Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 08, 2019

No, There Will Be No Russian Base In Iran

A somewhat weird report published at claims that Russia will station troops, ships and fighter jets in Iran. The piece was reproduced at and Zerohedge even as it is obviously bonkers.

The headline: Russia Gains Stranglehold Over Persian Gulf:

In a potentially catastrophic escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf, Russia plans to use Iran’s ports in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar as forward military bases for warships and nuclear submarines, guarded by hundreds of Special Forces troops under the guise of ‘military advisers’, and an airbase near Bandar-e-Bushehr as a hub for 35 Sukhoi Su-57 fighter planes has exclusively been told by senior sources close to the Iranian regime. The next round of joint military exercises in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz will mark the onset of this in-situ military expansion in Iran, as the Russian ships involved will be allowed by Iran to use the facilities in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar. Depending on the practical strength of domestic and international reaction to this, these ships and Spetsntaz will remain in place and will be expanded in numbers over the next 50 years.

Where to start?

1. The Persian Gulf is a lake with an average(!) depth of less than 50 meter. It is a place where one might use small and nimble midget submarines. But no one serious will put a nuclear submarines there.

2. Sukhoi Su-57 fighter planes have yet to be built. Those currently flying are test planes which still lack the required new engines. Russia recently ordered the first batch of Su-57 but the first deliveries will only be in 2022-24. 35 of these planes may be available in a decade or  so. When they are they will protect mother Russia from NATO and not some Iranian oil wells.

3. Spetsnaz (not Spetsntaz) are expensively trained special forces. They do not do guard duty for bases.

4. Iran's constitution (pdf) does not allow the stationing of foreign troops. Article 146 is pretty clear about that:

The establishment of any kind of foreign military base in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden.

In August 2016 the Russian and Iranian military agreed to to set up a logistic base in Hamedan, Iran, for the Su-22M3 bombers used over Syria. A few days after the deployment became publicly known the agreement was shunned:

On 22 August, Tehran called a halt to the military cooperation and barred the Russians from using its bases. One reason for this surprising turn of events is the political tussle in Iran where Defence Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan was accused of ‘disrespecting parliament’ and of violating the country’s constitution.

5. The "next round of joint military exercises" between Iran and Russia in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz will be the very first one. It required a special agreement. That is why it made news:

MOSCOW, August 5. /TASS/. Tehran expects to hold joint naval drills with Russia this year and preparations for the maneuvers will begin soon, Iranian Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi said on Monday.

"Earlier, we signed an agreement [on joint exercises] with Russia’s Armed Forces and the Russian Fleet’s command. Soon the preparations and maneuvers’ planning will start and they will be carried out this year," Khanzadi was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying.
In late July, the Iranian Navy commander paid a visit to Russia. He told the IRNA news agency that Russian-Iranian drills could soon be held in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, including in the Strait of Hormuz.

An "expert on Iran-Russia relations" remarked:

Ariane Tabatabai @ArianeTabatabai - 21:34 UTC · Aug 5, 2019

Iranian media are reporting that #Iran and #Russia have signed a military cooperation agreement.

The details of the agreement aren't public but this is the first time such an agreement has been concluded by the two countries.

It is the "first time such an agreement" was signed only when one ignores the Joint Military Cooperation Agreement between Russia and Iran signed in January 2015 as well as the one found in August 2017. The new agreement is only the first in that it regulates joint exercises.

It seems that "experts" working for western think tanks and random authors with mysterious "senior sources close to the Iranian regime" are not the best informed people when it comes to Iran.

Each of the five points above demonstrate that the report is nonsense and that its author is not the least familiar with military and strategic issues. It is no wonder then that the rest of the Oilprice piece is a shoddy as its first paragraph. Mysterious sources who are bad mouthing Iran, half baked knowledge of facts and speculative interpretations of those do not make a reliable story.

Iran and Russia had at times difficult relations. In 2010 then President Medvedev signed on to the U.S. driven UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. The relations went cold after that. The intense military cooperation between both countries during the war on Syria revived them. But the relations are certainly not deep enough to allow for a Russian base in Iran.

Iran needs weapons and Russia likes to sell those. That is about it. There may be some common maneuvers but those are symbolic and do not constitute an alliance. Iran is very proud of its independence and its parliament would not agree to one while Russia is not interested in overextending itself. Only a U.S. attack on Iran could change that. 

It is easy to get the issue right. One simply has to ask: A Russian base in the Persian Gulf? What for?

Posted by b on August 8, 2019 at 15:34 UTC | Permalink


Gennady Nechaev, Moscow based analyst agrees.

..."One of the political results of escalating US operations against Iran is the lowering of Iranian inhibitions towards Moscow. “In the event that cooperation [between Iran and Russia] will grow,” Nechaev observes, the likelihood increases of a “place for permanent basing of the Russian Navy in one of the Iranian ports with the provision of airfield nearby — the same type of arrangement as Tartus and Hmeimim on the Mediterranean coast of Syria. For the time being, however, given the tensions in the Iranian leadership on closer cooperation with Moscow, which are well-known, and Iran’s own ambitions in the region, the [base option] seems unlikely."...


Posted by: Taffyboy | Aug 8 2019 15:47 utc | 1

A Russian base in the Persian Gulf?

Well, in a Russian winter it can make a really nice holiday spot. Warm temperatures, lots of sunshine. Nice beaches.

Posted by: jrkrideau | Aug 8 2019 16:16 utc | 2

There is some talk of joint exercise in the gulf. Related to this, Pepe Escobar’s article:

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Aug 8 2019 16:20 utc | 3

Sorry B, but you are being very careless with words and issues!

Item 5 is problematic on multiple grounds. Firstly, when news came out about the cooperation agreement I distinctly remember a reference to a previous joint naval exercise. It is possible my memory serves me incorrectly, but in any case a "first cooperation agreement" does not equate with a "first joint naval exercise". The article then hiccups most uncomfortably over the issue of whether it is in fact the first military cooperation agreement or not (first naval cooperation agreement I think, but only from memory). Criticising other sources for incorrect information does not sit well with getting the information in a twist yourself!

Considering the strategic location of the Persion Gulf - and indeed the fact that putative use of Iranian facilities had already been (wrongly) agreed with Iran, dismissing the value to Russia of military/naval basing in Iran and of potential Russian interest in such basing is not very helpful.

Posted by: BM | Aug 8 2019 16:29 utc | 4

b: Iran needs weapons and Russia likes to sell those. That is about it.

I agree with b that this "report" is fear-mongering, but there does seem to be more to the Iran-Russia relationship than just arms sales.

At the recent trilateral Summit, Russia rejected calls for support of US=Israeli anti-Iran efforts (naturally coached as being in the interest of peace) and made it clear that Iran is a "strategic partner" of Russia. The up-coming military exercises should be viewed in that context.

Putin’s envoy briefs Tehran about Russia-Israel-US meeting

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

US and Israel were likely hoping that Russia would make the same blunder that USA did before the first Iraq War:

In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.’ The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”

Faced with the decision to agree, abstain, or embrace Iran, Russia chose the latter. By doing so, they may have prevented a war (for now).

WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 8 2019 16:30 utc | 5

I recall providing a Xinhuanet link to the Russia/Iran meeting in July and I believe it spoke then about possible naval exercises next March.

If there are going to be Russia/Iran naval exercises this year then that may be a recent "escalation" of the agreement for whatever reasons.

The volume of misleading propaganda seems to be increasing and thanks to b for his continual debunking of such.

I respect the decision by Iran to hunker down and say the first step towards any movement must be the lifting of sanctions and then they will talk but not before. Given the situation in the world the leadership of Iran is best to stay in country and not get assassinated by the war mongers.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 8 2019 16:38 utc | 6

Noticing a lot of disinformation about Russian-Iranian relations as of late. Something seems amiss at Zero-hedge as well. They seem to be pushing a lot of ultra-right white-nationalist story lines and moving away from the moderate libertarian twist. Too bad they used to be a great source much of the time. The many faces of Tyler Durden seem to have turned into one unhappy right-winger.

Posted by: Phlipn | Aug 8 2019 16:39 utc | 7

@JR 5

The US claim not to have any special interest in Iraq-Kuwait conflicts was obviously an outright lie and a deliberate trap. It was extremely foolish of Saddam Hussein to believe it.

Pushing it as an "error" on the part of the US does not wash. It was central to the plan.

One is bound to suspect that even the grounds for the conflict were engineered long in advance by the Americans with the specific intention of creating a conflict, inciting Iraq to attack, as grounds for a long-desired US attack on Iraq.

Posted by: BM | Aug 8 2019 16:43 utc | 8

Neither Iran nor Russia are telling what exactly the deal is. Obviously that leads to fantasies.

Tehran Times: Iran, Russia sign classified military deal

TEHRAN – Iranian and Russian armed forces have signed a “classified” agreement to expand cooperation through a series of projects, Chief of Iranian Navy Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi announced on Sunday. ... “Some articles of this agreement are classified but overall; it is aimed at expanding military cooperation between the two countries,” he said.

“Of course, a large part of it includes the naval forces of the two countries and the agreement can be called the first of its kind between the two sides,” he said, describing the agreement as a “turning point” in military ties between Iran and Russia....

"Turning Point" sounds big.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 8 2019 16:54 utc | 9

Agreed. Junk article aimed at the domestic audience unlikely to deal with the numerous falsehoods. I wonder if this garbage is supposed to act as some sort of response to Russia's collective security proposal, which as far as I know has yet to be announced by BigLie Media. Instead of further talking up their proposal, Russia must instead debunk the propaganda's claims.

Meanwhile, the SAA offensive is reaping big gains after a sudden flanking operation surprised the NATO Terrorists and threatens to contain them in a large cauldron. In Yemen, Houthi forces are routing Saudis as their offensive continues to gain momentum. Since UAE decided to withdraw, Houthis have gone on a tear that's further helping to alter the regional dynamic.

And treatment of Shia pilgrims on this years Hajj continues to be good--a far cry from the past two years.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 16:59 utc | 10

Re: Phlipn | Aug 8 2019 16:39 utc | 7

Agree that ZeroHedge has transitioned to a platorm where increasing numbers of "news" stories are coming from deep state sources. Reminds me of what happened to NPR, it always wasn't National Propaganda Radio.

Posted by: Perimetr | Aug 8 2019 17:08 utc | 11

oilprice and zerohedge are about sensationalism. For oilprice it's always about finding something that proves an oil shock is around the corner (it is, but WHEN is always the question). zerohedge is just sensationalism... but there's also a push for metal sales lurking (I have no beef, but know the bias).

Posted by: Seer | Aug 8 2019 17:10 utc | 12

Since when have propagandists needed to be well informed to create spurious fantasms?

Posted by: Vonu | Aug 8 2019 17:12 utc | 13

This article is a follow up on one of their recent hit pieces on Russia:
Several additional errors in the article are:
(1) Earlier Iran and Russia had each claimed half of the Caspian Sea. The recently agreed on treaty of the Caspian states now defines the exclusive economic zones in terms of the land borders with the Caspian Sea which is a much more equitable division of resources. As a result of the signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea Russia and Iran lost much of their respective 50% share of the economic assets of the Caspian Sea while Kazakhstan (28.9%), Turkmenistan(17.225%), and Azerbaijan(21%) gained from this 2018 treaty.
“Given how poorly Iran has fared in its recent dealings with Russia – most notably over its Caspian Sea oil and gas rights– Iran’s decision to go ahead with this latest deal may seem surprising to many but is the product of two key reasons.”
(2) Given that Iran graduates more engineers that the US, Russia probably chose not to provide the S-400 to Iran due to Iran’s capability to reverse engineer weapons and make them even better, as in the case of the S-300. Besides, the radar detection and tracking system is key to the effectiveness of the S-300/400 platforms and the missile is only secondary. In addition, Russia has not sold the S-400 to Egypt, although there are reports that Egypt is among several countries interested in purchasing the S-400:
“Russia told Iran that it didn’t actually need the S-400 system and that the S-300 system would be adequate for its needs, despite the S-300 system still costing in total US$7 billion – US$4 billion up front and US$3 billion when it was actually delivered – which was three times the cost that Russia charged Egypt for the better S-400 system,” said one of the Iran sources.”
(3) The article attempts to smear the Iranian government as totally corrupt by declaring senior IRGC commanders took bribes from Russia. Such bribes would result in serious punishment of the IRGC commanders and the claim was probable meant to create conflict in the Iranian government:

“At the same time, two of the key IRGC commanders who had allowed this deal to go ahead pocketed US$105 million each just from that one deal, and they and others get another cut of the US$50 billion per year deal if that fully re-emerges and of the newly-agreed Caspian deal,”

Posted by: Krollchem | Aug 8 2019 17:28 utc | 14

may have explained why the world is polarizing..
also I have notice the arrest of three former national presidents in countries surrounding Kashmir.. maybe b and explain them.. in his next article. one of the arrests another of the arrests"
a common plan in action humm safe zone operations by two foreign nations in Syria

the SAA offensive is reaping big gains after a sudden flanking operation surprised the NATO Terrorists and threatens to contain them in a large cauldron. In Yemen, Houthi forces are routing Saudis as their offensive continues to gain momentum. Since UAE decided to withdraw, Houthis have gone on a tear that's further helping to alter the regional dynamic. And treatment of Shia pilgrims on this years Hajj continues to be good--a far cry from the past two years.
by: karlof1 @ 10 I agree.. the meaning in the containment of outlaw forces in Syria are giant, but what about Turkey UsA safe zone in Nw Syria agreement ? Assad was not happy..
I do not think it is necessary in todays age of missiles to have a ship or a presence in a foreign nation. Russia and Iran are allied.. IF Iran is attacked Russia and China will respond with Iran.. I believe. as above outlined.

Posted by: snake | Aug 8 2019 17:32 utc | 15

Posted by: BM | Aug 8 2019 16:43 utc | 8

The initial reason for Iraq's 'attack' on Kuwait, was Kuwait drilling sideways into Iraqi territory for its oil, about which Kuwait was warned by Iraq and Iraq sought out April Glaspie's opinion on the matter:

“Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam’s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)” [my emph. WB]
July 25, 1990

The trap was set.

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 8 2019 17:32 utc | 16

Here's the rest of Glaspie's statement from the NYT:

Glaspie went on to say:

“I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?” [my emph. WB]
New York Times, September 23 1990

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 8 2019 17:43 utc | 17

when I saw that this morning I thought it was an Onion story sourced by Bellingcat. Stranglehold? With the only local transit points Suez and the Bosporus?

Posted by: juandonjuan | Aug 8 2019 17:58 utc | 18

I believe oil price article is indeed sensationalist, attacking IRGC with corruption and full of speculations that may be a smoke screen for other things.

It mentions though Chabahar Port, and that is what made me think twice about it, Chabahar Port is in the Gulf of Oman, deep sea port, a port built with India's investment as a doorway to Afghanistan and possibly a railroad to connect the Caucasus and central Asia, all bypassing Pakistan.
Should we look it under BRI and SCO with possibly Iranian ascension to membership, it could make sense something at Chabahar Port, but not at the Persian Gulf. But then, I agree with b on the Iranian constitution, and it is hard to believe Iran will allow a foreign country to use Iran with a base semi permanent there, but it could be like Russia's deal with Cyprus, a deal to use a port for refuelling or resting, not as a base. No doubt more concrete info is needed, by now this is speculation and most likely leaked to create issues between US and Russia.

Posted by: Canthama | Aug 8 2019 18:00 utc | 19

It goes to show to what kind of methods the Western regimes are already resorting to. In the spirit of:

If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.

The FBI now says that anybody that dissents from any 'official story is deemed a conspiracy theorist and potentially a domestic terrorist and thus subject to pre-emptive indefinite incarceration without trial. This kind of false information will increase and since everything is monitored, folks who voice their skepticism about the veracity of these fake stories become the regime's target.

Posted by: nottheonly1 | Aug 8 2019 18:20 utc | 20

Thanks b, it appears you've punchered another F- upped piece of propaganda, coming from the empire to inflame the peons...

Posted by: ben | Aug 8 2019 18:31 utc | 21

In the article are some passages related to Russian S-400. One says Egypt has it. Nonsense. Egypt has the Antey 2500 system. All the rest of the drivel he writes about missile defenses is just fiction, pulled out of his rear.

The dude is a freelancer who writes rubbish about oil and matters that affect oil prices. He knows nothing about military issues.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Aug 8 2019 18:32 utc | 22

Bernhard, a typo: TU-22M3, not SU.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Aug 8 2019 18:48 utc | 23

This is not the first the and zerohedge publish something that is bonkers

Posted by: DG | Aug 8 2019 18:59 utc | 24

I'm in no position to judge the claims in that ZH/oilprice article. So I read B's assessment with great interest. And I have to say that the language alone in said article put me off, it's so alarming.

Even so, reading 1) on submarines, I find it ironic that in the nautical chart B links to, there's a designated "Submarine Exercise Area" with a depth of only 40-50 meters (well east of Larak Island).

Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Aug 8 2019 19:09 utc | 25

The relationship between Iran and Russia is complex.

We see this first and foremost in Syria. Russia is not thrilled by being in the middle of the Iran-Israel spat. Neither is the Assad government.

The Iranians are for instance 'colonizing' areas they have seized from the takfiris, with Shia 'settlers'.

Syrian mainstream public opinion is heartily pro-Russian; anti-Turkish; and Iran about in between, ie decidedly lukewarm.

Syria is a secular society. Iran is a theocracy, much better than KSA or Israel [Iran is a socialist polity in many respects, but still run by religious fanatics; nothing good has ever come from religious fanaticism.

Another case in point is that Iran has refused Russia's offer to sell one million barrels a day on its behalf. Russia is the world's dominant energy superpower [including nuclear], not only in extraction but in distribution and increasingly in alternative settlement mechanisms. US and EU sanctions have proven to be ineffectual, and have only spurred a whole new import substitution industry, which has hurt the EU much more than Russia.

So Russia is probably the only country that can help Iran to fend off this economic blockade.

Yet Iran is snubbing this lifeline.

One has to wonder why. Probably it comes back to the religious zealotry mindset. Not pleased with Russia keeping the Iranians in line in Syria, as part of Russia's diplomatic balancing act, the Iranians are unable to de-link these separate issues, as mature diplomacy would require.

Now, as for the moron Medvedev and his disastrous presidency, which saw huge gaffes in the UNSC, including abstaining from the Libya 'no-fly' authorization and of course the Iran sanctions; Iran does have a right to be grieved on that score. Putin himself was shaking his head at the time.

Somebody mentioned here S400s to Iran and stated that Russia doesn't want to sell them, for fear of 'reverse engineering'.

This is nonsense. The S400 would be impossible to reverse engineer. Case in point, Russian fighter jet engines which the Chinese had been trying to reverse engineer for 20 years, but finally gave up and just started working on their own capabilities. I won't go into technical details here, but there is usually one or two gadgets involved that simply can't be cracked.

The Russians are ready to sell the Iranians S400s at any time, it is the Iranians that are balking.

Iran does have an impressive scientific capability. They do graduate as many engineers as the US, and they are probably better educated. So the country is right now producing and deploying missiles that the US is very worried about.

But developing these things takes time. For instance it will take a long time for Iran to develop world class combat aircraft, even China is still working on that.

Bottom line is that Iran is a difficult partner for Russia. Iranian public opinion of Russia is not that good. The religious zealotry at the top ultimately limits Iran's diplomacy to a second tier status. Despite the sophistication of a Jawad Zarif, at the end of the day it is Khamenei that calls the shots.

Still, there is no question that countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Iran are being drawn into the Russia-China orbit. This pairing is really the new center of gravity and each passing day proves that.

So we can expect the Iran-Russia relationship to continue to mature, even if it is in fits and starts.

Posted by: flankerbandit | Aug 8 2019 19:18 utc | 26

Building on my @10--

Further thinking confirms initial suspicions. Russia makes proposal at the UN for a Persian Gulf Collective Security Agreement that's then endorsed by the UN and is well received by the region's nations, all of which totally wrongfoots the Outlaw US Empire since it has nothing comparable to propose. Using google to search to discover if this was covered by any anglophone media of any sort saw just the lobelog and stratfor--no major media of any sort on the first two pages of results. I posted Zarif's tweet in approval, while showing the document's mention of establishing democracy would be objectionable to the regions authoritarian regimes ("We all aim for a democratic and prosperous Middle East that would encourage inter-faith peace and coexistence" is the clause).

Clearly desperate in the need to provide some sort of response, a slice of the Russiagate Narrative was employed (spiced with plenty of Projection)--Russia's meddling will escalate tensions in Persian Gulf, perhaps for a long time if they establish a base. That the disinformation was published by an obscure website then picked up by another while remaining absent from BigLie Media gives the impression of a trial balloon, or perhaps setting the stage for an act of information laundering and thus provide a veneer of veracity to an entirely false article aimed at keeping Russophobia on the front burner.

Keeping the US Public ignorant of Russia's Peace Proposal is damning, and flipping it into an accusation of hostile escalation is more than double-damning--it's criminally irresponsible.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 19:25 utc | 27 is worthless rag. I stopped reading their tripe years ago.

Posted by: Covergirl | Aug 8 2019 20:03 utc | 28

How appropriate. 75 years after Operation Bagration, advisers from the successor to the Red Army are showing that Soviet deep battle and maskirovka will still win out over German tactics as applied by advisers that were probably at one time members of the successor to the Wehrmacht and other more criminal forces (US Army)who now probably advise HTS.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Aug 8 2019 22:01 utc | 29

Posted by: Perimetr | Aug 8 2019 17:08 utc | 11

A little npr history.

Posted by: jo6pac | Aug 8 2019 22:06 utc | 30

b- I think you will have a busy night. Finally meet the Victoria Nuland of Hong Kong

US Calls China "Thuggish Regime" For Releasing Identity Of US Official Caught Meeting With HK Protesters

Posted by: kooshy | Aug 8 2019 22:15 utc | 31

B ends with "One simply has to ask: A Russian base in the Persian Gulf? What for?"

Yes, totally...why the expense and provocation, especially with an unhinged opponent? With Cowboy OJ looking to WWE body slam somebody to MAGA, keep it on the DL, Iran.

On a serious note, Iran has already proven itself more than capable in taking on its siege. The Persian reputation for being masterful chess players is playing itself out in geopolitics, much to the frustration of their opponents.

In effect, Russia and Iran are one sphere in their opposition to the West. They're both longstanding and successful nations that have been burned by the FIRE countries and and Won't Get Fooled Again.

And a prediction: if Trump keeps up the alienating aggression, he will be very successful at helping Iran have more friends and erode the dollar/imperialism. Freaked out about Russian military bases in Iran? I'll raise about German bases in Iran?

"Oh no!" some folks at the CFR will say. Yet political developments in the US and UK are making this sentence more, not less, probable as a future fact.

A final big-picture question/random note that should interest everyone playing and commenting on international chess: In between the gutting of its industrial economy, the overall debt levels, and the senseless international aggression, is the United States throwing away its power/influence on purpose or what? The serious matters of international affairs are starting to seem like a rigged sports contest where one team is playing so poorly it becomes painful to watch.

Is the US becoming the Washington Generals of international affairs? And if so, who are the new Globetrotters?

Posted by: OutOfThinAir | Aug 8 2019 22:46 utc | 32

OutOfThinAir @32--

Good observations, but just who exactly are the players? Are they essentially the same 1% who've profited greatly from everything that's occurred since 1979 when Volker began Neoliberalism at the Fed? Trump demands interest rates be lowered; who does that benefit? Isn't that the same Class that's benefitted from Fed policy since Volker, particularly from Greenspan's bubbles? How much does that Class actually stand to lose if every facet of Trump's Imperial Policy fails, if anything? Biden's leading the D-Party POTUS candidates; would anything major change if he ousts Trump?

The changing paradigm to a Multipolar World is ongoing and unstoppable, IMO. But does that necessarily truncate Team 1%'s opportunities to continue as Top Dog in a shrinking Outlaw US Empire if no political change happens within?

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 23:20 utc | 33

I should think the issue is who planted this notion of Iran and Russia working together to establish a Russian base on Iranian soil with Simon Watkins and who are these "Iran sources" he and rely on.

Who stands to benefit from escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf region, giving more grist to Yosemite Sam Bolton's ever-grinding mill and pushing the Trump government into a war that DJT probably doesn't really want?

Don't look over there to the west of Iran! Look over here, folks!

Posted by: Jen | Aug 8 2019 23:31 utc | 34

Washington has not presented a single shred of evidence to Moscow that might prove Russia is in breach of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty and at the same time refused to discuss its own violations, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev told the Russian mass media in an interview.

"I am unable to mention a single instance [of a violation] or piece of evidence they [the US] presented to us. There has been nothing of the sort," Patrushev said when asked if the United States had presented any proof of Moscow’s violations of the treaty.

"We held meetings with our US counterparts. I met with [White House National Security Adviser John] Bolton. Russia’s president [Vladimir Putin] received him, too. We discussed that but received no evidence," Patrushev pointed out. In his opinion, Washington "needed a pretext for pulling out of the treaty, and they found such a pretext for themselves and their partners." "But we do not know anything. We do not know what we have breached. We know what the Americans have violated and we pointed to these three issues: missile launchers, target missiles and drones. But they refused to discuss their violations," Patrushev said.

Posted by: Russian Ivan | Aug 8 2019 23:34 utc | 35

The U.S. Maritime Administration has issued a fresh warning regarding commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and the key oil chokepoint the Strait of Hormuz, saying that vessels in the area may encounter GPS interference and “spoofed bridge-to-bridge communications from unknown entities falsely claiming to be U.S. or coalition warships.”

Posted by: Russian Ivan | Aug 8 2019 23:39 utc | 36

It is easy to get the issue right. One simply has to ask: A Russian base in the Persian Gulf? What for?

Because Russia is so dependant on oil imports..... oh wait.
If we are just playing geopolitical adlibs they really should have gone with China.

Posted by: UserFriendly | Aug 8 2019 23:48 utc | 37

really though it's not like Iran even needs to do much to shut down the straight...

Iran Has Hundreds of Naval Mines. U.S. Navy Minesweepers Find Old Dishwashers and Car Parts.

Posted by: UserFriendly | Aug 8 2019 23:56 utc | 38

I was stationed in Berlin with the U.S. Air Force for two years 1970-72. Our position was utterly untenable, we were sitting ducks. The reason we were there was to serve as a tripwire, to demonstrate U.S. commitment to defend Berlin, Germany, and Europe.

A Russian base in Iran could have the same function.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 9 2019 0:17 utc | 39

Wondering why anyone would still be considering zerohedge a credible source. That site republishes poison garbage from Gatestone, wtf?! Apart from the obvious content rot, the site is unusable without stringent adblocking.

All the interesting commenters are long gone too.

Posted by: Lurk | Aug 9 2019 0:50 utc | 40

I always chuckle at MIC propaganda pieces that suggests anybody who doesn't emulate the Empire grand strategy of massive spending waste and global overreach is simply a loser and a complete pushover.

Posted by: JW | Aug 9 2019 1:01 utc | 41

I am hearing it from my leftist coworkers. It is another story to stoke their paranoia and their derangement syndrome. It might not be a hit on the MSM but the Alt-Left will pick it up and run with it.

The Alt-Right will get the flags out and start waving them. The tempo is kept going. Not bad for a bullshit story.

Posted by: dltravers | Aug 9 2019 1:08 utc | 42

The newspaper's Europe bureau chief, Chen Weihua, wrote on Twitter:

There were reports suggesting Julie Eadeh is a trained subversion expert at the US consulate in Hong Kong. Her meeting with HK protesters would be evidence of US inciting and instigating the riots in Hong Kong. Is she under the direct order of former CIA chief Mike Pompeo?by: kooshy@31 in his link. to CIA in HK exposed?

seems to me the beginning of being able to differentiate between fact based, faith based, deceit-based, projection based and lie based news begins with understanding who said or did what when, where and how? good work Kooshy..
Like I said above there is some very suspicious arrests being made of ex dictators in countries surrounding Kashmir and
there is no need for ships or military bases in foreign places to impose security on anyone<= missiles do the trick ..
But I fear if the USA and UK team up and move their floating bodies to the Persian Gulf they might find each and everyone one of them at the bottom of the Gulf.. ..because such floating bodies are potential targets for anyone from around the globe, and falsely blaming a specific false flag party would be intentionally made easy... hummm?

Posted by: snake | Aug 9 2019 1:14 utc | 43

Before Trump got elected I told my friends that Trump would be elected. I received general derision for the notion, but he was elected nevertheless.

Before Trump got elected I said to my friends that he is the better choice over Hilary for two reasons. I received general derision for the notion, but went on to explain that I believed this for two reasons:

1. He had an outside chance of normalizing relations with Russia thereby avoiding WW3.

2. Failing point 1, he is such a buffoon and ass that he could alienate his European allies so when WW3 happens, the Europeans might side with Russia. This would reduce the destruction and carnage.

I said to my friends that Hilary would never normalize relations with Russia, but would be the darling of the Europeans nevertheless. I said to them that the election of Hilary would lead to complete carnage and destruction for she is a tool of the insane deep state and their sociopathic handlers.

Well, since Trump's election, point 1 has been thoroughly prevented by the Democrats with their Russiagate horse dung. Point 2 remains an open question but the Europeans are showing signs of being completely spineless. I fear we will, nevertheless, see the destruction and carnage I had hoped might be avoided by Trump's election.

Posted by: Jason | Aug 9 2019 1:40 utc | 44

it only makes sense that if the usa state dept in it's infrequent ''daily'' press briefings are busy lying thru their teeth, that other outlets faithful to the usa, would do the same... take today's aug 8th usa daily propaganda dispatch for example.

"MS ORTAGUS: I think that the President and the Secretary have said that they’re willing on multiple occasions to negotiate, to talk to Iran without preconditions. That offer remains on the table. Whenever the ayatollah and whenever Rouhani, the people that are actually in charge of that government, want to speak, we’ll be there to listen."

and further down....

QUESTION: Does that – with Mr. Zarif out of the picture with the designation, so who the U.S. administration prefers to do the talking with?

MS ORTAGUS: I don’t think that we have said that we must talk to person X or person Y in the regime. I mean, our request to the ayatollah and to Rouhani is for their country – for them to think very carefully about how they’ve terrorized the region and to consider stop doing so. And if they want to talk about how they can behave like a normal nation, they know – and how they can be brought back into the world and have sanctions removed, they know exactly who they can call, and that’s President Trump, and he’s waiting on their phone call."

there ya have it - real clarity on the level of hypocrisy on display from the usa.. they sanction zarif, the iranian ambassador because he is just too good at the truth and the truth really hurts little ol' exceptional baby, they put him on a sanctions list! but - this is the important part - the usa is willing to talk to iran with no preconditions, LOLOLOL!... the usa is killing me, when it is not busy killing the rest of the planet of course.. they are so full of shite, they should be married to a plunger... come to think of it - trump is a pretty good plunger, lol...

Posted by: james | Aug 9 2019 2:35 utc | 45

Indeed the Persian Gulf is bathtub-depth. This does not prevent the west from sending their nuclear subs there. Like USS Hartford, leading to the gag of the century (so far) in the Gulf:

And last month Hunt and May, in another stroke of genius, sent a 7,700 tons Astute-class sub to the Gulf.

Meanwhile, the Iranians use midget subs there.

Posted by: fx | Aug 9 2019 2:36 utc | 46

of course the line "if they want to talk about how they can behave like a normal nation" is a lot like the line - "so when did you stop beating your wife?" - lines that really encourage a conciliatory approach to other nations!! i think she means - be a normal nation like the usa - and murder people, but make like none of it is happening... i suppose that is what ms ortagus means by 'normal'... maybe ms orangatans (sp intentional) can reconfigure those words for me to understand them better..

Posted by: james | Aug 9 2019 2:38 utc | 47

Ludicrous! Even I knew Russia didn't have 35 SU-57's; b is correct; there are only test planes flying and few of those.
Russia, in just the last week or two, announced it would begin serial production of the SU-57's in 2020.
Frankly, I no longer trust any news source and verify everything as best I am able...

Posted by: V | Aug 9 2019 3:40 utc | 48

It seems extremely unlikely that iran would permit russia to have a base in Iran. We shoukd ask: who was the source of this rumor and do they have any intent.

I found the comments to this almost certainly fake story on zerohedge interesting, lots of bravado and cluelessness about the actual capabilities of the US vs those of Russia. I wonder if the myopic, clueless world view is prevalent amongst the power elite.

Posted by: Alaric | Aug 9 2019 4:29 utc | 49

Julie Eadeh? Bewailing "personal data"?

Golly!. Our minders assured us that if we are doing nothing wrong or have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear. Are we all morons?

["moron", a word from the Greek invented by an early, 20th century psychologist to mean "high-grade defectives", who made misuse of Alfred Binet's "intelligence" testing, which Binet [French] assured his colleagues was designed only to identify school children who needed special help to learn [hearing/seeing//nutrition/language/sleep/illness, etc difficulties]; and that there was no agreed understanding what the word "intelligence" meant because it had so many aspects.]

Posted by: chu teh | Aug 9 2019 4:42 utc | 50


There's always constant bravado and chestbeating all the way down from the Anglos until their lives are on the line, after which they courageously flee and continue the same old from a safe distance.

Which is why we get comedic gems from Empire-sponsored think tanks like "China is outclassed and outgunned and will be outfought by the U.S. and its allies in any hypothetical naval encounter (in the South China Sea)”, as if all the recent nose bruising by a much weaker Iran didn't happened.

Posted by: JW | Aug 9 2019 4:46 utc | 51

So in 2010 medvedev then president of russia signed on to us driven UNSC sanctions against Iran !
That's the 2nd nasty thing he did after abstaining in UNSC resolution 1973 allowing NATO to attack Libya

Posted by: Brian | Aug 9 2019 4:56 utc | 52

At that time, Russia still reassured itself with hopes that its American and Western European "partners" could be partners under certain circumstances. Further events showed that neither one nor the other can be negotiable partners. It turned out that "gentlemen" can not be trusted either in word or in writing.

Posted by: UN observer | Aug 9 2019 7:51 utc | 53

US Shale Is Already in Big Trouble. Now Imagine What Happens If China Restores Iranian Oil Purchases

If China starts taking in all the discounted crude Iran can drill the price could tumble by as much as $30

Posted by: UN observer | Aug 9 2019 8:02 utc | 54

China imported Iranian crude oil in July for the second month since a U.S. sanctions waiver ended, according to research from three data firms, with one estimate showing some oil entered tanks holding the country’s strategic reserves.

According to the firms, which track tanker movements, between 4.4 million and 11 million barrels of Iranian crude were discharged into China last month, or 142,000 to 360,000 barrels per day (bpd). The upper end of that range would mean July imports still added up to close to half of their year-earlier level despite sanctions.

Posted by: UN observer | Aug 9 2019 8:30 utc | 55

Thank you Brian #52.

Medvedev is an odd character and I am way too remote to get a serious handle on Russian affairs. Dancing with Bears and Saker sometimes informs of the deep intrigues but I would appreciate some links to other reasonable sources. NOT Russian Insider.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 9 2019 9:47 utc | 56

Hmm okay that (the news about Gabbard, Snowden, Assange) doesn't sound desperate at all (sarcasm).

- Gabbard is lunging at the headlines to attract controversy and "mind share", how very "politiciany" :) Expect a lot of "debate" and controversy if all the other politicians (are told to) play along.

- Most "Democrats" (and US slaves in general) don't like Snowden or Assange or instead hate both. No way Gabbard will pick up enough votes for it to matter.

- I've said it before; who will a "president Gabbard" surround herself with? Who is there to select that will support the things she claims to want? Anyone at all? Look at what Trump did or ended up with. How will Gabbard make the house of representatives and the senate support her despite a vast majority of them being opposed to the things she claims to want?

No, no, nonono, it would be too heart-breaking, too distressing, and shatter all my cherished delusions upon which I live so please, pleeeaaaaase don't tell me the US election circus consists of a woman in the back half of a donkey costume doing her best donkey impression on one side and on the other side an old man with his dick out pretending it makes him an elephant :P (I seek refuge in mockery).

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 9 2019 10:14 utc | 57

Chabahar is on Indian ocean ... it could be a base for nuclear subs ...ON?

Posted by: Tom Verso | Aug 9 2019 10:39 utc | 58

Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 9 2019 10:14 utc | 58
- I've said it before; who will a "president Gabbard" surround herself with? Who is there to select that will support the things she claims to want? Anyone at all? Look at what Trump did or ended up with. How will Gabbard make the house of representatives and the senate support her despite a vast majority of them being opposed to the things she claims to want?

Indeed. My thoughts/questions as well.
So many questions; very few answers.
In the end I think Gabbard will be forced out by the real powers who be...
IMHO, the last genuine election was possibly JFK; but of course one can never be certain...

Posted by: V | Aug 9 2019 10:47 utc | 59

>It is easy to get the issue right. One simply has to ask: A Russian base in the Persian Gulf? What for?

b, you are naïve sometimes. There are some very, very good reasons for Russia to have some form of military base in the gulf:

1. Iran will soon have an existential reason for hosting a Russian base on its soil, constitution notwithstanding, due to the threat that the US or Israel may use nuclear weapons against Iran if they are unable to make progress in a conventional war. Russian presence on Iranian soil would be an unambiguous statement to the Americans that a nuclear attack on Iran would be a direct (literally) attack on Russia.

2. Control of the Gulf and Strait means control of a global economic choke point. Seeing that both Iran and Russia are suffering under slow strangulation of sanctions, it would benefit them to obtain real leverage in this area in order to exert counter-leverage should the US and its cabal of vassals decide to go full retard in cutting these 2 countries off from the global economic system. Russian presence in the Gulf would constrain the choices available to the US should it attempt to exert pressure against Russia during further military-economic conflicts ...

3. Shifting the correlation of forces in its favour: By establishing some form of base(s) on Iranian soil, Russia would be sending a message to the world that it is a viable counterbalance to the US/NATO. This would encourage non-aligned powers to act less in the favour of the US and its coalition and more in favour of Russia with respect to their economic and military choices. Without Russia demonstrating that it is willing to come to the defense of smaller countries if requested, it would be signalling to the world that the US is the only option in terms of power allegiances. If Russia is able to demonstrate that it is a concrete power alternative the US it will encourage more support for its own security across the globe ...

Posted by: Traiano | Aug 9 2019 10:54 utc | 60

@Barovsky | Aug 8 2019 17:43 utc | 17

It’s funny how you emboldened the passage either side of the piece that I took most interest in when first discovering these stunning revelations a few years ago. To wit:

”James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction”.

So the Bush crime family consigliere tells Saddam it’s all okay with them, then two days later Baker’s boss, the Padrone GHW Bush was bleating on about him being the ‘new Hitler’.

A salutary lesson for all leaders when dealing the the snake.

Posted by: Ross | Aug 9 2019 11:15 utc | 61

All , ZerooHedge was taken over in 2015 time frame by western IO , it is now a pro west site. Before 2015 it was very active in posting balanced articles / links especially during ukraine conflict. Im sure those here who visited ZH in the past will agree with me.

Oil Price is filled with propaganda pro west authors / articles. It is a site to read when you want to check the narrative of the week propaganda.

Even the usually sane Sic Semper Tyranis slowly turning into another pro right wing pro trump site when the senile col lang began to attack commenters even fellow vets when one dared to criticize USA. The only good part of SST is articles written by guest authors but not the rant and raves of the senile colonel.

I suggest Andrei (smoothiex) site , a very well balanced / normal site still not infested with hasbara trolls.. Andrei’s site and B’s site are two of the best site on the net right now.. UNZ is fine but now it is infested with right wing and racist authors.. i visited UNZ to read on Phil Giraldi and Lin Dinh..

Posted by: milomilo | Aug 9 2019 11:32 utc | 62

b, to the extend you still have time left to read, beyond entertaining your audience, vaguely with billmon in mind here, it feels you might be interested in this.>The Russia Anxiety, Mark B. Smith

To the extend I read it so far,...the first chapter gets a lot better once it moves beyond the present, it is worth reading. Besides it personlly helped me to almost not notice a train connection delay of 65 minutes. Not sure if it is already available in print, it surely is as Ebook.

Posted by: LeaNder | Aug 9 2019 13:55 utc | 63

Iran is not unimportant to Russia as b seems, weirdly, to claim. Quite the opposite. If the Hegemon can force Venezuela and Iran to their knees, it will have effectively canceled the sovereignty of all nations, including Russia. Russia cannot stand alone.

Posted by: Paul | Aug 9 2019 14:08 utc | 64

Kimberly Breier has renounced:

Responsável pela América Latina no governo Trump renuncia

She hasn't disclosed the reason(s) for her exit.

Posted by: vk | Aug 9 2019 14:32 utc | 65

"Tulsi Gabbard Says She Would Pardon Snowden and Drop All US Charges Against Assange If Elected President in 2020."

It is important that these questions be debated. Gabbard is playing an important role simply by insisting that such matters, including wars, are not part of the bi-partisan consensus.

One of the least attractive aspects of Sanders's candidacy is that he has learned that only the mildest questioning of Foreign and Defense Policy is allowed. Palestine being a good example.

What Gabbard is doing makes the likes of Harris, Brooker and Biden state clearly that they have nothing new to offer in any policy areas of importance and that they will go with the flow of the allowed status quo.
This is likely to have a good effect on the campaigns of Sanders and perhaps even Warren. And they are serious contenders for the nomination.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 9 2019 15:15 utc | 66

truth @56--

Note that article was published back in May. Opposite of its proclamation that it's a Pregressive website, Common Dreams has run very few articles about the most Progressive D-Party candidate in decades. Indeed, one of the best items turned up by a search of the site is one written by FAIR that CD merely republished. Otherwise, CD's acted like any other BigLie Media outlet by essentially blacking out any mention of her or how her campaign's doing.

Yes, her stand on those issues are legally and morally correct and put her in a league by herself. But as I pointed out on the Open Thread, she needs to get her poll rankings up considerably to make it into the next debate. And since her campaign is focused on Outlaw US Empire Imperial Policy, the question structure of the 2 debates have deliberately avoided that topic to deprive her of the chance to get her message out and generate better poll numbers. IMO, she'll be sidelined and as in 2016 will campaign for Sanders since he seems to have adopted Gabbard's stance on interventionist wars.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 9 2019 15:53 utc | 67

If MbS bought s400s, that would be a big deal, right?

Posted by: Casey | Aug 9 2019 18:48 utc | 68

@ Traiano 61

Seeing that both Iran and Russia are suffering under slow strangulation of sanctions...

So Russia is slowly being strangled with those mickey mouse 'sanctions'?

That's the utterly fantastic wishful thinking we might hear from the Atlantic Council and other mushroom eaters that make up the delusional US propaganda machine.

The FACTS are exactly the opposite...

First of all, Russia is one of the least import-dependent major nations in the world. While imports make up about 40 percent of Germany's GDP, Russian imports account for 7 percent of GDP.

It is the major industrial countries of the EU that are being 'strangled' by their utterly stupid 'sanctions' against Russia.

The sanctions have cost the EU $250 billion since 2014,and EU exports to Russia continue to plummet:

Russian foreign trade stats for January delivered shocking figures which all observers seem to have missed so far. Imports from the sanctions-happy EU – which has been Russia’s main supplier since the demise of the USSR – crashed through the ceiling with a 14% decline. Worse yet for Germany, who saw its exports to Russia cut by 22% from January 2018 leaving a value of only $1.2 billion.

At the same time, imports from friendly China grew with a healthy 6%. As a result Russia’s imports from China (26% of total) are now three times bigger than those from Germany (7.8%). Total imports from the EU now make up only 30% of all Russia’s imports.

Russia is consistently running budget surpluses, industrial production is growing briskly, as is GDP, all due to import substitution.

The most notable is the dramatic rise of Russia's agriculture sector, now the biggest wheat exporter in the world.

Another case in point is the civil aircraft sector, which the US tried to hobble earlier this year by cutting supplies of composite materials for Russia's MC21 aircraft, which industry experts describe as, 'excellent' aircraft that can compete with similar models from Airbus and Boeing...

It did not take long for Russian industry to ramp up production of domestic alternatives to the embargoed western epoxy and carbon fiber. Now the fifth certification prototype has been built with Russian engines replacing the Pratt & Whitney turbofans.

It is another case of western desperation, as in the embargo on Huawei, which only hurts US tech companies' sales.

At the same time that Russia is proceeding apace with the single-aisle MC21 now nearing market entry, plus the joint venture with China on the development of the widebody CR929, we see the Boeing meltdown with the 737 MAX, one of the biggest engineering failures in history.

It's worth noting that Boeing is the US' biggest exporter, and the flagship US company by any measure.

It is ridiculous to think that Russia, which makes and exports some of the world's most sophisticated combat aircraft, somehow needs western engines, avionics and other components for civil aircraft.

Those decisions on western content were made at a time when Russian industry still believed that cooperation and FAIR competition was still possible.

Those illusions are gone. Just as Russian combat aircraft are in high demand around the world, so too will its civil aircraft. Sanctioned countries like Iran cannot now buy Russian civil aircraft like the SuperJet 100 or the MC21, due to western content.

But that content will be replaced with domestic equipment, now an officially stated priority, and then there is nothing to stop Iran or anyone else on the US hit list [which grows bigger by the day] from buying those aircraft.

So that is just one example in what is arguably the world's most important industry of how a technologically advanced Russia cannot be stopped by self-defeating western sanctions.

We are talking here about a country that graduates twice as many engineers as the US, has had a monopoly on human spaceflight for the last decade, and has built an insurmountable lead in key aerospace technologies like advanced rocket engines, hypersonic vehicles, and scramjet propulsion.

That's how Russia is going to utterly defeat US sanctions, by import substitution and simply sidestepping any silly little obstacles the increasingly impotent US may try to throw in its path, not by some hare-brained scheme to build military bases in Iran, which incidentally is quite capable of defending itself [otherwise the US would have already struck militarily].

Heck even little Venezuela is 'too big' for the PAPER TIGER...what with its S300s and Su30 fighter jets...LOL

The idea that Russia is being 'strangled' is laughable. Here is a good analysis by Jon Hellevig on the import substitution issue.

This from two years ago, and Russia has only made even bigger strides since then.

But it's good to see that the Atlantic Council is paying attention to our little hangout here. LOL

Posted by: flankerbandit | Aug 9 2019 19:47 utc | 69

Hmmmm Sunny Runny Burger #58, you reveal yourself too much it seems.

It is vitally important to prick every BS USA myth for there to be regeneration. Tulsi Gabbard is spot on stabbing the balde of truth in the paranoid delusion manufactured by the state.

What is it you don't like about an honest politician Sunny Runny Burger?

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 9 2019 21:54 utc | 70

100% agreement with flankerbandit.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 9 2019 21:59 utc | 71

Uncle tungsten: a honest politician? As a previous member of the CFR? As someone who has managed to get elected in the US?

I don't like all the bullshit, the deceit, the manipulation, the lies, the attitudes that go with it and the implicit bellicose enmity (hidden or not, from my point of view it is not at all hidden).

Uncle tungsten Gabbard as much as anyone else "in the running" is in actual fact figuratively continuously screaming on the top of their lungs and directly in your face that they want to torture, abuse, and kill you and everyone around you, but you (currently) can't hear or see any of it: the packaging has transfixed you, it's the right kind of shiny that you enjoy and it makes you happy because she says the right kind of things that you want to be told and hear.

The things that make you go "okay, that's good enough, if I vote for her and if I support her then I'm in the clear" because anything else would of course be deeply unreasonable. Such is the picture from the inside of the jail we live in.

I believe you when you indirectly say that you consider this one (Gabbard) to be a honest politician, I can easily admit that I've also been where you are even though I know it will only come across as arrogant to say so.

Unfortunately for all of us the delusions that cripple the "western world" (and indeed also challenge all of humanity anywhere) go much deeper than any (rare) talk about "honest" politicians.

I can only encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the concept called "imprinting" and to not get hung up on anything Freudian (which as usual is always first and foremost about Freud himself and thus a complete distraction) nor the animal behavior as such but instead a plain generalization of the concept and how that fits the patterns we can all see across human society and human existence itself. Imprinting upon the abstract explains us, perhaps completely, and could be the most common error we all commit continuously.

That might be our true enemy, the root of our problems, and if it isn't then perhaps at least it will encourage people to in a truly positive manner challenge the swamp of narratives most people enslave themselves to.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 9 2019 22:42 utc | 72

@70 flankerbandit

A tour de force, thank you.

Posted by: Grieved | Aug 10 2019 2:15 utc | 73

I also like to see Gabbard introducing noble memes into the degenerate world of electioneering.

I never expected her to make it as far as the primaries, let alone the race itself. Maybe she knows all she can do now is broaden the range of parameters as she goes down.

But I have not studied this closely. I know most about it from MoA threads, actually. Even so, honestly, I think of her actions as more noble than deceitful.

This doesn't mean that she isn't being played. But it also doesn't mean that she isn't being true.


One day we must get beyond the persons and swear allegiance to the issues.

Posted by: Grieved | Aug 10 2019 2:22 utc | 74

It would be a good idea to send some Russian ships into the Gulf and Straits just to keep an eye on the US Fleet and possibly find out who is sabotaging shipping in the area. It would make the US a bit hesitant about starting a war based on an incident in the Gulf. China is considering sending some of its Navy to escort its ships, Russia should do the same.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 11 2019 22:04 utc | 75

Mr B, thanks for clearing up my ZH/ post, i thought as much that it was all bs, but nice to read a coherent list of detailed reasons confirming more precisely why.

Posted by: EtTuBrute | Aug 12 2019 10:12 utc | 76

The comments to this entry are closed.