putin is so silent, there will never be S-300 for Syria, Israel can bomb whatever it wants and russian officials are begging for a meeting with Trump. [...]

2018 - Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of sanctions" with the West.

Regular themes of incredibly weak Russia vs amazingly strong US

2018 - Do you know what the way for weakening the US is? Israel and the Zionists. You should tacitly support them...
Russia should actually covertly support AIPAC in the US.

Somebody in the pissant apartheid state believes this is a clever approach. Obama-style eleven dimensional chess?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | May 17 2019 3:12 utc | 86

The Kissinger piece is also available at

Posted by: Joost | May 17 2019 3:57 utc | 87

karlof1 @ 61
Oscar Wilde (and George Clemanceau) had it right: “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between“

What a great line.

I move from Trump losing the next election to Trump winning the next election each time another Democrat steps in the ring. The whole phony Russia interference story has left many around me disappointing and disillusioned. Shell shocked may be a better description. It was impossible to reason with them and talk things out. I made many enemies to the point of losing work just trying to discuss the silliness of the allegations from day 1.

I have long ago put the whole thing behind me but I see the Turd is turning the other way with the investigations on the investigators. He has two years to strategically trickle information out while the harebrained media makes martyrs out the purveyors of this trash to cover their own asses.

The average US voter literally has no clue as to how these type of operations work historically. They are driven by emotion and hysteria but many are seen thru the BS. More than I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Posted by: dltravers | May 17 2019 4:37 utc | 88

In defense of Passer By#84

I read Passer by as reminding us that the US continues to hold continents in its thrall while carrying out world-scale crimes and injustices with impunity. For all the talk of the "weakening" of the Anglo-Zionist empire--talk that is to some extent objectively rooted in fact but that also, if we are being honest with ourselves, is driven by our desire that it be true -- it still remains the most coordinated networked aggressive juggernaut of destruction on the planet. Delays and setbacks on one or two fronts here or there have not stopped its ongoing machinations and have not led other countries to withstand or counter its coercion. (The European and Indian capitulation on Iran being a case in point.) I take it that Passer by is angered at all this and means to counter what he/she takes to be somewhat rosy-eyed prognoses of the empire's imminent internal collapse. Maybe such anger leads Passer by to launch the occasional ad hominem, which I don't seek to justify but can certainly understand--having had a few intemperate internet exchanges of my own over the years. I don't think Passer by is a troll. I think Passer by is a pessimist. There is a place for honest pessimism in any ongoing dialectic that seeks understanding in my view. I sometimes don't like to read what Passer by writes because I would prefer that what he/she writes not be true. Maybe my fear that it *is* true--or is just as true as what I hold--is what irks me.

Just throwing some thoughts out there....

Posted by: WJ | May 17 2019 5:21 utc | 89

"I conveyed that there are things that Russia can do to demonstrate that these types of activities are a thing of the past"

What is this fallacy called, is it Begging the Question? The same as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"?

In any event it strongly reminds me of a similar rhetorical trick used by US politicos and pundits from all across the ideological spectrum, concerning those still (and ever at any time) held in Gitmo. Things such as "the danger if we release them without trial, to willing countries, is that they'll return to the battlefield". That's what the trial would be! To find out whether they were ever actually ON "the battlefield" in the first place! Instead of pointed to for a $50 reward by desperate or spiteful locals.

Their guilt, the prior assumption, that all of them were "on the battlefield" is simply assumed, even in the very same context that laments that the US has no actual evidence to convict them on that assumption. This kind of BS is infuriating, and even moreso since I can't recall it ever being questioned by the "most left" Democrat or pundit, to the "most libertarian" etc. A website I found a couple years ago that's been around much longer than my being ignorant, FAIR, does a good job paying attention to these little rhetorical and diction choices. "Regime" vs. "government, and so on. And there are probably books on this I haven't read so maybe this is redundant.

Posted by: Soft Asylum | May 17 2019 5:33 utc | 90

Nice detective work Zachary :)

Posted by: Ike | May 17 2019 5:58 utc | 91

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
What happened with the "US is rapidly collapsing" , "The breathtaking weakness of the Empire", "No one takes the US seriously" "World to US - you are fired" and so on alt media retardations?

You underestimate your opponents. Which makes a lot of your analyses garbage. And i don't like reading garbage. Improve the quality of your analyses, please.

Posted by: Passer by | May 16, 2019 7:53:20 PM | 44
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

=/ You underestimate your opponents. /=

Probably most of the individuals commenting here are USans, or are friends of the USans. So you are implying that we are somehow our own opponents. Such is not the case. We are opponents of the CIA Mafia that has taken control of our governments.

If we had real elections with strategic hedge simple score voting we might be able to cast away these parasitic usurpers. So until we get real democracy (and defeat the ranked choice voting (RCV/IRV) conspiracy) we will continue to object to the monstrous policies being foisted upon us by the CIA Mafia.

Posted by: blues | May 17 2019 6:18 utc | 92

As Russia wants these communications released it might be possible to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to press for their publication. The Trump administration response to such a FOIA request could at least reveal the reasons why it is withholding them.

Given that Russia wants this information released, they would probably provide very helpful assistance for an FOI request. When applying for documents under FOI you have to specify what sort of documents are requested, what dates, dealing with what topics, between which parties, etc. Russia has the full documentation and references to the information exchanged (only not of course exchanges about it within the administration), and can provide detailed references on request, which I am sure wouldn't conflict with protocol. For anyone planning any such FOI requests, a trip to the Russian Embassy could be very fruitful.

Posted by: BM | May 17 2019 7:13 utc | 93

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 16, 2019 3:24:13 PM | 7

Any link to the Russian transcript of Putin's speech?

Posted by: John Smith | May 17 2019 7:29 utc | 94

My veiw also. Mostly SST debunks it. Only one author of Lithuanian descent is inclined towards it but he carries a few Lithuanian Forrest Brothers memories.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 17 2019 7:53 utc | 95

off topic...

Pavel Durov:

Why WhatsApp Will Never Be Secure

The world seems to be shocked by the news that WhatsApp turned any phone into spyware. Everything on your phone, including photos, emails and texts was accessible by attackers just because you had WhatsApp installed.


Posted by: truth seeker | May 17 2019 7:58 utc | 96

Gee B, the article has developed into discussion to what is fact, theory and claim.
it exposes a clear need for null hypotheses to test the different assertions.

The overall no. 1 null hypothesis should be something like
"There were no Foreign elements active in the Trump 2013 presidential election campaign"
next , null hypothesis II
"There were no Russian elements active in the Trump 2013 presidential election campaign"
next, null hypothesis III
"There were no Israeli elements active in the Trump 2013 presidential election campaign"

and so on..

On the subject of administration refusal to release the Obama<>Russia administration communication.. Lavrov expressed frustration=> fundamental understandings (on the matter of "release of communications about cyberspace incidents" between the two presidents) have not been fully implemented.. .."[Russia] believe[s] that publishing it (Trumps <= Obama:Russia communictions) would remove many currently circulating fabrications.."
This says to me Trump c/n sufficiently justify to Russia, within the bounds of the USA: Russia information exchange Agreement, sufficient reason to withhold the information..

Is eliminating the NRRC 24/7 respond in truth obligation explain why Trump terminated the nuclear non proliferation agreement?

-from Joint Statement=> "recognize the need for secure and reliable lines of communication .. about cybersecurity incidents of national concern. ..[using] the longstanding Nuclear Risk Reduction Center (NRRC) links .. [as the 24/7 means] to build confidence between our two nations through information exchange, ... allows to quickly and reliably ..reduce (by inquiry) the possibility of mis-perception and escalation from ICT security incidents.".

"And i know all the points made that Russia could not have hacked them, but all the opposing evidence is much stronger IMHO, " <==quite worrisome the statement regarding an investigation without reliance on the evidence.. "IWROTE" <=Re: Really@ 20
I point out that any hypothesis/theory (H/T)caste in null form.. has only to find one bit of tangible, intangible and forensic evidence to crush the null H/T; but in this case Leak vs hack is a question of source..not a hypothesis.. an accurate answer to the question might become evidence. then..
“Russian interference” is a claim, not a theory? devised to allow puppet of Israel (PoI) Trump to divert attention from the Israeli interference FACT according to Kevin @ 20

Posted by: snake | May 17 2019 8:32 utc | 97

karlof1 36
Although I had not read the WSJ piece before, I had looked at many video interviews of Kissinger when looking into the Kissinger Trump relationship. In those interviews he expressed what was in the WSJ article.

"Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained." Obama voiced in a State of the Union speech that America was an exceptional nation. Putin commented that was very or extremely dangerous.
Many people of different cultures and nations think theirs is the best, but Obama's exceptional nation speech move up alongside "aryan supremacy" and "gods chosen people". How long has exceptional nation been part of US culture.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 17 2019 8:46 utc | 98

The United States of Israel !!!
Have just looked at this from- - -
‘Veterans Today’
Contains a two hour video presentation, on the present u s / Iran situation. I agree with pretty much all of it !
But Russia will not allow it to happen, without cost to u s. and israel !!

Posted by: Mark2 | May 17 2019 10:46 utc | 99

So with America’s economic war on China !
Recent threats and devolpments regarding Iran !
And now this - - -
Has United States of Israel declared war on the rest of the world as the master race ?
Pass me the sick bucket !!!

Posted by: Mark2 | May 17 2019 11:04 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.