Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 10, 2020

Belarus, Pulling Bridges, MI6 And Russiagate

When the summer gets too hot German schools release their students early. It is called hitzefrei. It is 33° centigrade (90°F) here today. That may not seem hot for many of you but consider that hardly anyone here has air-conditioners. I will take today off and leave you with the three issues I had considered to write about.

The predicted color revolution attempt in Belarus proceeds as expected:

Tsikhanouskaya, who drew tens of thousands of people to her campaign rallies, refused to recognize the preliminary official results announced by the TsVK on August 10.

"I consider myself the winner in the presidential election," she said in Minsk.

Tsikhanouskaya said her opinion was based on what she called "real protocols" collected at the majority of polling stations, which, according to her, prove that she won the election. She also charged that the official results announced by the TsVK were rigged.

Meanwhile, Tsikhanouskaya's supporters announced they would stage a mass demonstration against the official election tally on August 10 at 7 p.m. (1600 GMT/UTC) in central Minsk.

The opposition in Belarus also has called for a nationwide protest strike starting at noon local time on August 11.

President Lukashenko will not have any of that. The protests that followed yesterday's exit polls announcements were relatively small. Unless the security forces fall apart, which I do not expect to happen, the attempt to overthrow Lukashenko will be defeated.


Is the U.S. turning into a third world country? I don't know. But when Chicago has to literally pull up the bridges something is definitely wrong:

The looting seemed to be centered in Streeterville and North Michigan Avenue, but some looting was reported on State Street in the Loop and on the Near North Side. By 4 a.m. police appeared to be getting things under control.

But some vandalism continued into the daylight hours, and the CTA suspended train and bus service into downtown during the morning rush, while the Illinois state police blocked off ramps from expressways. Bridges across the Chicago River were raised, except for the one on LaSalle Street for emergency vehicles.


Russiagate, the deep state campaign to disenfranchise President Donald Trump, is further unraveling. The Spies Who Hijacked America is a first-person account that convincingly documents an MI6-linked conspiracy by former director Richard Dearlove, former agent Christopher Steele and FBI informant Stefan Halper to frame Carter Page that led to the FBI launching of "Crossfire Hurricane".

The long read is very interesting but it still does not account for who or what instigated the British spies into launching their campaign against Trump. My hunch is that then CIA director John Brennan was the central person behind it.

Posted by b on August 10, 2020 at 16:58 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Thanks to all for the info about Pakistan developments.

It does seem that the... involvements between US' gwot and KSA et. al. Salafists has been a long-term project. Salafist operations can go and operate within regions where other US operatives and proxies can't. Long and continued attacks in Pakistan, Balochi rumblings in Pak, Afgh, and SE Iran, and Salafist influences in Xinxiang, and India.

It's a hot stew and has similarities to the jockeying for position and alliances btwn the two WW's. USA, KSA, PAK, India, China, Iran, and the 'Stans all embroiled, and being driven by US vs China re the BRI. My conclusion, at any rate.

Posted by: vinnieoh | Aug 11 2020 19:08 utc | 101

Talkin' bout these muslim proxies...

Anybody seen Ayatollah Mike lately?

Posted by: Lurk | Aug 11 2020 19:32 utc | 102

After reading The Spies Who Hijacked America ..

Posted by: Kali | Aug 10 2020 17:38 utc | 3

You sent me on an interesting trail there.

I went from the spies who hijacked america to a search for a woman named in that article in relation to the Flynn business. The name is "Svetlana Lokhova".

So, barflies, this is perplexing:

- There is a "Svetlana Lokhova" named in context of the Flynn story. Here is one search result (from The Times of London, dated 2018).

- Here is another "Svetlana Lokhova" found via the same search for the name. (The Telegraph, dated 2016).

In the first, she is a "writer", a historian, a "Soviet expert". Cambridge.

In the second, she is a "banker" and the story is how she won "3.14 million" pounds in her defemation case.

How does one go from being a "high flying London banker" (per The Times) "in 2015" to a "Cambridge Expert on Soviet Intelligence" meeting Flynn in 2017 (?).

I wonder if the first 'story' was to set her up with cash and a platform for playing writer, or penetrating Sberbank CIB.

Posted by: conspiracy-theory | Aug 11 2020 20:26 utc | 103

The correction for second link

Posted by: conspiracy-theory | Aug 11 2020 20:29 utc | 104

JC | Aug 11 2020 3:55 utc | 63:

SCMP?   Good God. Was the article written by Minnie Chan?   If so, AVOID anything written by her.   David Axe may resort to hyperbole from time to time but Minnie Chan have ZERO knowledge on military matters.   IF you didn't already know, follow a guy named Andreas Rupprecht on Twitter (@Rupprecht_A) if you really want to know the truth about China's military modernization.   There's also another guy that goes by the name "Rick Joe" on Twitter (@RickJoe_PLART), Henry from East Pendulum (@HenriKenhmann), and a Chinese military blog created by huitong.

I know this comes across as pedantic but there's a photo from a Chinese gathering that specifically stated that the Shandong is Type 002; not a 001A.   The Type 001A designation was made up by internet fan boys.

Fog of War | Aug 11 2020 11:30 utc | 77:

None of the above.   I know the National Guard is a bunch of useless lazy people but the Chinese military are used for disaster relief believe or not.

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 11 2020 21:07 utc | 105

Re: Carriers
Several years old, but seems to me to be still quite relevant:

The War Nerd / April 1, 2009
This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version)
By Gary Brecher

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 11 2020 21:25 utc | 106

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 11 2020 21:25 utc | 106

I file these under the same section as the naval war game in Persian Gulf and "asymmetric warfare". Did you see IRGC's latest embarassing propaganda (for the consumption of the captive Iranian audiance) of boats circling a wooden mockup of a carrier?

What these articles never discuss is finding these targets to shoot at. Is it really that easy to find where a naval CG is in Pacific or Indian Ocean to start shooting at it?

These articles also never discuss logistics: someone has to ship these rockets and whatever other resources are needed to fire the magic missiles.

Finally, the question that never gets asked is: who is supposed to be the target audiance of these articles? Actual military types have their respective militaries' war colleges and think tanks. Leaders of the world also hopefully have actual advisors and don't get their "intelligence" from pysops cutouts.

Are they targetting rand and file military, perhaps, to demoralize them?

Or is it just some bone to throw in the mix of "geopollitical analysis" (like here in MOA) to entertain the malcontent thinking set and establish bona fides?

Who are these people writing these half truths for?

BTW, The author of your piece is quite a character, however. How many people get their PhD with Marquis de Sade as the topic? Your mileage may vary but for that was a 'personal character' sort of red flag, too. (I bet he is an American spook -- just gut feeling reading his bio.)

Posted by: conspiracy-theorist | Aug 11 2020 22:49 utc | 107

@William Gruff #93
Perhaps you can highlight how a youthful Bill Clinton and/or Kris Kristofferson are prime future material for the intel agencies.
In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy League universities.
Or is this all a ploy for the CIA to control country music?
It is far more likely that Bill was a Rhodes scholar because of him having clerked for Fulbright- the US Senator who later created the Fulbright scholarships.
In any case, the burden of proof is always on the person making the extreme; strong statement.
As for Kristofferson: his father was a US Air Force major general.
Seems much more a tool of England building influence with existing and possible future Americans than any crystal ball intel agency recruitment.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:35 utc | 108

@conspiracy-theorist #107
It is quite clear you have never read any of Gary Brecher's (aka The War Nerd) articles, much less the one in question.
Had you done so, you would have learned that the views expressed there didn't come from some basement couch quarterback, but from a real life exercise called Millenium Challenge 2002.
Unlike most naval exercises where both sides are colleagues, the red team in this case was retired Marine general Paul K. Van Riper. The swarm tactics he deployed destroyed an entire carrier battle group in the first 2 days of the exercise.
So Brecher has basis for his views - Van Riper's attacks were literally via speedboats whereas China has an entire panoply of anti-ship missiles, including ballistic ones.
The sad fact is that the United States military has not gone head to head with an opponent less than 3 generations behind in technology; it also has not fought an opponent of more than 1/3 the size of population or 1/6th the size of economy.
And even then, it has not triumphed.
This is not consistent with the supposed dominance and expertise of the US military establishment, so much so that considerable ink has been spilled to justify these failures as "spoiling attacks" and what not.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:50 utc | 109

@conspiracy-theorist #107
I will further note that your response also shows a clear lack of information.
A conflict with Iran is 99.9% likely to be started by the US. The likelihood of Iran attacking the US is nil, much less going after US carriers in the 7 seas. The most likely scenario is an attempt at regime change - which in turn requires the US carriers to come within striking range of Teheran: 1300 miles maximum. This is shorter than Vietnam era aircraft, for example.
In reality due to the geography of the Persian Gulf, US carriers would have to be a lot closer - among other reasons, to protect Saudi Arabia and Gulf traffic/facilities.
In this scenario: brown water subs/mini subs, small attack surface craft, missiles, drones and whatever else the Iranians can dream up - can all be a factor. Which is precisely what General Van Riper intended to convey.
So your condescending ad hominem attack is not only off base, but it demonstrates a clear lack of even the minimum self education available to talk about this subject.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:56 utc | 110

@ c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:50 utc | 109 & 110

Thank you for your necessary expansion on my very meager comment.

I would only add that Mr. Theory should look up some information on China's DF-21 carrier-killer missile, its capabilities and its method of employment.

The commander of the US Pacific fleet spent a couple of years racing around D.C. trying to tell the people who count that the US has no defense against that weapon. Mostly, the people who count didn't want to hear it . . .

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 12 2020 0:09 utc | 111

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:56 utc | 110

>@conspiracy-theorist #107
> I will further note that your response also shows a clear lack of information.


> A conflict with Iran is 99.9% likely to be started by the US. The likelihood of Iran attacking the US is nil, much less going after US carriers in the 7 seas.

Strawman. Did I say anything about who is good guy or who is bad guy or who will start a war?

> The most likely scenario is an attempt at regime change - which in turn requires the US carriers to come within striking range of Teheran: 1300 miles maximum. This is shorter than Vietnam era aircraft, for example.
In reality due to the geography of the Persian Gulf, US carriers would have to be a lot closer - among other reasons, to protect Saudi Arabia and Gulf traffic/facilities.

That's amusing but it's your opinion, so fine. I could tell you what I would do if I were to disarm IRGC but I don't want to give the Americans any ideas ;)

Look, all I did was have a chuckle at the expense of the IRGC and sympathetic feelings for captive Iranian nation and their (fact) recent war game in the Persian Gulf with speedboats circling a carrier and a helicopter dropping soldiers. It's not a laughing matter for Iranians of course if that is in fact what they are teaching their soldiers. For a bit of reality check, review how 'easy' it was for Japanese pilots to slam their Zeros into ships sporting WW II era defensive capabilities.

Posted by: conspiracy-theory | Aug 12 2020 0:19 utc | 112

@ c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:50 utc | 109 & 110

> Thank you for your necessary expansion on my very meager comment.

We have a "clue" here.

> I would only add that Mr. Theory should look up some information on China's DF-21 carrier-killer missile, its capabilities and its method of employment.

It is Mr Consipiracy-Theory to you.

Look, clearly a kinetic weapon that exceeds the computational and effective reaction speed of kinetic defensive systems is a "killer" weapon with "no defense". This is obvious and no one is arguing against physics.

> The commander of the US Pacific fleet spent a couple of years racing around D.C. trying to tell the people who count that the US has no defense against that weapon. Mostly, the people who count didn't want to hear it . . .

Wonder if he is employed now by a big MIC company or if he is still in the Navy. I bet I make a pretty penny shopping around a directed energy solution to stopping very fast moving objects in DC.

So tell you what. Someone should ask the commander if "the total system" presents a "no defense" situation (in which case Comrade Xi, what the fuck. Pull it ;), Or, more likely, that there are in fact 'counter strategies' to degrade the actual combat results of such a system.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 12 2020 0:09 utc | 111

You did not take a crack at my questions btw.

Posted by: conspiracy-theorist | Aug 12 2020 0:27 utc | 113

bevin at 83

From the document: "Binney is quoted as being convinced by Campbell’s analysis and now believes the DNC data was hacked."

This person gets it wrong. What Binney concluded was that the data was *manipulated" and therefore can not be used to establish much of anything. However, the point that the data could not be transmitted at the speed estimated in 2016 is still basically valid and that the data was loaded onto removable storage is also still likely. *However*, that fact has always been mostly irrelevant, since no one knows how many times it was moved and by what means. Almost certainly it was moved by an external storage device at some point before ending up in Wikileaks. Craig Murray pretty much said as much.

How I would have done it is sit outside the DNC server location with a decent high-speed WiFi connection to their wireless network (I presume they have one, everyone does these days), and after doing whatever was necessary, either as an employee or a spy, to connect to the network, I would have downloaded the data to my wireless device (laptop, presumably). The NSA would be oblivious to this transfer, although depending on my anti-forensics skill, it might still have been detected internally by a computer forensics expert. CrowdStrike never found the actual leaker or the exfiltration method AFAIK; all they found was some malware - which means whoever took it was either authorized to do so (or used the credentials of someone else authorized to do so - standard operating procedure for either external or internal spies) or was very good at anti-forensics. Or CrowdStrike was simply incompetent. Or all three.

What the data analysis *does* do is disprove the US allegation that Russians extracted the data *over the Internet* *directly* to Wikileaks. Nothing in the Mueller report suggests the data was moved by external storage media. Binney's statement that if it was moved over the Internet, the NSA would know it and could prove it remains true. That they never have is one huge red flag about the Mueller claims.

The rest of the conspiracy analysis in the linked document is only minimally interesting. The 5G stuff just shows the writer to be a non-scientist, as they fully admit, while still suggesting that 5G is some sort of health threat. I wouldn't be surprised if it is to some degree. The problem is that no one outside the non-ionizing radiation scientific community has any real clue to *what* degree. If the international organizations have concluded it is not, it takes, as they say, "extraordinary evidence" to prove them wrong. None of that has been forthcoming, in particular nothing by Snake here. So it's a waste of time to take it seriously. I've asked Snake for *one* single experiment done by *anyone* with real credentials that uses the actual level of radiation from either a 5G phone or a tower to cause subjects to get the virus. AFAIK there is no such experiment done anywhere by anyone. So there is no evidence it happens - or for that matter, no evidence it doesn't except current recognized science. Which, as I say, has been dismissed by the real experts. Everything else is speculation - and conspiracy theory.

In general, I like conspiracy theories. They provide a fertile field for investigation - if someone has the means to do so. Most conspiracy theorists don't have the means. They just regurgitate the available reports - which, by definition, are unreliable - and engage in "analysis", which really means speculation. Only on the ground investigation can begin to get at the truth.

Back in 1968 or 1969, I forget which, I actually went to Point Pleasant, West Virginia, to talk to people about the legendary "Mothman" that journalist John Keel had written about. I talked to the cops involved, a stringer reporter who had accompanied Keel in his investigations, and some of the UFO witnesses in the area. I couldn't establish what actually happened from this, but it *did* confirm what Keel had written was what he was told.

Keel was an "old-school" journalist who believed in "ground truth". The problem with most conspiracy theorists is that most of them don't have either the technical expertise or the resources to get "ground truth". Keel himself told me once that he would go to a location, do some investigation, deliver a talk of some sort, and write off his expenses as tax write-offs, which he said the IRS was not happy about. And he was by no means rich, his books never sold that much. Without a significant income, it's next to impossible to determine the truth of 99% of the events in any given conspiracy theory.

Or for that matter, the truth in 99% of the main stream news. But it's not 100%. The other problem conspiracy theorists have - and we see it here daily - is that just because a report comes from the MSM, it *has* to be false in its *entirety*. Which is ridiculous. Most of the MSM news is valid reporting. It's just how much is left out and how the spin is applied from the wording or who the source was that is the problem. A few things might be completely made up, but most things aren't. But if the reporter hasn't himself done the leg-work to verify the statements of the sources, then it has to be considered unreliable or at least incomplete.

Anyway, that's for the link. It was interesting.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 12 2020 2:09 utc | 114

Off-topic but important:

Just when we thought it could not get any worse, Biden has announced that his VP choice is Kamala Harris.

The American people are in desperate trouble . . .

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 12 2020 2:13 utc | 115

@ c1ue | Aug 11 2020 23:50 utc | 10 In reality due to the geography of the Persian Gulf, US carriers would have to be a lot closer - among other reasons, to protect Saudi Arabia and Gulf traffic/facilities.

Actually, I read some years ago that the first sign of a US attack on Iran would be the US Navy *leaving* the Persian Gulf. That because they would be sitting ducks in that relatively narrow and easily surveilled passageway. People don't realize the Persian Gulf is only 200 miles wide at its widest point down to 35 miles in the Straits of Hormuz. The real problem is that it is fairly shallow, maximum depth 295 feet and average depth of 164 ships are restricted to fairly narrow lanes. There have been two cases where US submarines have collided with other vessels, US Navy and a tanker.

There's zero point in having a carrier group sitting inside the Persian Gulf in an Iran war. They would sit outside the Gulf and just launch aircraft and cruise missiles and the like. They might try sending some ships in for counter-mining operations - but that would prove to be a complete failure. If they didn't lose the ships themselves to mines and missiles, they still wouldn't find most of the mines, as proven in the last mine-clearing exercise they did a few years ago.

It's precisely because the US Navy is at great risk from anti-ship missiles (and mines) that they won't be in the Gulf during an Iran war. The Saudis and Gulf shipping will be on their own. Most probably Gulf shipping would simply end, as the mine risk would be unacceptable. Iran supposedly has more ocean mines than any other country - and more places to launch them from given their coastline. The US won't put its carrier groups at risk just to provide some additional anti-missile defense to the Saudis - they'll rely on Patriots and other ground emplacements inside Saudi Arabia - as they did in the recent drone attacks from Yemen. Of course, given the large number of Iranian missiles, any such air defense is likely to be overwhelmed quickly (depending on how many launchers Iran has.)

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 12 2020 2:28 utc | 116

Posted by: conspiracy-theorist | Aug 12 2020 0:27 utc | 113 there are in fact 'counter strategies' to degrade the actual combat results of such a system.

Care to provide a link to those "counter strategies"? I'd especially be interested in any that have been *demonstrated* to actually *work*.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 12 2020 2:31 utc | 117

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 11 2020 21:07 utc | 105

You're quiet right about SCMP there were two article’s Minnie Chan and Liu Zhen dtd 17 Oct, 2019. My original interest started when Sputnik posted two aircraft carriers assembled simultaneously (below)...

.” third and fourth aircraft carriers are having their massive hulls assembled simultaneously". Read it yourself and see the confusion below Type 003. Andreas Rupprecht on Twitter (@Rupprecht.

Just a personal warning never, never trust SCMP. I believe SCMP leaning or pro Taiwanese against PRC, SCMP's reporters attached in various China's Provincial capitals. Alibaba exec. Chairman Joe Tsai and Gary Liu, CEO SCMP is Taiwanese. Joe Tsai father a KMT, HK and US citizenship. Gary Liu - US and Taiwanese Citizenship.

Posted by: JC | Aug 12 2020 3:53 utc | 118

james@85, I have to thank you for destroying my evening plans by linking that remarkable series. I did some time ago read John Le Carre's novel, and many of the ones before and after. I was too taken with family chores when the series ran, and my memory is it adhered to the book in exquisite detail. I don't think, when I read the novel, I at all grasped the complexity of the ending. That needed what has been taking place this century, as the world unravelled.

Thanks to you and to the person who posted that film on youtube. It is a classic.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 12 2020 4:09 utc | 119

@ 118 juliania.. i am stuck still watching it still !! i think i have an hour left... 4 hours and 5' is a long moive!! it is really a fascinating thriller that i knew nothing about!

Posted by: james | Aug 12 2020 4:34 utc | 120

karlof1 | Aug 11 2020 18:24 utc | 99 re Cinton/Halper at Oxford...

Quoted from

"In 1967, Halper received a Bachelor of Arts with high honours from Stanford University. After this, Halper started to study at the University at Oxford, where he studied with Bill Clinton. This was at the same time that Clinton became friends with Strobe Talbott, the future brother-in-law of Cody Shearer."

IIRC after WJClinton abruptly stopped his study at Oxford, he and SHalper together travelled/toured USSR [tho cannot find source for this claim and another that Clinton forced to leave study at Oxford due to sex harassment charges].

Posted by: chu teh | Aug 12 2020 4:52 utc | 121

JC | Aug 12 2020 3:53 utc | 117:

Whoever wrote that article at Sputnik have no clue as well.

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 12 2020 4:57 utc | 122

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 12 2020 4:57 utc | 121

You can't blame me. Spend hrs researching on the PRC aircraft carrier. The pics dun lied.
@Rupprecht_A @RupprechtDeino

Sorrie no Tweet account. Now going back and deletes all aircraft carrier's bookmarks..

Posted by: JC | Aug 12 2020 5:16 utc | 123

Karlof1 , et al

Here's a mention of allegedly why WJClinton left Oxford [did not graduate]

There are other mentions [e.g. Snopes], but never any evidence beyond "a 19-yr old name of Eileen Wellstone" it just hangs isolated in the air.

Posted by: chu teh | Aug 12 2020 5:28 utc | 124

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 12 2020 4:57 utc | 121

sorrie missing:

Posted by: JC | Aug 12 2020 5:35 utc | 125

Ms Tsikhanouskaya, according to DW News, F24, Al Jazeera & RT, has fled Belarus and popped up in Lithuania, after lodging a formal request for a recount. She had sent her kids on ahead BEFORE ELECTION DAY, a rather clumsy/ eerily inept confession that she'd decided that the election was fraudulent before it had taken place! She also muttered something about "I regret calling for protests."
Russia and China noticed that Lukashenko won and have congratulated him on his re-election.
The Great Grey-Green Greasy Pompeo has threatened sanctions...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 12 2020 5:44 utc | 126

JC | Aug 12 2020 5:35 utc | 124:

That link is the copy and paste of that Sputnik article. The photos from Morgan Artyukhina (@LavenderNRed) tweet (in that article) is not of the carriers but commercial vessels.

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 12 2020 5:58 utc | 127

Lurk #102

Talkin' bout these muslim proxies...

Anybody seen Ayatollah Mike lately?

The rat you refer to bit the dust in Afghanistan courtesy of the Taliban lads. This happened very soon after the FUKUSAI murdered Qasem Soleimani.

The rat was aiborne in a spy plane scanning territory or dropping cash for opium to some remote locale and the plane was hit by a SAM. Whether that SAM was a gift from Iran specifically for that gesture remains unknown. But revenge was certainly on someone's agenda. The Taliban were first to the plane and the FUKUSAI recovery mission was obliged to wait for business to be attended to.

Perhaps there are other interpretations.

It was featured here at the bar and there was some discussion.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 12 2020 7:08 utc | 128

@ uncle tungsten | Aug 12 2020 7:08 utc | 127

I know. But as you can see in the wiki that I linked, they still officially deny that he died, which I find curious. So I am wondering, has anyone seen any sign of him?

Posted by: Lurk | Aug 12 2020 9:16 utc | 129

c1ue @108: "Or is this all a ploy for the CIA to control country music?"

Do you imagine that I am ignorantly using overly broad terminology when I say that the CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" encompasses the whole of the capitalist mass media? Only juveniles would think the CIA limit their influence efforts to just CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC. Country music, like hiphop music and pop music, is part of capitalist mass media. The entertainment industry is an even more important vector for programming of media consumers than is the infotainment industry.

"In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy League all US universities."

Fixed that for you.

Or perhaps you mean strictly recruitment of only salaried CIA personnel with federal employee identification numbers? I would have hoped that a poster here at MoA should know that there is a clear distinction between an intelligence "operator" and an intelligence "agent". It seems it should be obvious that non-employee intelligence assets require recruitment of one form or another as well.

I think it would be wise to assume that all of the top 5% students at all major universities have been evaluated and scouted by CIA "recruiters". Any student who looks like they might go any place where they have any influence, either through talent or connections, will have a CIA "recruiter" sniffing their ass.

Naturally, nobody should assume that the CIA "recruiter" will approach their target and announce, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood CIA recruiter!" Most recruits will be unlikely to ever even realize that they have been recruited.

Ex: CIA scum: "Hey, you told me you want to do investigative journalism after you graduate, right? I know someone over at Buzzfeed who says they're looking for someone right now. I could put in a good word for you!"

Now, the "recruit" could probably get a position at Buzzfeed after graduation anyway, but when she gets a call for an interview it seems too good to be true, so she puts her education on hold and takes the job. Meanwhile her "friend" introduces her to another "friend" with inside government info (the CIA controller hands off the asset to another controller). Our cub presstitute is grateful and indebted to both, now. When they approach her later requesting favors, she will gladly deliver, but at no point will she ever realize that she is in fact a CIA agent... an off-budget asset.

The thing with Faustian bargains is that they seem like a super good deal at the time, and the CIA shame the devil with their Faustian bargaining.

The above is, of course, just one of many approaches used by the CIA for recruitment. They are good at blackmail also, of course. As well, this is no extreme accusation. If you've spent any significant amount of time on a university campus with your eyes open (most people on university campuses are deeply engrossed in their own immediate situations) then you will have noticed these recruiters, and if you are recruitment material then you will have been approached by one or more of them. If you were engrossed in your own university trials and tribulations like most students then you could have been "befriended" by one without ever even knowing it.

In any case, Clinton absolutely worked with the CIA at Oxford. Even The Atlantic admits it, but tries to downplay it, which is exactly what you would expect from one of the parts of the "Mighty Wurlitzer". They give a little bit of the truth to make the lie easier to swallow. Due to the Clintons' later involvement in the CIA's drug running schemes, it has become important in the official narrative for the Clintons' association with the CIA to be minimized.

Do bear in mind, though, that one can never retire from being an intelligence agent so long as the agency one was managed by continues to exist, in the same way and for the same reasons that one can never retire from being a goon for the mob. Clinton was a CIA agent from his time in Oxford to the present, and at all point in between. This requires no proof beyond the admission that Clinton was once a CIA agent. For processes that have no end, all you need to know about is their starting point.

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 12 2020 13:08 utc | 130

Don't know if this is true, but...YES!

BREAKING: New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian Assange in Seth Rich Case

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 12 2020 14:02 utc | 131

@conspiracy-theory #112
A valid analysis of the how and why of an Iran-US conflict is not a straw man.
In contrast, your comment about Iran not being able to find US carriers in the 7 seas - that is an excellent example of a straw man.
You also continue to refuse to admit that you neither read Brecher's article nor were aware of Millenium Challenge 2002.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2020 15:48 utc | 132

@Richard Steven Hack #116
Leaving the Persian Gulf still doesn't mean the US carriers are either in blue water or far away from Iran.
You might consider looking at a bathymetric map of the ocean around the Middle East; the continental shelf outside the Persian Gulf extends at least 500 miles into the Indian Ocean/Arabian Sea.
But your commentary is largely irrelevant.
The point of a maximum 1300 mile range is that real life standoff range in a US-Iran conflict would have to be much shorter. Otherwise you lose a lot of pilots and aircraft that are damaged but not shot down.
Similarly, response times to support ground troops and/or protect against Iranian sorties would be unacceptably long. A 1300 mile range means get there, fire missiles/drop bombs and leave whereas real life combat missions involve loiter time.
And most importantly: Iran's missiles have plenty of range: Iran missile range on map
You mistake Iran's brown water defenses for Persian Gulf only - they are littoral meaning within the continental shelf.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2020 15:57 utc | 133

@William Gruff #130
You can argue all you like, but the institutional hiring practices of the OSS and its successor, the CIA, are very well known.
As for your commentary: is this documented or is this pure speculation on your part?
The CIA has open recruiting in a number of universities. I've seen booths at University hiring events. As we speak, there are CIA open positions on
As for Bill Clinton: whether he was or was not a CIA agent, operative, or just friend does not actually say one single thing about the Rhodes scholar program, which is what we are talking about.
Bill Clinton certainly spent a lot of early time in Washington - he went to Georgetown for undergraduate and was working there for Fulbright, among others. That and his position after becoming law clerk for a senator, are more than enough proximity and prominence to be interesting.
As for your tale: What is well known is that the US intel agencies are far too short sighted and lazy to spend the enormous effort to recruit and shepherd assets before they are actually/potentially useful. It is the Soviets that are famous for that (Manhattan project etc).
Thus your commentary runs counter to everything I have ever read/seen/heard, hence my question as to where you got it from.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2020 16:05 utc | 134

The EU to imposse sanctions against Belarus on the bassis of law enforcement forces using excessive force agsint "protesters"...

For all the videos I have watched, including from Nexta, I have seen anti-riotts officials lightly armed, with only battons, throwing gum balls and using pepper gas or other usual means anywhere which exclude real fire...In most of the videos they fend themselves with their own hands and a shield, and when detaining riotters not even that, their own hands and full stop...

If you would attack any law enforcement official this way anyhwere in the EU you would be probably shot in self-defense...Of course, Lukashenko knows what is this all about, a NATO attack on the country´s sovereignty, and thus, send the officials naked to face all these hooligans...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 12 2020 16:28 utc | 135

Belarus must take its Color Revolution "medicine" or face sanctions is the message in this article. Trouble is those nations eager to perform for the Outlaw US Empire conduct lots of commerce with Belarus and are in worse economic shape than the nation they seek to sanction; thus, the threat holds no water. Belarus is one of the founding nations of the EAEU and isn't anywhere close to the economic basketcase Ukraine was and remains. We'll soon see an enforced exodus of CIA-linked NGOs and further minimalization of what calls itself the opposition.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 12 2020 16:40 utc | 136

c1ue @134: "...institutional hiring practices..."

Ah, so you are taking a radically narrow view of what being a CIA asset is. We are thus talking about two different things. Whereas I assert that the random Guaido from Venezuela whom Trump thinks is a president of something is a CIA asset, you would assert that since he doesn't have an FEIN and was never assigned a cubicle in Langley that he has no connection to the CIA whatsoever.

That's a cute little delusion there, and your psychological projection of CIA practices upon "the Soviets" is equally charming. If it is necessary for your worldview to imagine that all the CIA does is clip newspaper articles from foreign newspapers all day long to tell the president about the good parts, then I will leave you to it. You're wrong, of course, since the CIA is the biggest criminal organization in the history of humanity, but if you need to think that it is just another federal agency filled with clerks, then that's what you will believe regardless.

But perhaps it is a mistake to call the criminal organization that I am referring to "the CIA". As Arch Bungle @95 pointed out above, the capitalist "secret societies" and fraternities overseeing the extra-legal defense of the interests of the wealthy have existed long before the CIA was founded. The CIA was just an official institutionalization of these capitalist "secret societies" and fraternities with the goal of more tightly coordinating their actions in the fight against communism. Those "secret societies" and fraternities continue to exist, and while the CIA provides them with more effective management structure and diplomatic cover, they continue to conduct their most important activities in adjunct to the simple clerical work that is reported to Congress. This larger organization, with its cutouts and off-budget "personnel", front air freight businesses, etc is internally referred to simply as "The Company". Since that isn't something most people would immediately identify, and since the CIA provides the organizational core of that larger "enterprise", I will continue to refer to the that whole criminal gang as the CIA even though that is not perfectly accurate.

So the CIA recruits with booths? LMAO! Is that how they got that guy with an appetite for ties, Mikheil Saakashvili? Joshua Wong too, eh? They just set up a booth with some brochures and Wong signed up to be on their mailing list one day when walking by, I guess!

Booths! ROFL!

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 12 2020 17:17 utc | 137

Just noticed this sentence at the end of a ZH article about McAfee being arrested for wearing a thong for a face mask'

" He assured me he would be released,” she later said. In a Tweet later in the day McAfee said he was "back in Belarus" and commented:"

why is he in Belarus?

Posted by: arby | Aug 12 2020 17:39 utc | 138

james@120, thanks again, it really is well done, Alec Guinness just marvellous but all the characters well played. You would enjoy the book, Le Carre's best I think, and would be available at your library. I'm going to bookmark the link as it is worth return viewings. I'm remembering the book slightly differently in sequence - will have to read it again!

Posted by: juliania | Aug 12 2020 18:18 utc | 139

Posted by: Ian2 | Aug 12 2020 5:58 utc | 127

Thanks for correcting. There is many fake news and harder sorting out the truth, even harder to navigate with stoopid ads fight for my attention’s adguard and Privacy Badger no longer works for me.

BTW, without going into Tweet sites how many aircraft carriers now under constructions and is it true Type 004 China nuclear carriers?

My current views China should not add any more aircraft carriers, it's a sitting ducks except more Type 075 landing helicopter dock (LHD) for proximity fighting in South China seas. I have no love for the Japanese, the Jap. seem to have many such craft’s builds recently. Anyway watch 1st Oct China national day. Xin Jinping shows more advance weapons.

Now I'm more likely to believe a war between US and China in the near future regardless whether Biden win or Trump a second term. Did you know Kamala Harris is an Indian and not black she is another monger?

Posted by: JC | Aug 12 2020 19:39 utc | 140

arby #138

...McAfee wearing a thong and calling it a facemask...

I have two images in mind - one of underwear wrapped around his face and ears and another of footwear somehow attached to his face :))

Both sound like fun and both sound like way too close to undesirable microbes etc.

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 12 2020 20:11 utc | 141

thanks juliania! i really enjoyed it.. i am now curious about his other books....

Posted by: james | Aug 12 2020 21:05 utc | 142

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2020 15:57 utc | 133 Leaving the Persian Gulf still doesn't mean the US carriers are either in blue water or far away from Iran.

They are, however, out of sight of Iran except possibly from drones. Which means no direct line-of-sight or radar-guided anti-ship missiles can hit them. And any Iranian patrol boats that attempt to approach within range a hundred miles away from Iran are likely to be intercepted first. Perhaps you should be aware of the defensive properties of a carrier group. Which is why as long as the US fleet is outside the Persian Gulf, Iran's vaunted "swarm tactics" are going to be useless. The US Navy has presumably learned from that war game they fought where they lost 16 ships due to such tactics. The Navy is aware of the threat of small boats and that's why they have increased their kinetic firepower on the destroyers and cruisers.

"But your commentary is largely irrelevant."

Nice assertion, but wrong.

"Otherwise you lose a lot of pilots and aircraft that are damaged but not shot down."

I don't expect to see any US planes shot down after the first week. The Iranian air force will be destroyed almost immediately. Their anti-aircraft capabilities will remain for a while, perhaps indefinitely, although they will be highly degraded by the cruise missiles within the first week. So the US is not going to lose "a lot of pilots and aircraft" any more than they did when attacking Iraq. Iran is not China.

"Similarly, response times to support ground troops and/or protect against Iranian sorties would be unacceptably long."

There aren't going to be ground troops involved other than some Special Forces sorties. There aren't going to be any "Iranian sorties" either as I said above. The only time there will be ground troops is when it becomes apparent that the Navy can't keep the Straits or Gulf open to shipping. Then the US has to decide whether to deploy tens of thousands of ground troops right on Iran's shores in order to root out all the Iranian mine-laying vessels and anti-ship missile launching points on the shores and the islands. This would be a massive effort and would subject US troops to constant guerrilla warfare from whatever is left of the Iranian military plus the Basij militia. *That's* when US casualties would start to mount - *if* the US decides to go that route which, hopefully, it won't.

"real life combat missions involve loiter time."

Which doesn't matter if most of the weapons the enemy can fire at you no longer exist because they've already been bombed. Again, Iran is not China.

"And most importantly: Iran's missiles have plenty of range"

From an article I found:

Iran’s inventory of anti-ship missiles is today built around four Chinese missile families, the C-801/C-802 (CH-SS-N-4 Sardine /CH-SS-N-6 Saccade), the YJ-9, the C-701 and the C-704. Both the YJ-9 and the C-701 are known in Iran as the Kosar family, while the C-704 is the Nasr. The C-802 variants use a turbojet engine; all the others use solid-rocket motors. At least three variants of the C-802 feature in the inventory – the Noor, Ghader and Ghadir – with reported ranges of 120 kilometres, 200 km, and 300 km respectively,"

And they can't hit what they can't see. Which is why the US Navy will be out in the Arabian Sea around the coast of Oman - Oman is 1200 miles from Iran - out of sight of Iran's surveillance capability - which capability will also have been bombed out of existence in the first week due to SIGINT pinpointing anything with the range to see the US Navy fleet. And any Iranian aircraft in the air will be destroyed before it reaches Iran's border. As will any Iranian boats anywhere outside the Persian Gulf. Inside the Persian Gulf, Iran's boats will be able to operate because other than helicopters, the US Navy has little weapons to engage them with, and helicopters are too vulnerable to shore-based missiles. But out in the Arabian Sea, that is a different matter.

"You mistake Iran's brown water defenses for Persian Gulf only - they are littoral meaning within the continental shelf."

Link please. Show me where Iran's defenses extend beyond the 200-mile limit into the Arabian Sea - and how they will remain once the US Navy decides they are a threat to the fleet. Iran may operate in the Arabian Sea and the northern Indian Ocean *today*, but when hostilities break out they're going down in the first 24 hours. The US Navy will want Iran "bottled up" in the Persian Gulf where their maneuverability will be as limited as the US Navy's.

I'm not saying that Iran can't launch some attacks and do some damage. But it depends on how stupid the US Navy is. My original point was that the US Navy is *not* going to sit inside the Persian Gulf or anywhere within range of any Iranian anti-ship missiles. Iran owns the Persian Gulf, that is a given. But Iran does not and can not have the range to engage the US Navy at the same range the US Navy can absent the same level of surveillance capability the US Navy has with US satellites and high-altitude surveillance aircraft - many from land bases operating in conjunction with the US Navy capabilities - that can see everything for hundreds of miles.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 13 2020 1:52 utc | 143

Botched the block quote...

The point of the quote, by the way, is to show that Iran's anti-ship missiles have a *maximum* range of 300 km - and most have a much shorter range. The US Navy can sit well outside that range and continue to conduct operations against Iran in conjunction with the rest of the US assets in the region. That includes all air operations, including cruise missile strikes, and anti-ship operations needed to keep Iran bottled up in the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 13 2020 1:57 utc | 144

The point of the quote, by the way, is to show that Iran's anti-ship missiles have a *maximum* range of 300 km - and most have a much shorter range. The US Navy can sit well outside that range and continue to conduct operations against Iran in conjunction with the rest of the US assets in the region. That includes all air operations, including cruise missile strikes, and anti-ship operations needed to keep Iran bottled up in the Persian Gulf. Richard Steven Hack | Aug 13 2020 1:57 utc

The details of specs of missiles, ship etc. are of secondary importance. The cardinal question is if the goals achieved by a putative American attack on Iran can be worth the price. That requires going through realistically achievable goals and through realistically achievable retaliatory destruction. Any Gulf nation allowing its territory to be used in such attack is ipso facto a list of targets that cost a lot. Shipping to and from Persian Gulf will stop for the duration of the conflict.

We can discount leaks about military situation and compare with known facts about Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006.

1. Gains in domestic arena (typically, goal number one, and if negative, threat number one). The population of militarily superior country in the conflict suffers from inflated expectation of effectiveness of their vaunted military, and it is very hard to satisfy those expectations. Conversely, relatively small losses of the enemy can be appreciated on the inferior side.

2. The value of Iranian navy is that it provides capacity of rather proportional response to small attacks. USA if fond of small attacks, like on Syria and Libya before the final war against Libya, IF PERFORMED WITH IMPUNITY. Thus the value of that capacity may be worth the expense. But in a big conflict, one can agree that this value goes down precipitously.

3. Iran has capacity of rather proportional retaliation for major attacks with its land-land missiles. All fixed American bases in the region for starters. And if any country allows to use those bases for operations against Iran, their own military assets enter the target list. And if targets in Iran include economic target, no port, industrial facility, oil/gas installation in the region is safe. And shipping is definitely unsafe.

4. In the case of Iran's economic losses from bombardment, what would happen if they close Strait of Hormuz until they are paid reparations?


With all that, I do not see a scenario with non-senile American leader going for such adventure. Remember about addressing point 1 which basically decides the issue.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 13 2020 3:40 utc | 145

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 13 2020 3:40 utc | 145 The cardinal question is if the goals achieved by a putative American attack on Iran can be worth the price. That requires going through realistically achievable goals and through realistically achievable retaliatory destruction.

All of which is irrelevant if the goal is to spend money extracted from taxpayers and funneled to the military-industrial complex. And that this will be true to such an extent that literally *no one* involved in the decision making process will *ever* suffer the loss of *one thin dime* as a result. Just like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (and for that matter, Vietnam). It doesn't matter if US military losses are four times that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined - on an annual basis. No one will be held to account and there will be no "anti-war movement" like there was in the Vietnam era. Those days are over. The US electorate will pay through the nose for a decade or two or three in support of such a war. The US will kill another million people - or two million or three million - in Iran just as they killed a million in Iraq - and *no one* - except a few powerless complainers on sites like this - will bat an eye. And even if they did "bat an eye", they have *zero* power to change the US government to a non-war-making enterprise. Zero. End of story.

Eventually the US will decide to move on to something other "threat" - most likely China or Russia - and the Iran war will wind down - with Iran still standing (except for much of its infrastructure which will have to rebuilt over another decade.)

That is what is most likely to happen. Of course, it could go some other way depending on historical circumstances yet to occur. Call me when there has been no war with Iran for *another* 13 years since the last time I said the war was inevitable. There were reasons why it hasn't happened yet - and I've described them ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the US and Israel *clearly* reamin *committed* to war with Iran - as long as they can figure out how to finesse the start without being clearly to blame in historical terms. Considerations about US military losses and Iran's retaliatory capability and even "economic impact" - I repeat, no one in charge loses one thin dime - are utterly irrelevant to those considerations.

These facts are apparently something that most people are incapable of comprehending. Big surprise...which is why most people are surprised when war breaks out.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 13 2020 6:29 utc | 146

Richard Steven Hack @146

The fact that the US always loses its wars is not proof that the US doesn't intend to win and that its only goal is to burn the empire's resources. But I think there is bigger confusion here about what "winning" is. That is almost universally misunderstood by Americans. There are Americans who still think they won in Vietnam, for instance, despite the victory going entirely to the Vietnamese. "But we killed millions of them, and shot down lots of their planes!." America's war against Vietnam didn't result in a draw, or a stalemate, or even a conditional loss for the US. It was 100% total victory for the Vietnamese. When Syria establishes peace and civil order within their borders they too will have achieved unqualified victory over the American Evil Empire.

The same is true for any kinetic conflict the US launches against Iran. If after the smoke clears Iran remains a sovereign state with functional civil society, then they win 100% and without qualifications and the empire loses. Any of the empire's military assets damaged or destroyed are just icing on the cake. Even in Libya, where the Libyans lost the war, the Evil Empire lost as well. Sure, a few oligarchs in the empire increased their wealth, but the net economic impact of that war on the empire was negative.

The empire is in an extremely fragile economic state right now... actually, its economy is already broken, but any further shocks will break what's left into even smaller pieces. While it may be that some oligarchs in the empire are willing to throw it all away for the possibility of selling a few more cruise missiles, even they know that the empire needs to economically survive for those sales to happen.

And in fact they are losing thin dimes, and thick ones as well. In exchange they get even thinner US dollars. Piles and piles of US$, but that is fiat currency and is ultimately meaningless when faith in the US economy inevitably fades away. It is only a matter of time before US$ are just butt wiping paper. That can be a long time, even dozens of years, if the US plays it carefully. Or it can be next year if America does something rash and stupid, like launching war on Iran. When the US$ turns into butt wiping paper, it won't matter how big the oligarchs' piles of those dollars are, and that is something they are acutely aware of.

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 13 2020 13:24 utc | 147

@William Gruff #137
Now you're talking about assets.
And it seems clear you don't have any idea what an asset means. It can be for information, it can be an agent, whatever.
Whichever of these meanings - yet again, US intel agencies are infamous for not employing long term policies for assets until they are in positions of active power.
So yet again, you seem to be talking theory.
Yet again, I ask if you actually have information or you have been watching too many movies/reading too many conspiracy theories.
The "secret societies" are not about assets - they're about 1%/institutional power. These people are not "assets" in any form of the above noted areas - they are precisely the managerial layers in the intel agencies and the US overall.
In any case, your credibility and analytical capabilities continue to show as being very poor.
I would also note that nothing what I wrote conflicts with the thesis that the CIA "could" be a criminal organization.
In the real world, criminal conspiracies aren't Blofeld and council of crooks sitting around a big table like a bunch of CEOs; they *are* a bunch of CEOs united by common interest and social/economic background. Power is power, whether it is financial, political, bureaucratic, social or some combination thereof - nor is there anything preventing people from jumping back and forth or straddling these boundaries.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2020 17:23 utc | 148

@Richard Steven Hack #146
Your Google search counterpoint only shows that you really haven't spent any time thinking about this nor do you have any subject matter expertise.

Reconnaissance: there's this thing called drones. And another thing called satellites.
Iran launched its first military satellite this year; it is beyond belief that they wouldn't get intel feeds from allies as well in most shooting war scenarios.
If Iran can spot and shoot down a cutting edge US military drone, how hard is it to spot a US carrier group?
Most importantly: Ship radars can detect ships at 2000 kilometers - because the sea is basically flat and mostly doesn't have distorting geological features.

The most sad part of your analysis is that you apparently assume the Iranians are equivalent to Saddam Hussein's military in 1991 and 2003.
They are not.
The Iran-Iraq war era (1980s) was the most vulnerable period for Iran because they had just gone through a revolution and both their existing US tech based national defense systems were lacking due to embargo and because they had not yet found either new suppliers or developed their own systems. The Iran revolution was 1979, you might recall.
There's a reason why Israel hasn't bombed Iran since 1981. Iran has been creating and testing systems for nearly a generation - with considerable technical assistance from Russia and more lately from China. Hezbollah has been instrumental here both in terms of concealment practices with real consequences (Israel bombs any launcher found) as well as operational performance against Israel's, hence modern, tracking/detection/defenses.

No doubt armchair generals think Iran can be attacked with impunity; the real US military doesn't agree. Here is the 2019 version of the annual DIA report on Iran's military capabilities: DIA Report on Iran military
Note Page 55 shows that Iran can reach well past Oman: shore based Iranian missiles can reach most of the northern end of the Arabian Sea littoral.
In reality, a missile that can go on a truck can go on a boat or sub so actual reach is certainly greater.

I would also note that Teheran is literally on the opposite side of Iran, away from the Persian Gulf. Attacks on Teheran and its C&C facilities is outside the range of carrier based aircraft in the Arabian Sea; even aerial refueling is problematic given it would require flying over most of Iran's air defenses on the way. In the map referenced above, it is well out of frame.

So net net: your assertion about US Navy/US military impunity in a conflict with Iran is flat out wrong. You need to read more than just agitprop.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2020 18:09 utc | 149

@William Gruff #147
Agree that the goal for "winning" a war isn't necessarily military victory.
However, the illusion is still necessary.
Burn tax dollars to support your defense contractor isn't a very motivating slogan.
Equally, it is nonsense to think that the people going into the conflict are aiming to lose - they are the ones who lose reputation, limbs and lives.
However, the overall economic argument is false.
These non-winning wars don't improve the US economy in any unique way; dropping cash from helicopters would do the same thing.
Nor do "spoiling attacks" make any strategic sense. The Byzantines used it successfully because they were combating a demographic tide of Islam and Turks as underdogs; the US has been the largest economy in the world since the 1940s. The US has a larger population than anyone except China and India - who were 3rd world countries until recently (for China. Arguable for India).
The agitprop makes it seem otherwise, but the US is the biggest economy and the biggest population in any of its conflicts to date.
The US had literally 4x the population and probably 15x the economic size (or more) of Vietnam in 1969, for example. Iraq? under 25M people in 2002 - less than 1/10th the size of the US. Iran's population is 1/4 of the US. Russia's population is less than half.
What do you call the biggest, richest guy picking on everyone else?

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2020 18:30 utc | 150


With all the faults Lukashenko could have, what is coming for Belarus in case he falls now is neither peace or prosperity but even worst than in Ukraine, since Belarus did not suffer the troubles of the 90s and its population is not accustomed to suffer...

Who is making the informational war in Europe against the sovereign nation of Belarus...and why the welfare of Belarus is not the stated aim of the color revolution ongoing...

Today, some Spanish "alt-media" in collaboration with The Guardian, publish and anti-Belarusian article by one Katsyarina Shmatsina..( before the operatives pending of me, looking for any straw to thrown in my face to try undermine my credibility, make any easy association, not my Belarusian cousina, btw..., this well payed asset has nothing to do with me...)

Who is she? Who she works for? A slightly idea...

Her name is Katsiaryna Shmatsina, a Belarusian fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., a think tank based in the United States that aims to promote the political destabilization of "regimes" not friendly to the United States.

The German Marshall Fund of the US is affiliated with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a far-right organization led by former senior US State and Intelligence Department officials whose purpose is to undermine Russian "influence" in the world.

Who are the partners and donors of the Shmatsina German Marshall Fund? The list is extensive: USAID (CIA NGO), the Soros Open Society (this guy is in all of them!), Bank of America, Google (the one with the Covid radar), the Polish Foreign Ministry and ... NATO (there are many more)

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 13 2020 21:14 utc | 151

caitlin johnstone highlights moa's post from a few months ago today in this article ... smoothie has a good article up on the same topic also from earlier today on the same topic of belarus dynamics..
White Elephant-size 800-pound Gorilla In The Room.

Posted by: james | Aug 14 2020 3:41 utc | 152

James, when I clicked on your smoothie link I get--

"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist. "

Posted by: arby | Aug 14 2020 13:14 utc | 153

arby | Aug 14 2020 13:14 utc | 153

remove the trailing / from the url. many times that causes trouble.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 14 2020 13:28 utc | 154

Yes, that worked. Thanks

Posted by: arby | Aug 14 2020 13:31 utc | 155

These are the hooligans who jump over Belarusian anti-riot police...With these, hot cloths are of no use...if left to their own, soon will be killing people only for speaking Russian in the streets or the school, and for all those going on strike right now, unions will be forbidden, union leaders thrown into dust bins after being covered in paint and beated all the way to the Russian border, and Tikahnovskaya and the clean, fit, so well combed "ladies in white", will only get fat by carrying Western gay people´s children during unending cicles of nine months, after nine months, after nine months...Meanwhile...during the next waves of Covid-19, due lockdowns, the children they so heavily carried during unending nine months, to then be delivered into an oligarch´s surrogate maternity clinic and who they will never more see, will languish in orphan homes after their snobbish shallow parents recently elevated to non-menstruating people, abandon them due the least defect or simply because there are no charter flights it is currently happening in the Ukraine...

The "democrats" who protest in Belarus because they have lost the elections are a bit strange ... right?

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 15:02 utc | 156

@Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 15:02 utc | 156

Well some operatives would argue that photo could have been take nat another place different from Belarus....
Previewing that I mus add Ukrianian neo-nazis have already stated they will come in to help the Belarusians to keep their independence...Must be the same way the keep their own in the Ukraine ( obviously, these thugs who never worked at anything nor sweated ever if not at beating innocent honest people over there to loot them, have been the only ones raised to certain status they previously had not there...)

The Ukrainian far-right organization Freikor have announced their readiness to come to the aid of opposition protesters in Belarus.

They claim to be "ready to go help Belarusians to defend their independence in the event of a Russian invasion"

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 15:56 utc | 157

IMO, what the US is doing by Maidanizating Belarus in completing a nazi ring which will act as the new wall, but not to encircle Russia this time, a foe quite difficult to win over right now, but to encircle the EU and keep it apart from rejoining more flourishing Russia and China into a more promising Eurasian project. this is why Russia remains as if the thing would not go with them...

In this, the willing collaboration of the EU elites will come to bite them in the future ( except for those going to occuoy a post in Us oligarchs boards...) when they find their countries terminally enchained to a decaying, and almost in free fall, monstruous empire...In this, these European elites behave the same than good ole Lukashenko, bringing in disgrace to their own people by willingly make the dirty work for the US....

The destabilization of the whole Mediterranean is part of this enclosing of Europe, so that leaving it with no way of scapping, so that we keep with no other than remain exploited by the, still bitting but no more able to provide any kind of progress and prosperity, US Empire.

Every nation collaorating in the destabulization of the Mediterranean, like Turkey, have been promised some satrapies in exchange, as the current invasion of Greece gas fileds, and mild blubering by NATO head about it, clearly shows

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 16:30 utc | 158

In a podcast I am currently hearing, by a Basque geopolitical analyst, it is said that when the fall of the USSR happened, Belarus declared "its sovereignty", but not "its independence" in the waiting that the former Soviet republics would join in into economic/political association of CIS countries in a similar format of the EU, something never happened, as some moved through to total independence and with them the manipulations and meddling by the US/NATO started to never cease...until this date...

This must be why the Ukrainian nazis are talking about "helping the Belarusians regain their "independence""...

Russia, in the meantime, taking 6 o´clock tea...qué aproveche, oye...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 17:03 utc | 159

It looked like Belarus had beaten COVID as the active cases chart shows. But as the picture at the top of this article shows, today's protesters aren't wearing any protection at all, so I expect COVID to respike there in two weeks. CIA/NED etc will continue to protest to the last Belarusan.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 14 2020 17:20 utc | 160

Well...this seems to go the Venezuelan way...

Belarusian Ambassador to France and former Culture Minister Pavel Latushko has shown his public support for the protests in Belarus.

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya announced the creation of a Coordination Council for the peaceful transfer of power in Belarus. She affirms that she is willing to dialogue and asks the international community for help in organizing talks with the authorities.

This is Guaido/Zelensky show...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 17:59 utc | 161

In the comments section under the news at RT on the last addressing by Lukashenko to the nation of Belarus informing that foreign citizens from Poland, Ukraine, Holland and the Open Russia of Navalny have ingresed into the country to cause turmoil, while at the same time he warned the people they are being used as cannon fodder, some people are saying that the EU did not imposse sanctions on KSA after the assassination and chopped up of a US/KSA citizen at one of their embassies in a NATO country, neither on Macron and his government after the death of some Yellow Vests...

Then, human rights are being grossly violated in the Ukraine since the end of 2013 by nazi thugs and the EU says nothing...

The people who is demonstrating in Belarus is mainly upper middle class from the cities.
The few workers on strike, in case the color revolution would achieve victory, would wake up to a privatization of their working places for pennies and them joining the long unemployment lists of each and every EU country after they were deindustrialized as condition to enter the union...

It is quite difficult to believe that huge crowds of Belarusians support these "protests" organized from those countries which today dedicate themselves to pay tribute to the same nazis who masacred the Belarusian people, while they sully and tear down monuments to those who liberated them...

As an illustration of what the Belarusian people memory of war is, a recommendation of a film:

Since Belarus arouses interest, we recommend a gem from its cinema: "Come and Look", 1985.

It is the story of a boy who, after seeing his entire village massacred during the Nazi occupation of Belarus, joins the Soviet resistance.

Klimov makes of war cinema pure horror

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 14 2020 19:54 utc | 162

There's some great footage of what happened when BLM tried to start a riot at the CPD 7th precinct in the heavily black Englewood neighborhood. They got told off by community members who weren't having it, and retreated. "Bozo clown-ass niggas! White niggas and black niggas!"

Posted by: Thirdeye | Aug 15 2020 2:53 utc | 163

@ c1ue 150
"it is nonsense to think that the people going into the conflict are aiming to lose - they are the ones who lose reputation, limbs and lives.
However, the overall economic argument is false."

It's not the people going into the conflict but the people sending them there who's main objective often is to profit from it. They don't care that it costs the USA loads of money, just add it to the national debt, and make them and the people they represent(big corporations) even wealthier.

@ karlof1 160
"It looked like Belarus had beaten COVID as the active cases chart shows. But as the picture at the top of this article shows, today's protesters aren't wearing any protection at all, so I expect COVID to respike there in two weeks."

The virus mainly spreads via aerosols(20x more compared to droplets, because you can breathe them deep into your lungs and that's where it has the best change of infecting. Droplets are stopped by the barriers our bodies have against these type of threats, wet mouth, nose and throat, slime in the bronchus/trachea) so the risk of getting infected when outdoors is very small.

Non ventilated enclosed spaces,(humidity also is a factor) the smaller the worse, are the biggest risk, together with air re-circulation systems. If someone that is spreading contagious virus particles has been in an enclosed space for some time(longer is more danger), breathing out live virus cells, they can linger in the air for many hours. Someone that spends time(more time=more risk) in that enclosed space, even hours after the person spreading the virus has left, can still be infected. The 1,5m is a bad measure, infection can occur without ever seeing the spreader or he is on the other side of a large room for many hours, 1,5m distance won't work.
Also the virus particles are 10 to 20x smaller that what face-masks are designed to stop. The UK and Dutch governments have decided not to mandate masks because there is no evidence that it is effective they claim. But it can be applied as behavior manipulation measure our governments advise, to remind people of the 'threat' by seeing all the masked persons. So some busy outdoor locations in a couple of the biggest cities have a mask wearing requirement.

Posted by: Govern the Mente | Aug 16 2020 2:46 utc | 164

@ Govern the Mente | Aug 16 2020 2:46 utc | 164
"Also the virus particles are 10 to 20x smaller that what face-masks are designed to stop."

The N95 mask will stop particles of sub-micron size, whether going in or out -- see below.

Dr. Peter Tsai is the inventor of the N96 mask:

Peter Tsai and the Electrostatic Filter Mask
“Prof. Tsai's innovation was to find a way to take a cold pre-fabricated mat of non-woven material and subject it to two electric discharges of opposite polarity, one after the other. Under the right conditions, this process embedded quasi-permanent electric charges into the plastic fibers and made them very attractive to even sub-micron particles, like the 100-nanometer-diameter SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. The charge is durable and will persist even if the masks are sterilized with steam, according to a new article that Prof. Tsai just put up on a University of Tennessee website." (emphasis added)

Brief bio: Peter Tsai, Ph.D.
Employment: Research faculty, Joint Institute of Advanced Materials, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Expertise: Development of meltblowing (MB) systems and the electrostatic charging (EC) of materials for making air filter electrets. The MB and the EC developed by Tsai have been used in the industries worldwide making tens of billions of pieces of N95 respirators or face masks. He has received three prestigious awards from UT in recognition of his contribution to technology innovation. Tsai is a Fellow Member of American Filtration and Separation Society and a member of Electrostatic Society of America.

The retired inventor of N95 masks is back at work, mostly for free, to fight covid-19

More technical information for those curious enough:

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 16 2020 4:04 utc | 165

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.