U.S. Again Moves Goalposts For Nuclear Treaty Extension
The Trump administration wants to abandon all nuclear arms treaties with Russia. It has already left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that restricted some classes of shorter range nuclear weapons. It left the Open Sky treaty which allowed for verification flights. It is now letting the New-START treaty with Russia run out.
New-START limits the number of deployed strategic weapons and nuclear warheads that can be used for intercontinental attacks. These include long range bombers, silo based nuclear missiles and the number of submarine launched nuclear missiles. The treaty does not limit the number of short range nuclear weapons or the number of nuclear warheads which are not deployed but held in reserve.
The current treaty will end on February 5 2021 unless Russia and the U.S. agree to extend it for up to 5 year as that the treaty foresees. The Trump administration has said that it wants a new agreement before the upcoming election. There are now only two weeks left to negotiate an extension.
While the Trump administration wants to abandon New-Start it does not want take the blame for doing so. It first tried to include China, which has far fewer weapons than the U.S, and Russia, into the treaty. China did not want to part of the treaty even as the U.S. practiced childish diplomacy theatre to 'shame' China into negotiations.
The talks were going nowhere as the U.S. rejected the five year extension Russia wanted and demanded that other Russian arms, not covered by the current treaty, should also be included. On October 16 Russia's President Putin held a meeting with his national security cabinet. They discussed the treaty negotiations:
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:Before we get to the main item on today’s agenda, I would like to ask Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov whether there has been any progress in the dialogue with the United States to extend one of the central documents in terms of international security and arms control. I am referring to the New START, the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.
Where are we in the talks with the Americans?
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Mr President,
In keeping with your instructions, we remain quite proactive in our contacts with our American colleagues on strategic stability matters in all their aspects, including by emphasising our initiative to take a decision without delay to extend the New START, set to expire in February 2021, for a new five-year term without any preconditions. This initiative remains on the table.
...Vladimir Putin: It would be extremely sad, if this Treaty ceased to exist and was not replaced by another fundamental document of this kind. During all the previous years, the New START worked and worked properly, performing its fundamental role as a constraint curtailing the arms race and a tool of arms control. It is clear that we have new weapons systems that the American side lacks, at least for the time being. But we are not refusing to discuss this aspect of the matter as well.
In this regard, I have a proposal, namely, to extend the Treaty now in effect unconditionally for at least a year in order to have a chance to hold substantive talks on all the parameters of problems that are regulated by treaties of this kind, lest we leave our countries and all nations of the world with a vested interest in maintaining strategic stability without such a fundamental document as the Strategic Offensive Arms Limitation Treaty.
Please, formulate our position to the US partners and try to obtain at least some comprehensible reply from them as soon as possible.
Sergei Lavrov: We will do it as soon as we can, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
The U.S. rejected the offer:
Russia on Friday proposed extending a soon-to-expire nuclear arms treaty for one year without any changes, a move seen in Washington as a tactic to delay action on the treaty until after the American presidential election.
...
The offer drew a cool reception in Washington. Within hours, the Trump administration issued a statement from Robert C. O’Brien, the national security adviser, rejecting the offer from the Russian president.“President Putin’s response today to extend New Start without freezing nuclear warheads is a non-starter,” Mr. O’Brien said. “The United States is serious about arms control that will keep the entire world safe. We hope that Russia will reevaluate its position before a costly arms race ensues.”
Mr. O’Brien repeated the administration’s proposal to extend New Start for one year, "in exchange for Russia and the United States capping all nuclear warheads during that period.”
The proposal to cap all nuclear warheads would expand New Start beyond strategic weapons, its current focus, to also cover tactical nuclear warheads.
The big issue with the U.S. proposal is that there is no agreement or even the infrastructure that would allow to verify the number of all nuclear warheads. How would those be counted and how would dismantling or renovation of such warheads be handled. Would there be Russian inspectors in U.S. nuclear warhead depots and manufacturing facilities and U.S. inspectors in Russian ones? Negotiating the required processes to allow for that would likely take years. The Pentagon and the Senate would certainly oppose any inspection scheme.
But Putin is serious with wanting to keep the treaty. Today he took another step towards the U.S. position:
Moscow is ready to offer Washington a mutual one-year freeze on both sides’ nuclear arsenals, if New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is prolonged for the same period of time, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated."Russia offers to prolong New START for one year, and it is ready to take on the political obligation along with the USA to freeze the amount of its nuclear warheads for that period. This position can be implemented strictly on the understanding that the freezing of the warheads will not be accompanied by any additional demands from the side of the US," the ministry noted.
That offer is for an unverifiable gentlemen's agreement to freeze the number of nuclear warheads. Any verification scheme would be too complicate to negotiated within the few weeks left to the treaty.
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 14:52 UTC · Oct 20, 2020Important question. Totally different. New START doesn’t limit nondeployed warheads.
Graham W. Jenkins @grahamwjenkinsReplying to @james_acton32
How would monitoring and verification differ from the current New START regime?
Daryl G Kimball @DarylGKimball
Replying to @james_acton32
Nor does New START limit deployed or nondeployed nonstrategic warheads. Thus agreement on a verifiable "freeze" on total stockpiles would require agreement on counting rules, stockpile size and composition, and monitoring/verification methods. These are not small details.
The U.S. responded quickly to the new Russian offer by issuing additional demands:
We appreciate the Russian Federation’s willingness to make progress on the issue of nuclear arms control.The United States is prepared to meet immediately to finalize a verifiable agreement. We expect Russia to empower its diplomats to do the same.
It is impossible to negotiate a 'verifiable agreement' about a freeze of the number of all nuclear warheads - strategic and tactical, deployed and nondeployed - within 14 days:
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 14:47 UTC · Oct 20, 2020A deal is possible but it’s unclear whether it’s close. A disagreement over whether verification is needed is pretty significant. If the US wants a deal before the election then either (i) US will have to back down and accept no verification; or (1/n)
Or (ii) the US will have to accept a Russian promise to negotiate verification arrangements since it’s not possible to do so in 2 weeks. Both are possibilities; both are far from assured. (2/2)
It would take years to verify each sides numbers of warheads in the first place.
The U.S. position to get a "verifiable agreement" within two weeks is nonsensical. It is simply a ploy to blame Russia when the time for extending the treaty runs out.
The negotiation process again proves that the U.S. is no longer 'agreement capable'.
Posted by b on October 20, 2020 at 17:00 UTC | Permalink
next page »I'm not seeing the value in restarting the nuclear arm's race.
Am I missing something?
Or are the top level US policy maker's totally moronic or evil?
Posted by: Jpc | Oct 20 2020 17:12 utc | 2
As Andrei said more than once, along the lines, US is "nuclear trigger happy".
Considering it is lagging in conventional weapons after Russia and even more in shipbuilding after China (it even lost most of its industrial base to repair existing ships & carriers), all US has to remain "competitive" is nukes, and lots of them. And o act crazy - if someone messes with me, i'll burn the whole house down.
So, in near future I see even more nukes (of old types) in lot of US and NATO bases all around the world, and no any other significant technological advacement.
Don't forget US is only country ever to use nuclear weapons against enemy. It is also only country ever to use nukes against purely civilian targets (whole cities). And don't forget not once it was called for a war criminal for it.
Posted by: Abe | Oct 20 2020 17:21 utc | 3
Also, it won't be another arms race for next decade ad least, even longer. Russia learned it's lesson.
For every 10 or 100 new nukes US (re)builds, Russia will use its tech. advantage and deploy extra Avangard or Poseidon or something new to balance the scale. One side will use muscles/quantity and other side will use brains/quality.
Posted by: Abe | Oct 20 2020 17:25 utc | 4
It's the usual pre-conditions crap that's the usual manner in which the Outlaw US Empire tries to leverage agreements of all sorts, not just on Nukes. Putin made it clear that such pre-conditions are a no-go; but as we read, he values New START to the point where he modified that stance to no avail. Biden has said he'll agree to the extension and resume negotiations, a position that has me seriously re-evaluating who my vote will be for. Trump is clearly not agreement capable, and he has no conscience or moral regret when he deliberately wrecks things. Trump recently has lied about all the new weaponry the Outlaw US Empire has that now outclasses anything possessed by China or Russia. He'd kill his mother if that would get him reelected.
Has anyone told these morons.
Everyone, everything, everywhere will die!
A long time ago folks figured that out.
Hey set off one in Nevada or the Pacific again just to see have the explosions got better!
Posted by: Jpc | Oct 20 2020 17:34 utc | 7
I guess I want to ask all those Trump supporters that say that Trump hasn't started any wars what the hell they are smoking?
We are in a civilization war and this is how empire fights when it can't go MAD and is stymied with conventional warfare.
Get your hip boots out because the US shit show during the next few weeks is going to get deep. Look at how much the MSM is gatekeeping about the Biden story and the ongoing financial rape and pillage that got front page in 2008 does not even get reported these days.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 20 2020 17:46 utc | 8
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 20 2020 17:32 utc | 6
"Biden has said he'll agree to the extension and resume negotiations, a position that has me seriously re-evaluating who my vote will be for."
I voted for Biden solely on this reason. There are no mulligans in a global nuclear war.
Posted by: One Too Many | Oct 20 2020 18:03 utc | 9
@psychohistorian #8
The original START expired during Obama's administration. It was replaced with a "new" START - that's the one expiring soon - but it was 2 years later.
Where was the hue and cry then?
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 20 2020 18:04 utc | 10
People who claim Trump is not a war-monger should have no problem whatsoever with this. Either they're pretending to have one, just to bash America, or they have been lying about Trump's moral superiority because they favor Trump's domestic policies. And if you genuinely believe Putin actually has working superweapons (without testing, no less!) then it is even less of a problem. There certainly is nothing whatsoever to criticize the US for, except for making the mistake of not holding back a superior rival with a treaty. But for some reason, the complaint of the OP is *not* that the US has moved the goalposts so incompetently it's scored an own goal!
Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 20 2020 18:09 utc | 11
Proof in Italics and Capital Letters that the US is non-agreement capable.
They dictate and demand and try to coerce, issue threats and spew sanctions.
But they can't abide negotiation. So, they tear up treaties and relationships like children in a temper tantrum.
And each time they defy Russia, China, Iran or North Korean, they terrify themselves more with the realization that they are powerless.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Oct 20 2020 18:11 utc | 12
The US seems to be laboring under a misapprehension that Russia and China are going to allow themselves to be drawn into a 50's to 80's style arms race. As a couple of other people have pointed out here, that's simply not a correct reading. It's the old "what if they held a war and no one came" question ... a one-sided "arms race" will be a very lonely feeling.
The Masters of the Universe must know this; so is this just another disingenuous provision of a few more hundred billion for connected Mil-Ind companies? The US, with its NATO satraps already has by far the largest share of the globe's military expenditures. This is one of the things that is devastating our infrastructure, health care, and economy.
Posted by: Caliman | Oct 20 2020 18:36 utc | 13
here is a similar circumstance. https://www.unz.com/article/hitler-answers-roosevelt/">Trumps to Putin put your oil in my pot and lay down your weapons; do it now
Posted by: snake | Oct 20 2020 18:54 utc | 14
@One Too Many | Oct 20 2020 18:03 utc | 9
I voted for Biden solely on this reason. There are no mulligans in a global nuclear war.
I guess the real 'choice' is between Trump or Harris.
Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 20 2020 19:01 utc | 15
@2 Jpc
It can't be explained rationally. On a conscious level the people in charge in Washington think they are the biggest on earth. On a subconscious level, however, they know that things aren't going well for the US. That's why they have to compensate for their own self-doupts by being extra arrogant. Extending New START would have put the USA visibly on the same level as Russia, not above, and that's by now to much for their fragile self-esteem.
Posted by: m | Oct 20 2020 19:03 utc | 16
The position taken and expressed by the US is unfortunate, but not unexpected. They are only trying to buy the time that they think they need to field systems which they hope will neutralize Russia's retaliation capabilities. This strategy is not connected to reality.
thanks b... i thought it was interesting what putin said here - "It is clear that we have new weapons systems that the American side lacks, at least for the time being. But we are not refusing to discuss this aspect of the matter as well."
correct me if i am wrong, but one of the biggest advantages of the usa empire is it's ability to print endless amounts of money.. russia doesn't have this option... a nuclear arms race seems to favour wall st, the military industrial complex and to a lesser extent, any trickle down b.s. that goes with it... but as @ 4 abe notes "One side will use muscles/quantity and (the) other side will use brains/quality." so is this the game afoot???
as for how biden or trump approach this topic, correct me if i am wrong, but anyone who believes biden or trump aren't interested in looking after wall st and the military industrial complex are just not keeping up with the reality of it all here... talk is cheap... usa actions to date speak otherwise...
Posted by: james | Oct 20 2020 19:08 utc | 18
Now why is Trump so desperate to get out of the START Treaty with Russia just before the election?
He behaves as if he knows that he will lose the election and wants to cement the new Cold War in his remaining time in office.
You leave the accomodation, so basically you decide to throw shit all over the place before you leave.
Posted by: Passer by | Oct 20 2020 19:25 utc | 19
@16m
You are right.
But the transparent pointless idiocy of creating more totally useless WMD.
The political classes of the mid late 20 the century understood the consequences of nuclear weapons from a historically very recent perspective.
Who's left alive from the Cuban missile crisis?
These ignorant clown's don't have a historical perspective.
I genuinely fear a nuclear weapons incident within the remainder of my lifetime due to rank stupidly arrogant clown's making decisions without any qualms about consequences.
Posted by: Jpc | Oct 20 2020 19:37 utc | 20
"Nuke war is crazy! Americans would never do crazy stuff like that!"
It saddens me to be the bearer of such news, but America is crazy. Even if the character Trump has been playing since his Wrestlemania days is a true reflection of his state of mind, Trump is still the closest thing to a sane adult in Washington DC.
For the crazy, hysterical partisan clowns like miss "ALL CAPS" the drug witch, that is not an endorsement of Trump, but rather criticism of the rest of the country.
A fading bully will always be terrified of his former victims' seeking revenge, so America is convinced that survival depends upon remaining the dominant power in the world. The bully will always fear lifting his knee from his victim's throat.
Brighter, or at least less delusional, members of the American oligarchy recognize that the US empire is in decline. As a sad statement about the state of affairs in the imperial leadership, Trump is one of those brighter oligarchs. They know America cannot win a major conventional war, so to keep their imagined revenge-seeking victims at bay they must resort to bluffs and non-conventional threats, and possibly non-conventional "preemptive defensive attacks".
Basically, the US is crazy enough to attack countries they imagine to be their enemies with non-conventional weapons, be they nuclear or biological. Preparing for that is what this is all about.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 19:47 utc | 21
Can anyone verify this?
http://thesaker.is/usa-sitrep-fbi-indited-russian-trombone-player-as-a-gru-hacker/
"a federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of the US state of Pennsylvania"
has indicted a ham sandwich for being a GRU hacker. Check that - not a ham sandwich, but a trombone player.
Anyone?
Posted by: librul | Oct 20 2020 19:49 utc | 22
Hilarious!
I read a sober and careful analysis on MoA, then some hours later ZeroHedge blares the headline "Trump & Putin On Cusp Of Pre-Election Breakthrough Deal To Extend Nuke Treaty".
I feel sorry for ZH.
Posted by: Deltaeus | Oct 20 2020 19:55 utc | 23
Anyone voting for Biden because of the danger of war / arm race with Russia consider this:
Harris is Clintons pick since at least sometime in 2017.
Clinton has already manuvered to become secretary of state in a Biden (more likely Harris) government.
She has also laid out what to expect from her in that position: "Finally" "pushing back against Russia".
New cold war turned up to 11. Hot war in Syria. Sanctions that would even make Bolton jealous.
That is her aim. And she knows how to get her aim more than any one else in the whole of swampy DC.
Trump may be a fool, weak, and stupid for his inability to follow his own promised agenda, and instead giving in to the swamp in the hope to tame guys like Bolton. And his reliance on Zionist campaign contributions.
But at least it is not his outspoken agenda and belief that Russia must be enslaved into the empires will like HRC and the whole of the swamp that stands behind her.
I dont belief Trump will ever deliver, if he wants it or not.
But with a psychopathic women who is convinced of unleashing the new cold war into its next phase, the poster girl of the swamp and empire, one chooses the absolute opposite of what is nescessary.
And for what? Domestic policies? That same women that was the enemy nr 1 for Bernie and every other progressive canidate in their own democratic party?
Maybe gendered toilets in New York trump (pun intended) all that for you. At least then you can lock yourself in said genred neutral toilets and cry yourself to sleep when the shit hits the fan.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr | Oct 20 2020 19:57 utc | 24
My country, the USofA, hasn't been agreement capable for its entire history. Simply have a look @the treaties w/native americans & how those haven't been honored. Those are supposedly between sovereign nations & carry weight of law. One must conceede might makes right & national/international law means squat to our overlords. Chickens have been & will be coming home to roost. One day Americans will pray for law to protect when we've all been accomplice to crapping on that when it suits.
Posted by: Thomas Briggs | Oct 20 2020 19:57 utc | 25
Also think doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever. However, know anyone w/a fallout shelter in yard? Used to be ubiquitous, but folks now are too dumbed down to recognize the threat.
Posted by: Thomas Briggs | Oct 20 2020 20:00 utc | 26
librul @22
"Hacker" has a deeper range of meaning than just someone doing bad things with a computer. In general, a "hack" is a creative and/or improvised solution to a problem, and thus a "hacker" can be a creative individual that approaches things in a novel way. With this expanded definition of "hacker", if our Russian trombone player plays the trombone in a unique way, then labeling him a "hacker" might not be entirely inaccurate.
Now, indicting someone for playing a trombone in a creative way is another issue, but given the radical increase in lunacy in the USA these days I suppose things like this are to be expected.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 20:07 utc | 27
@27
I was a hacker and a trombone player.
I confess.
I was lousy at playing the trombone. It was a lot of fun, but I plateaued in my skill after one year.
I has a hacker at the trombone.
:-)
Posted by: librul | Oct 20 2020 20:22 utc | 28
@28
I hacked around with a bass guitar for a number of years. That's another definition of "hack", which in this case means I never had any classical training.
It took me a few years to plateau rather than just one, but that could just be because I am a slow learner... or perhaps slow to recognize my own lack of talent. In any case, I could understand my efforts from that period be seen as an indictable offense by some.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 20:29 utc | 29
"The big issue with the U.S. proposal is that there is no agreement or even the infrastructure that would allow to verify the number of all nuclear warheads. How would those be counted and how would dismantling or renovation of such warheads be handled."
That's easy. There's an international watchdog that has an impeccable reputation for impartial verification of things. It's called OPCW. They usually only deal with chemicals, but they could do nuclear as well, I'm sure.
Sarcasm aside, I don't understand the particular Russian approach that B illustrated. Why bother with it? Why bind yourself only to get duped, 100%? To me it just sounds obstinate, ham-fisted.
Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Oct 20 2020 20:33 utc | 30
@ 22 librul... they should have arrested this guy doing jive ass shit on the conch shells! actually i really dig what he is doing..
Posted by: james | Oct 20 2020 20:41 utc | 31
james @18: "...one of the biggest advantages of the usa empire is it's ability to print endless amounts of money.. russia doesn't have this option... a nuclear arms race seems to favour wall st, the military industrial complex..."
This is true, but only if you are buying your nukes from some third party. Maybe nuke production could be outsourced to China? At some point in the process you need engineers and mathematicians and machinists... a whole supply chain of them. You cannot just turn currency directly into finished products. That whole "printing money" thing creates a catch-22 condition. It allows you to buy stuff, but it undermines domestic productive capacity. Those printed dollars have no intrinsic value, and whoever ends up with them is basically getting robbed, so you have to get them out of the country or they inflate away the value of the currency you have circulating. It seems like a sweet deal, but it is a tough bind for America.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 21:06 utc | 32
@james (18). “correct me if i am wrong, but one of the biggest advantages of the usa empire is it's ability to print endless amounts of money.. russia doesn't have this option...”
You are wrong about this. Russia is a sovereign nation which controls its own currency. In this sense, it is like the U.S. but unlike the EU, which has a common currency, the Euro. Russia can create more rubles just as the U.S. can create more dollars. In contrast, none of the nations that have adopted the Euro as their own currency can create more Euros. Joining the currency union was a huge mistake for many of the member nations, especially the poorer, more debt burdened ones.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 20 2020 21:11 utc | 33
Actually, the us may have completely reversed its position-emphasis on "may" but the possibility of deceit remains high-see two line statement by Ortagus and related report:
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/10/20/russia-offers-us-one-year-warhead-freeze-to-extend-new-start/
https://www.state.gov/progress-on-new-start/
Posted by: Thomas Minnehan | Oct 20 2020 21:16 utc | 34
@ William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 21:06 utc | 32 / Rob | Oct 20 2020 21:11 utc | 33
obviously it is a bit more complicated then i let on... however, i haven't been able to take russian rubles on my trips around the world and get them accepted like i can with us$... at some point the jig will be up, but it ain't up yet... the usa has printed way more $ for a reason.. people around the world still accept them.. if russia did anything similar, it would not work... the world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme that still favours the us$ at this point.. hopefully it will change, but it hasn't changed yet... and i do agree with william, that is continues to create a tougher bind for the usa as we move forward...
Posted by: james | Oct 20 2020 21:25 utc | 35
All the normal commenters here objected to the karlof and psycho “vote for Biden” point. One rightly pointed out that Biden’s promises do not bind Harris. I would add that when a certifiable crook on top of being a usual lying politician such as Biden makes a promise, this is not worth the electrons used to record such promise. We are supposed to compare here the empty, non-binding, opposite track record promise of one against a dirty & dumb negotiating tactics of the other, and make this a reason to vote for the former.
It is interesting how both Trump and his nemesis Pelosi are playing the same negotiating game of: take my (unfavourable) offer right now or my next offer will be only worse. On the basis of what hidden power, both of you? Laughable.
On the opposite side, Putin and Lavrov are desperately trying to lower the Russian military budget and redirect funds to the betterment of their people. If US people could only have those two on their voting tickets for the Pres and the Vice!
Posted by: Kiza | Oct 20 2020 21:45 utc | 36
As many have noted over the years, Trump has his own personal derangement syndrome, and is capable of saying most anything to attain his goal. His current goal is to remain POTUS, so he clearly makes up stuff, like this:
"When I took over, our military – and you know it, the military people – it was totally depleted. We now have the greatest, we are the envy of Russia, and China, and North Korea, and every country in the world – there's nobody that has anything near our weaponry."
Sounds a lot like a previous politician from Germany who made similar claims about Wonder Weapons to reassure his base; but thanks to his own derangement, Germany was kept from fielding the most practical of them. Furthermore, Russian intel is far more capable than that of the Outlaw US Empire; and Putin wouldn't make the claim of being able to negotiate from a superior position unless it was true--Putin doesn't boast or lie, a rarity amongst politicians.
IMO, the most sophisticated and superior of those Putin announced in 2018 was the nuclear engine powered cruise missile. When it comes to atomics, the Outlaw US Empire is totally outclassed by Russia's engineers and manufacturing abilities. The potential for such missiles to stay aloft for days doom any nuclear first strike's complete success. Russia is now the nation in the lead technologically regarding armaments and most importantly in combat readiness. Laser technology is yet another area where Russia is ahead coupled with its superiority in atomics. The ability to produce portable nuclear power stations is the key to this technology because as most know lasers are an energy weapon. As much as I'd like to see one field tested in Syria, I doubt Russia would take that risk, although that might be necessary in the future.
@Posted by: james | Oct 20 2020 20:41 utc | 31
Good stuff!
Posted by: librul | Oct 20 2020 22:18 utc | 38
Kiza @36--
Of course, the point you raise is important and is one of my considerations. I previously stated my preference for the Progressive Party POTUS candidate here in Oregon, and that still holds. We just got our ballots today and will likely decide by Friday. You've followed my writings here and know I loathe the Duopoly; and in my current estimation, there won't be any need for me to make a "strategic" vote since Oregon will likely again go Blue. All that said, it ought to be clear that the Financial Parasites who captured the government want 100% Unilateralism, which means zero treaties, although I doubt they'll renounce the UN Charter despite breaking it on a daily basis for 75 years. And it shouldn't matter who wins as the populace ought to already be enraged at everyone, which appears to be driving a record number of people to vote. And most of those votes are being cast without one thought about the importance of extending New START.
The Trump administration literally went everywhere the previous administrations (democrats or republicans) did not dare to go:
- Kill the commander of Quds force of IRGC, Qasem Soleimani - a real hero, in the truest sense of that word - dear b, the man who dedicated his entire life fighting the US imperialism and the man who convinced Russia to intervene in Syria and save Syria from total destruction (Bush did not dare, Obama did not dare).
- Throw out every damn treaty that is in existence that prevented earth going into hell. Those are the treaties that took decades to craft by both the democrat and republican administrations. And now the last one is coming off the table - another Trump administration special.
- Meanwhile, screw your middle class by passing laws that enable unprecedented tax cuts for the rich. After all, who cares about that pesky middle class while you have scores of blind fanatics.
- Give Israel everything they want (be it Golan heights annexation, Jerusalem recognition) and screw Palestinians.
- Relentlessly go after Julian Assange and make sure he is destroyed and made an example of in the worst imaginable way - again, Obama administration did not dare!
These are John Bolton 101. You can blame democrat and other republican administrations for a lot of things, but at least they have an understanding of reality and have a clear sanity check behind their decisions. With this administration, the world gets more and more close to its total annihilation over reactionary decisions taken in a weekend over golf. Yet here we are, preferring Trump over Biden - for reasons which at best can be called nonsense.
Posted by: Innocent Civilian | Oct 20 2020 22:28 utc | 40
William Gruff @ 21:
Basically, the US is crazy enough to attack countries they imagine to be their enemies with non-conventional weapons, be they nuclear or biological. Preparing for that is what this is all about.
I believe since late January 2020, China has proved that they are prepared for biological WMD. The speed with which they took actions, once the root cause of a superbug was unmistakably determined, and the draconian nature/extent of the actions they took, both indicate that they suspected foreign sabotage early and went into war mode. The end result clearly proved how well prepared they indeed are.
They also set an example of how to act for others who are similarly regarded as Lucifer's target victims. I wonder what's on Lucifer's mind after seeing all that has happened.
Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 20 2020 22:29 utc | 41
Karlofi @ 37
Take this Lavrov and Putin---
"“We have a super duper rocket. I call it super duper because it is 5 times faster than conventional rockets. But Russia got this information from the Obama administration, it kidnapped it, and built its own rocket. But now we have such a (rocket) that is much, much faster.”"
Posted by: arby | Oct 20 2020 22:39 utc | 43
arby @43--
Yeah, I read that one too. Trump channeling Hitler as I wrote above. There was a rap tune back in the 1990s by Shaggy called Mr. Boombastic, which is a very boastful song; and the character chosen to go with the tune might not be orange, but it's shaped correctly--The overly boastful Mr. Big Cheese. Of course, at the time the tune and character were modeled on Bill Clinton.
OV @ 41
I agree that China handled covid like it was under attack.
Whether or not that was the case they crushed it.
The US and western countries who seem to know only about throwing money at problems didn't know what to do when it showed up on their shores. First they through a few zillion at the banksters and then did a half assed copy of what China did. Of course they are getting half assed results.
Posted by: arby | Oct 20 2020 23:07 utc | 45
Quite a good discussion today on YT with Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou of the Duran, on Hunter’s laptop revelations and other independent documentation pointing to a lengthy history of graft and Biden family enrichment vis a vis Ukraine/other former USSR satellites within Russia’s sphere of influence, as well as from China Inc., going back at least to 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ANRoYxGQ1U
Mercouris made several noteworthy observations that are tangentially relevant to this post by B, and implications of a Biden presidency, and Russia’s and China’s influence over it.
Firstly, that it is a virtual certainty that both Russia’s and China’s (R&C) intel agencies have diligently compiled extensive files of compromising documentation of the Bidens’ corrupt (depraved?) actions in R&C’s spheres of influence;
Remember Putin's very pointed statement about Russian intelligence: "We know everything that goes on in Ukraine." Everything.
Secondly, Mercouris and Alex allude that R&C’s intel agencies are certainly exchanging such compromat information when it is their common interest, and ‘China has this information, and Russia has this information; there is no doubt…” (>~min 38:30)
Furthermore, Mercouris relates that Putin in fact made the tongue-in-cheek comment the other day that he ‘was actually *looking forward* to a Biden presidency’, apparently trolling some intended audience to imply Biden would be eminently controllable (a la Epstein technique?).
In other parts of the discussion Christoforou and Mercouris speculate that the anti-Trump coalition pushing a Biden presidency are well aware of Biden’s compromised position, and so if Biden does take the election, the backers’ plan is to replace Biden, one way or another, after the win by someone China and Russia cannot so easily leverage.
Posted by: gm | Oct 20 2020 23:14 utc | 46
Patrick Armstrong is said to have had some recent troubles, but IMO this article is brilliant and even entertaining, "Russophrenia – or How a Collapsing Country Runs the World":
"Far from having the deceptively weak military of 2015, it is developing the world’s most powerful nuclear weapon in 2018 and in future wars the U.S. will have nowhere to hide. The next January we’re told that it and China are building Super-EMP bombs for ‘Blackout Warfare’. Russia has imposed aerial denial zones and fields eye-watering EW capabilities; it has “black hole” submarines, a generational lead in tanks, an unstoppable carrier-killer missile and devastating air defence. It’s working on a new missile threat to the U.S. homeland. General Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Commander who did much to poke the bear, gives us a particularly striking example: he now fears that a war “would leave Europe helpless, cut off from reinforcements, and at the mercy of the Russian Federation.” The British army would be wiped out in an afternoon, NATO would lose quickly in the Baltics – NATO’s totally outmatched. The Russian threat is unlike anything seen since the 1990s. The worry is that Nato has under-reacted."
Links galore infest his essay. He also should thank The Who for riffing on their Quadrophrenia. There's some really excellent prose composed by Armstrong. I'll leave it to others to post their favorite excerpts, although I'll leave you all with the definition:
"So, on the one hand Russia is a failing country, with a trivial economy, a greatly over-rated military led by someone who is always facing a catastrophe at home. Nothing to worry about there: presently weak and future uncertain. On the other hand, Russia has a tremendously powerful military, an economy that does whatever its ever-young autocratic permanent ruler wants it to. Its propaganda power is immense and unbeatable, the background determinant of the world’s action. Russophrenia." [My Emphasis]
The goal is clearly to break MAD.
The USA wants to put a short-range nukes in Poland in a way the Pentagon can being to entertain the possibility of winning a nuclear war against Russia. I think the Aegis was all about that, and it was during Trump's government that the Prompt Global Strike was put into motion.
The American Empire knows it needs war to start a new cycle of capitalist accumulation in its domestic economy. The only piece of the puzzle missing is how to protect itself against the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Oriental Voice @41: "I believe since late January 2020, China has proved that they are prepared for biological WMD."
Exactly. That and America and Europe's inability to cope with the collateral damage from them should make the empire gun-shy about trying that again any time soon.
At least I hope.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 20 2020 23:43 utc | 49
arby@45:
Throwing money at problems (in western countries) are not necessarily misguided moves with genuinely good intention. The problems could very well just be the politicians' excuses to throw money in the first place. They are the ones doing the throwing. It is therefore thrown to where they wanted it.
American politicians/managers are the ones who talk well enough to win stupid people's votes, at all levels of government as well as corporations. That's why lawyers seem to have an edge in the US of A, as they are trained in this craft specifically. This has been America's political problem since Reagan's days. Every politician, Dem or Rep, scrambling for office has one thing and one thing only in mind: to spend public money, through his/her hands by hood or by crook. They know there won't be no accountability. The American public is simply too stupid to hold anybody/anything to account. So, for the past 50 years public spending grew at 7% while inflation adjusted GDP grew at 1%. Pollyanna!!!
Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 20 2020 23:46 utc | 50
gm @Oct20 23:14 47
... it is a virtual certainty that both Russia’s and China’s (R&C) intel agencies have diligently compiled extensive files of compromising documentation of the Bidens’ corrupt (depraved?) actions in R&C’s spheres of influence
What's perhaps more interesting is that no one cares to notice that Hillary was also compromised when she ran for the Presidency 2015-2016 via her emails and Bill's involvement with Epstein.
Yet the Democrats nominate ANOTHER compromised candidate that can be easily embarrassed and depicted as a security risk ... and will also fall to Trump in 2020?
Nothing to see here?!?
Just another inconvenient coincidence that we should ignore. Because cognitive dissonance.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2020 23:47 utc | 51
It is all about the MIC making money. Agreements lead to restrictions on production of weapons. The US wants to sell its weapons to a frightened Europe. Having agreements with peaceful intentions is anathema to the MIC.
Posted by: Hermius | Oct 20 2020 23:49 utc | 52
I see there are two realities the US exceptionalists by refusing a Treaty extension, fail to grab on this subject.
First that russia will not permit a pentagon superiority in this field.
Second that, if Beijing feels under threat , they can easily engage in a five or six year program of both nuclear, non nuclear or cyber weapons. Which along with the Russian ones can wipe out any trace of the US territory. Needless to say that the European
puppies like germany, poland, france, italy and UK will vanish
obliterated right in the first minutes of the armagedon.
@Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2020 23:47 utc | 52
Yes, but Clinton had a well designed tax dodge foundation to stash away the loot all legal like, not the crude "Irish Travellers" type family grifters system that it seems from docs so far the Bidens apparently used.
Posted by: gm | Oct 21 2020 0:01 utc | 54
Great bit by Cynthia Chung, "Why the FBI and CIA Are the Real Threats to 'National Security'?" a question to which most barflies already know the answer. Her essay could easily be a book and join the many on the topic already existing. But she clearly needs the exercise, and many need a reminder.
On another note, MAD will always exist until what makes MAD possible are done away with. Russia has already countered the missiles placed on its borders by declaring that any launch detected will be treated as a Nuclear First Strike attempt and responded to accordingly. MAD still exists. I recall the daily flights of B-52s from Travis AFB nearby my home back in the 1960s to go to the staging line just outside the USSR's airspace and await orders. Russia could do the same today with its nuclear powered cruise missiles that can stay airborne for days, perhaps weeks, and maybe even months awaiting the code to do what they were designed for. MAD still exists. And I could go on with other scenarios. From 1945-1949 (even longer in reality), the Outlaw US Empire had a window of opportunity to win without MAD, and it had plans to do just that. The excuse for not annihilating the USSR was the 200 bombs that were deemed required to do the job weren't done in time prior to the USSR's becoming nuclear in 1949 but still had no way to produce MAD. What deterred Truman? Political fallout, or the radioactive sort? What deterred Ike; he still had a window of opportunity? When the deeds of those two men are examined, they certainly weren't peaceniks, killed many and overthrew numerous governments totally trashing the UN Charter. In other words, they were grossly immoral, but they weren't as crazed as some of their subordinates. Many wonder if that dynamic still exists. Does Trump yearn for MAD? How about Biden or Harris or Pence or Pelosi? Yes, like their predecessors they're all grossly immoral--but apparently, that has a limit.
There was a 1980s song that asked the question directly related to MAD, "Do the Russians love their children too?" Clearly, there was a corollary, "Do the Americans love their children too?" I'm not so sure nowadays with the war being waged on the nation by the government in the name of A Few Dollars More for the 1%. But then even MAD involves them as in truth they cannot escape; no one can. Reread my first sentence to discover how we can get rid of MAD. There's really no other choice if we love our children too.
Posted by: Jpc | Oct 20 2020 17:12 utc | 2 I'm not seeing the value in restarting the nuclear arm's race. Or are the top level US policy maker's totally moronic or evil?
It's all about the MONEY. It costs MONEY to build nukes and deploy them. The 5,000 or so nukes the US has had were never intended to be *used* - they were intended to be *paid for.*
US policy makers are under the thumb of the military-industrial complex which profits from war and preparations for war. So, yes, US policy makers are both moronic and evil.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 0:17 utc | 56
Posted by: Passer by | Oct 20 2020 19:25 utc | 19 You leave the accommodation, so basically you decide to throw shit all over the place before you leave.
That's exactly who Trump is - an aggressive, bullying narcissist who intends to insure that everything that happens is about him and what he does, preferably to the detriment of everyone else around him. And of course, he gets the advice from his military-industrial-complex-controlled aides to do just that - lock in the new Cold War against China so everyone can profit.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 0:27 utc | 57
Posted by: Innocent Civilian | Oct 20 2020 22:28 utc | 40 With this administration, the world gets more and more close to its total annihilation over reactionary decisions taken in a weekend over golf. Yet here we are, preferring Trump over Biden - for reasons which at best can be called nonsense.
Outstanding. Absolutely correct. Anyone arguing for voting for either of these corrupt warmongers is a moron. Period. End of story. The election is a farce of no relevance to how the US is going to go in the future in terms of foreign policy. The only thing at issue worth discussing is how disruptive to civil life will the Constitutional crisis over the election be in the short term and what further encroachment by the state will occur as a result over the longer term. As far as foreign policy goes, we're headed for a major new war either with Iran, China or Russia - in that order of probability - regardless of who wins this election. The only question is when and how - and no one knows the answer to that.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 0:39 utc | 58
@Rob33
"Joining the currency union was a huge mistake for many of the member nations, especially the poorer, more debt burdened ones."
In which case why don't they re establish their national currencies? Is it verboten under the Mafia, sorry, EU, code?
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 21 2020 0:41 utc | 59
aaron mate's latest podcast episode of pushback w/ chomsky definitely worth a listen for the rational amongst us
Chomsky discusses the White House's threats to the New START treaty, the last remaining accord limiting the US and Russia's nuclear weapons arsenals; its latest round of crippling sanctions and threats against Iran; the bipartisan US refusal to accept a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, which would terminate Israel's nuclear weapons program; and the silencing of former OPCW officials who challenged a cover-up of findings that undermined Trump's 2018 bombing of Syria.
Posted by: b real | Oct 21 2020 1:10 utc | 60
gm @Oct21 0:01 #55
Yes, but Clinton had a well designed tax dodge foundation to stash away the loot all legal like, not the crude "Irish Travellers" type family grifters system that it seems from docs so far the Bidens apparently used.
My point was that it is very convenient that Trump is blessed with such flawed opponents.
Shall we ignore
- the well-timed, magic appearance of incriminating laptops in 2016 (Anthony Wiener's) and 2020 (Hunter's)?
- the media-frenzy over Hillary's mental state in 2016 and Biden's in 2020?
- Bernie Sanders as sheepdog in both 2016 and 2020?
- Hillary and Biden taking the black vote for granted? Biden: "you're not black (if you don't vote for me)"
And what of the Democrats insipid show of "resistance" via 1) the foolish nonsense of Russiagate, 2) illogical "believe all victims" at the Kavanaugh hearings, 3) the impeachment farce, and 4) Biden's virtual silence regarding negotiations for a second round of Covid financial relief to individuals as Pelosi refuses to agree to Trump's $1.8T relief package.
AFAICT, the Democrats don't want to win.
<> <> <> <>
Trump was chosen by the Deep State to lead the effort to meet the challenge from Russia and China. He will get another 4 years. And as a two-term President that has defeated Covid-19/sarc and beat the corrupt establishment (in the form of Biden, Hillary, and supposed "Deep State" opponents that orchestrated Russiagate) he will have the stature (as fake as it may be) to take the country to war.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 21 2020 1:23 utc | 61
Getting rid of the START treaty should be more in Russia's interest than America's. Nukes are relatively cheap deterrent once the infrastructure of developing and producing them is in place (which Russia most definitely has). And given vast disparity in conventional firepower between Moscow and the West, the former should always aim to compensate for its non-nuclear inferiority with quantitative superiority in atomic weapons. Meaning that Russia should always have more fully deployed strategic warheads than US/UK/France trio combined - and significantly so. While US approach looks like a desperate last-minute negotiating tactic, Kremlin's somewhat nonchalant attitude to the growing possibility of expiration betrays desire to see the treaty lapse, while avoiding blame for such an outcome (hence the regular pleas for prolongation). Basically same attitude as was with the INF treaty.
In all likelihood, Russia will see far more respect and deference from Washington after it completely frees itself from any and all limits pertaining to strategic delivery platforms and payloads. One more nice benefit.
Posted by: venom | Oct 21 2020 1:49 utc | 62
Gerry Spence, the famous trial lawyer:
-- “I found that the minions of the law–the special agents of the FBI–to be men who proved themselves not only fully capable, but also utterly willing to manufacture evidence, to conceal crucial evidence and even to change the rules that governed life and death if, in the prosecution of the accused, it seemed expedient to do so.”
–From Freedom to Slavery, p. 27
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 21 2020 2:13 utc | 63
@Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 21 2020 1:23 utc | 62
It is a head-scratcher to me as to why the Deep State (DS) coalition, which controls/strongly influences much of the MSM, Hollywood, big chunks of academia, the Dem. Party, and a significant portion of Repugs, would have devoted so much effort over the past 4+ years to 86ing Donald Trump, and then reverse/sabotage themselves by pushing forward such a weak/flawed candidate as Biden so that Trump could win re-election.
Your scenario does not make sense. Why should DS bother? Why did not the DS just back DT from Day 1 (2017)?
A more likely scenario is that the Dem party has a weak bench, and the DS power structure is gradually rotting from the inside out.
Or, they feel strongly they still have the means to get a Biden win, by hook or crook, and take back full control of the country.
Posted by: gm | Oct 21 2020 2:25 utc | 64
Posted by: gm | Oct 21 2020 2:25 utc | 65 would have devoted so much effort over the past 4+ years to 86ing Donald Trump, and then reverse/sabotage themselves by pushing forward such a weak/flawed candidate as Biden so that Trump could win re-election. Why did not the DS just back DT from Day 1 (2017)?
This is the problem with postulating various conspiracy theories as to what is actually going on behind the scenes. Unless you have access to the emails and phone calls and private meetings going on, no one knows and no one can know what is going on.
First, the Deep State is not one monolithic organization run by a guy with a white cat in a bunker in a Japanese extinct volcano. It's a bunch of humans with varying agendas, opinions and goals, like everyone else. They don't always agree on goals, objectives, and means.
Second, the business of those members of the Deep State who are actually trained in intelligence is deception, manipulation, and obfuscation. It's their religion. So nothing they do is necessarily going to make sense at first or even second level analysis. Sometimes it makes perfect sense. The problem is determining which is which.
Third, the business of those members of the Deep State who are *not* trained in intelligence still have abilities in the same areas - because they're psychopaths who have risen high in the ranks of corporate and financial organizations. So they're just as hard to figure out as the spooks.
Jackrabbit has a theory. He is interpreting historical circumstances in a particular way. What he doesn't have is any real evidence in the sense of actual documents or facts that can't be tied together any other possible way but his theory. So in the end it's a waste of time other then exercising the imagination.
The smart move might be to *assume* that his theory is correct solely on the basis of "that's what I'd do if I were the Deep State." The problem with that is that anyone else can assume the mantle of the Deep State and come up with the exact opposite theory - with the same degree of "evidence" Jackrabbit produces for his theory.
The really smart move is simply to assume that whatever the conspiracy is, they've already figured out how to pull it off no matter what. So whatever actually happens is what was intended to happen. And the really, really smart move is to spend more time worrying about what you're going to do about it (if anything). And eventually in ten or twenty years when some historian writes a book, maybe his theory will be proved right - but no one will care.
If someone thinks their theory about things is correct, unless they put money on it in terms of their personal time and actions, it's a waste of everyone's time. Well, except for the possibility that someone else might actually go out and prove it. So expounding it is probably fine. Just don't hold your breath waiting for confirmation.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 2:56 utc | 65
Slightly off topic, except that US foreign policy is at work, but I think it's important to note that the Australian government is clearing the way for US forces to be stationed here without parliamentary oversight, and with zero civil or criminal liability for acts undertaken in "good faith".
Posted by: Hope | Oct 21 2020 2:57 utc | 66
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 21 2020 2:13 utc | 64
I think I've told this story here before, but ICYMI:
I was sitting in a holding cell in the Federal building in San Francisco, waiting to go before the Magistrate to be charged with bank robbery. A guy comes in from the courtroom laughing. He explains to the rest of us in the cell that he was waiting to appear while he observed what was going on in the case before him. The Magistrate was expressing skepticism about the testimony of a Federal agent in, presumably, a drug case. The Federal prosecutor said something to the effect of, "Your Honor, this man is a Federal agent. He wouldn't lie!". According to the guy, the Magistrate laughed out loud and told the prosecutor, "Don't try to come in to my court and tell me that a Federal agent wouldn't lie under oath."
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 3:03 utc | 67
gm @Oct21 2:25 #65
Your scenario does not make sense. Why should DS bother? Why did not the DS just back DT from Day 1 (2017)?
I've already explained. Trump has to beat domestic and foreign enemies to win the support of the American people in prelude to war. Or a possible war. With the American people behind him, Trump can make credible threats to go to war.
"Day 1" was not 2016 but August 2014 when Kissinger wrote his WSJ Op-Ed calling for USA to meet the challenge from Russia and China by looking to its glorious past. MAGA.
10 months later, Trump entered the 2016 Presidential race as the ONLY MAGA! candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican field. He promptly defeated all the seasons pols in the race (18 of them), none of whom adjusted their strategy to effectively counter his populist Nationalism. (At the same time, Sanders was the Democratic sheepdog who refused to attack Hillary on "personal issues" including her email problems.)
=
A more likely scenario is that the Dem party has a weak bench, and the DS power structure is gradually rotting from the inside out. Or, they feel strongly they still have the means to get a Biden win, by hook or crook, and take back full control of the country.
You can think of a dozen different possible scenarios but none of them make sense in the context of USA meeting the challenge from Russia & China as recommended by Kissinger.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 21 2020 3:51 utc | 68
@ Hope #67
re: US forces to Oz
The US Marines have been coming to the Darwin area every year during "the dry" Jul-Sep. It's been increased to 2,500 Marines but this year only 1,200 came with a 14-day quarantine.
Law enforcement of US forces overseas is normally covered by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Australia has SOFAs with several countries including US. More info here . . see Article 8 which includes "the authorities of Australia shall have jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component and dependants with respect to offences committed within Australia and punishable by the law of Australia." . . so no worries! . . . (unless. . .)
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 21 2020 4:05 utc | 69
Richard Steven Hack @Oct21 2:56 #66
Jackrabbit has a theory. He is interpreting historical circumstances in a particular way. What he doesn't have is any real evidence in the sense of actual documents or facts that can't be tied together any other possible way but his theory. So in the end it's a waste of time other then exercising the imagination.
While it's true that I don't have smoking-gun evidence. What I do have - and have pointed to repeatedly over the last several years - is a series of actions and activities that are difficult to explain in any other way. People who understand US politics and international affairs can assess to what degree my suppositions and theory fits with reality as they understand it.
=
The really smart move is simply to assume that whatever the conspiracy is, they've already figured out how to pull it off no matter what. So whatever actually happens is what was intended to happen. And the really, really smart move is to spend more time worrying about what you're going to do about it (if anything).
They have figured out how to pull it off and they have the power of the media manipulate people in a way that ensures that cynics/critics are ignored.
But I think there's still value in calling them out on what they are doing and raising the alarm about what is planned. Because I think that we're heading to war.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 21 2020 4:07 utc | 70
On Oct. 15, 2020, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned an indictment charging six computer hackers, all of whom were residents and nationals of the Russian Federation (Russia) and officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.
These GRU hackers and their co-conspirators engaged in computer intrusions and attacks intended to support Russian government efforts to undermine, retaliate against, or otherwise destabilize: (1) Ukraine; (2) Georgia; (3) elections in France; (4) efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil; and (5) the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games after Russian athletes were banned from participating under their nation’s flag, as a consequence of Russian government-sponsored doping effort.
https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2020/10/6-russian-gru-officers-charged-in-vast.html
Posted by: Mao | Oct 21 2020 4:15 utc | 71
Honestly, why the fuck is Putin trying to even negotiate with US when he knows US isn't agreement capable? The Americans will again interpret that as a weakness. Forget it and start making friends with Cuba and Venezuela and put your weapons there, the same way USA puts theirs on Russia;s border. MAD will soon be irrelevant and Russia will be in deep shit cuz USA will be able to waste Russia and Russia wont be able to hve the time to respond.
Posted by: Hoyeru | Oct 21 2020 4:18 utc | 72
@DontBelieveEitherPr
maybe thats exactly what Putin needs, to start being confronted so he will STOP deferring and start acting for a change. So far he has been reacting, and not acting and appearing weak; he was afraid USA/West will place sanctions on Russia and harm his rich buddies. Now he will see that they will place sanctions anyway so he should stop reacting and begin to act, in Ukraine, Syria and Black Sea. They want war? Time to stop appearing weak; they think he is backing down and they keep on pushing. Here, let's start a war and see if you got the guts to finish it.
Posted by: Hoyeru | Oct 21 2020 4:37 utc | 73
There is one bright side to any bonkers all out global nuclear war: even the 0.1% won't be able to sit that one out, even in their bunkers. Any primate life after will be Stone age.
Therefore they will try to prevent it.
Posted by: Antonym | Oct 21 2020 4:39 utc | 74
"The Trump administration wants to abandon all nuclear arms treaties with Russia."
Three possibilities:
* Trump really wants this
* the "administration" really wants this (which branch{es})
* both want this.
My bets are on two.
Posted by: Antonym | Oct 21 2020 4:45 utc | 75
re Don Bacon 70 That nonsense has been going on since the '80s in Darwin; amerikan MP's riding in NT copper's cars - even amerikan military nurses in the ambulances when the seppos are in town. Yolgnu tried to keep amerikans off their land so the federal government amended the land rights act taking away yolgnu sovereignty over their traditional lands. Oz pollies are just too scared to stand up to the pricks since the '75 coup. Nowadays every Labor pol knows that there is likely to be a few well placed moles in any cabinet so they don't have to go to all the trouble, expense and embarrassment of '75. Just knock off whoever is 'trouble making' then replace him/her with a pol amerika owns.
I calm myself with the knowledge that this cannot last, as amerika weakens, Oz financial dependence on the PRC will force a change.
Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 21 2020 4:45 utc | 76
@karlof1 =6
"Biden has said he'll agree to the extension and resume negotiations, a position that has me seriously re-evaluating who my vote will be for."
And Trump said he'd build a wall.
Posted by: bob sykes | Oct 21 2020 4:50 utc | 77
@Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 21 2020 0:41 utc | 60
In which case why don't they re establish their national currencies? Is it verboten under the Mafia, sorry, EU, code?
It is like Hotel California, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. Look at Greece and we shall see about the UK.
Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 21 2020 5:18 utc | 78
Antonym | Oct 21 2020 4:39 utc | 75
"There is one bright side to any bonkers all out global nuclear war: even the 0.1% won't be able to sit that one out, even in their bunkers."
Nobody knows whether or not they can sit it out in their bunkers, or how long they'd have to stay down there. We have nothing but speculation.
But the salient fact is that many of them believe they can do so, in the same many of them still believe the US can launch a surprise first strike which would be so effective that Russian retaliation would be minimized.
@66 and @71 Jackrabbit and Richard Steven Hack
"The really smart move is simply to assume that whatever the conspiracy is, they've already figured out how to pull it off no matter what. So whatever actually happens is what was intended to happen."
You both seem to assume that the US Deep State is extremely competent. Jackrabbit for instance can't believe that Hillary Clinton could run a very bad, lazy, over confident campaign in 2016. He thinks Clinton is a skillful politician, and therefore that the fact that her campaign was sloppy and poorly done "proves" she must have been part of a very clever deep state conspiracy to elect Trump. Why does Jackrabbit dismiss the possibility that Clinton was just too arrogant for her own good?
The reason I can't believe this idea of powerful, unified US deep state pushing the buttons to get exactly what it wants is that I've seen far too many examples of failure from the US. Many of these failures involved strategies that made some sense in the short term for individual parts of the US power elite, but which in a larger sense were completely contrary to the interests of the US empire as a whole. A US elite that really knew what it was doing would not have invaded Iraq, and then stupidly disbanded the entire Iraqi army without even bothering to disarm it first. Instead they would have used the Iraqi army to help the US control Iraq's majority Shiite population. In the 1990's, a competent US government would not have assumed that Russia was permanently finished as a unified state just because Yeltsin was a corrupt drunk, and that they could afford to loot Russia and move NATO eastward without any concern about how Russians would react to this. A competent US deep state would not have allowed short sighted US corporations to move so much of the US industrial base to China, in return for higher quarterly profits and a blow for the US labor unions.
The US empire has been slowly dying for decades, as the enormous power the US had for a couple of decades after WW2 gradually slips through its fingers. It seems to me at least that this shows the US elite really doesn't know how to stop this decline, and that in their gradually increasing panic, they are increasingly drawn to more and more extreme and counterproductive actions. The fact that Trump actually got elected, despite the fact that much of the US oligarchy was opposed him, is a sign of just how far the rot has spread.
Posted by: Fnord13 | Oct 21 2020 5:40 utc | 80
Jackrabbit | Oct 21 2020 3:51 utc | 69
"Trump has to beat domestic and foreign enemies to win the support of the American people in prelude to war. Or a possible war. With the American people behind him, Trump can make credible threats to go to war."
What domestic enemies? Government, business, media, academia all are pro-war.
As for the notion that the American people are anti-war and need to be induced to support or tolerate it, I see zero evidence for this and massive evidence against it. All partisan voters are pro-war or willing to go along with war, and while the people as a whole may not be hard-core pro-war, they too aren't going to put up any resistance to it.
And if in fact it were true that the people were at least passively resistant to war and needed to be fired up, how would a deep state campaign to demonize Trump in the eyes of the people help with that? On the contrary, that would be all the more reason for the entire power structure to come together and speak as one lauding the great leader.
No, by far the best explanation for observed phenomena is that the long-running idiotic Rep-vs.-Dem partisan squabble over whether the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin is 36 or 37, already a symptom of emotional instability and mental debilitation among its participants, spiraled out of control as the Dembots mass-spontaneously came to really believe that Trump, just a few months earlier still a decades-long best friend of the Clintons, was actually the Antichrist and that their squabble over those dancing angels really had reached the cosmic Final Conflict of Good vs. Evil. That's the nature of Trump Derangement Syndrome. (It was a forerunner of pro-lockdown Covid Derangement Syndrome, the same kind of mass dementia on a much greater scale. Similarly, many former "anti-imperialists" and "radicals" and "leftists" had already abandoned ship and run home to imperial mama over Islamic fundamentalism, Trump Derangement, Brexit, before 2020's mass pro-imperial migration.)
And then those factions among the deep state and the power structure that preferred the more reliably disciplined corporate Democrats to the wayward, capricious, Kaiser-reminiscent Trump (there's the right German comparison, for anyone emotionally invested in comparing Trump to German leaders) saw the opportunity to work in tandem with this deranged but potent political force (how bizarre how Dems and Reps flipped polarities, with the Dems now full of passionate intensity while it's the Reps that seem to lack all conviction; my whole adult life it's been the other way around) to undermine Trump toward the goal of bringing back the Clinton-Obama spirit to the White House.
A president whose fake, self-flattering image the American people want to see when they look in the mirror, unlike the real unvarnished reflection Trump shows them, which is the real reason for the visceral hostility to him, which otherwise has zero objective basis since Trump's ideology and overall policy remain completely within the pre-existing neoliberal Clinton-Bush-Obama trajectory.
Norwegian | Oct 21 2020 5:18 utc | 79
"It is like Hotel California, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. Look at Greece and we shall see about the UK."
The reason there could be no Grexit was that the Greeks, like everyone else so far among the "civilized", remain so in thrall to all the worthless destructive material junk, and therefore to the economic civilization whose core trait is cancer aka "growth", that they'd rather be slaves within that system than seek freedom and self-determination outside it.
And that's why no one in the UK even tried to fight for the idea of a "Lexit", which is what one would have expected if there really were an anti-globalist, anti-imperial groundswell and movement. On the contrary, almost all the former anti-imperialists among the British ran home to globalist mama and opposed Brexit. (The handful who didn't went on to run home to imperial mama in 2020.)
@ 20 Jpc
I`m not worried at all. The Iranian retaliatory strike in the aftermath of the Soleimani murder has proven that the US is unwilling to take a few hundred casualties within a few days in a war. War against Russia or China is completely out of question.
What I find much more troubling is the fact that arms limitation treaties - in fact treaties and international institutions in general - gradually loose of importance. Internatiional relations is more and more the law of the jungle, again.
@ Biswapriya Purkayast
The members of the Eurozone are souvereign nations that can leave whenever they want. All members of the Eurozone have joined voluntarily. In case of the "poorer" countries it was in order to get a stable currency - which the previously lacked.
Greece could have left the Eurozone and re-introduce the drachme during the Greek debt crisis. The Greek government chose not to so because with their debt levels at that time they would have gotten a galloping inflation immediately.
Posted by: m | Oct 21 2020 6:07 utc | 83
Well, China is not in, USA does not want to be in, I agree this is a pointless attempt from Russia. Good PR move though.
Posted by: Smith | Oct 21 2020 7:13 utc | 84
Posted by: Fnord13 | Oct 21 2020 5:40 utc | 81 You both seem to assume that the US Deep State is extremely competent.
No - I assume that at least some members of the Deep State have the deep monetary pockets, the blackmail intelligence, and other assets, that make it relatively - not absolutely, but relatively - easy to pull off maneuvers like what Jackrabbit is positing. And given that they are added by a US electorate that is 99% oblivious to the possibility, well...
"Why does Jackrabbit dismiss the possibility that Clinton was just too arrogant for her own good?"
Ask him. Personally I suspect that you're right that Clinton was simply not smart enough to see that her approach to her campaign - not to mention her reputation as the most corrupt politician since Hermann Goering - not to mention the fact that she was a female candidate - would be insufficient to defeat an "alpha male" who was appealing to everyone who despised her.
But there's no point in cherry-picking the points of Jackrabbit's theory that you disagree with. As I said, anyone can take the same points and come up with an alternative theory. Jackrabbit thinks his theory fits best. Well, he would, wouldn't he? That's my point.
"The reason I can't believe this idea of powerful, unified US deep state pushing the buttons to get exactly what it wants"
Which again, as I said, the Deep State isn't necessarily that "unified". That doesn't mean they - or some of them - still can't push things the way they want them to go. Money and blackmail buys a lot of compliance. If I had money and blackmail intelligence, I'd be rich right now.
"is that I've seen far too many examples of failure from the US. Many of these failures involved strategies that made some sense in the short term for individual parts of the US power elite, but which in a larger sense were completely contrary to the interests of the US empire as a whole."
That's from *your* (hopefully objective) point of view. But from the point of view of the Deep State - whatever that is, again depending on which member you talk to - those end results might very well what they wanted, regardless of any "real national interests". A lot of their plots are likely driven by their own personal interests. Certainly the military-industrial complex is primarily interested in profits and their next-quarter or next-year share price. They couldn't care less that Iraq and Afghanistan turned into quagmires - the longer the quagmire lasts, the better for their profits. As compared to Jackrabnbit's theories, that you can prove just by looking at their profits over the last twenty years.
You assume there *are* "legitimate national interests". There aren't any - hopefully short of total nuclear devastation. There are only short- and long-term political, monetary and personal interests of the parties who are in a position to make moves affecting the country's policies and actions. Which doesn't include you (presumably).
"A US elite that really knew what it was doing would not have invaded Iraq, and then stupidly disbanded the entire Iraqi army without even bothering to disarm it first."
Just because the Deep State wanted to invade Iraq doesn't mean their viceroy assigned to the task of operating it wasn't an idiot. Also, again, an insurgency might have slowed down the drive to invade Iran - which the neocons expected would be their next target - but at the same time it provided even more reason to sit on Iraq for the next half a dozen years and enable the looting that went on and the MIC profits. Ditto for Afghanistan. Again, if you weren't there and didn't read the emails, memos, phone calls and meetings, you don't know why things went the way they did - whether it was deliberate, incompetence or both. My vote is both. And much of the documents that have emerged - if any of them can be believed - pretty much show that.
The bottom line was: the neocons behind the Iraq war didn't give a damn (other than their Iran push got stalled.) The neocons view themselves as "Masters of the World" and are only interested in pushing their agenda - not whether their agenda is actually going to work out in reality. Once Iraq stabilized slightly, and Obama came in, guess what - the neocons moved right in and started pushing for war with Iran. And they still are. How do you think war with Iran is going to work out for the US "legitimate national interests"? It won't. And the neocons don't care, because they have their own "legitimate national interests", which boil down to being power-hungry, greedy warmongers.
Your objections simply don't hold water in the real world. Jackrabbit or I may be right or wrong with our theories, but there is no a priori logical argument that can prove them wrong. Only actual historical facts can do that - and as I said, we won't see those until they're no longer relevant for real-time decision making.
We can all try spending 24 hours a day researching facts and statistics and reading blogs, etc., to try to figure out what is actually going on, but again, without access to the people with the influence to actually do things we can never know it. That's one reason I like reading Pepe Escobar - he actually has access to at least some lower level government types, if not the really secret guys or the real money men. He does the research so I don't have to. But even he doesn't produce any documented evidence for his opinions on what is going on or who's behind it. He's just regurgitating what his sources have told him. Same for Sy Hersh. If those two guys don't know for sure what's going on - and if they did, they would likely tell us - we sure as hell don't and won't.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 7:25 utc | 85
@karlof1 =6
"Biden has said he'll agree to the extension and resume negotiations, a position that has me seriously re-evaluating who my vote will be for."
I have no skin in the US game being a Canadian, but from a Canadian looking at the possibility of one of the main parties, the Liberals being demolished in the next Canadian federal election due to the various corruption scandals that have cropped up over the last few years will result in me voting for the party most likely to defeat the local Liberal MP in the hope that a new party will replace them.
If I were an American I might be inclined to hope for a Republican win because only that will result in the total exposure of that stinking pile of shit known as the Democrats and hopefully their replacement by something that would look after the ordinary person. The Biden's crimes wont be exposed if the Democrats win in November. Another plus is Trump is doing a good job at discrediting the Republicans, or at least the RINO's. A two for as the Dumpster would put it. One can hope. Both US parties have threatened to use the bomb one joking about it (Regan) that put the USSR on alert, but overall the Democrats have had me scared more times in my life that they would use the bomb (Cuba, Vietnam, Korea).
Posted by: Tom | Oct 21 2020 8:44 utc | 86
@85
There was really no doubt about where the potential profits of conquering Iraq lay. The US wanted control of the oil. Back in 2003, that was painfully obvious. Dick Cheney actually decided in advance who would get the Iraqi oil fields. https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/07/17/cheney-s-oil-maps-and-the-iraq-war/
Immediately after the invasion, the US let the mobs destroy most of the Iraqi government's administrative buildings. But they made a point of protecting the Oil Ministry. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/oil-ministry-an-untouched-building-in-ravaged-baghdad-20030416-gdgm32.html
So I must disagree with your claim that we can't really know what the US government was trying to do when they invaded Iraq, and therefore we can't say whether they succeeded or failed. And I think we can also say with certainty that the neocons were not secret Iranian agents trying to empower Iran by getting rid of a Sunni dominated government in Iraq. Rather, they were fools.
If the US had really succeeded in conquering the middle east, they would have been in a position to dictate the terms under which China got the energy it needed. The profits from that would have utterly dwarfed the comparatively petty sums the US MIC has managed to squeeze out of the US taxpayer since the US attempt at conquest failed.
Posted by: Fnord13 | Oct 21 2020 8:47 utc | 87
Deltaeus # 23
I feel sorry for ZH.
Yeah, I get the same feeling for ZH every time I flush the toilet.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 21 2020 9:39 utc | 88
Thanks again, b. This is the kind of thoughtful articles one expects to read on Russian international outlets, RT and Sputnik, but which one seldom find.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 21 2020 9:50 utc | 89
Posted by: librul | Oct 20 2020 19:49 utc | 22
Someone searched with a facial recognition service the photo on the FBI wanted notice, and for sure if the trombonist is not the same guy he looks like his spitting image. Then again, his real family name is Nekhoroshev which could be losely translated as “the no goods”. Maybe that was the main criterion to declare the guy a hacker, it would not surprise me, the intelectual level of US bureaucrats is bellow null, a manichaean world view that divides everything into good and bad guys and that define nations by the political party in power, like referring to China as the Communist Party of China. And that coming from the most advanced student in his class, the boorish boar Pompedo which in spanish mean Pomfart. They still have the money and the power to destroy the planet, but the intelectual decadence is just appalling.
Posted by: Paco | Oct 21 2020 10:03 utc | 90
Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 20 2020 23:46 utc | 50 -- "Every politician, Dem or Rep, scrambling for office has one thing and one thing only in mind: to spend public money, through his/her hands by hood or by crook."
Great observation! It is always about the FLOW through their hands, which they then direct to their friends, with a wink wink understanding that said friends will re-direct a nice share to them when nobody is looking. Just look at Hunter Biden.
"So, for the past 50 years public spending grew at 7% while inflation adjusted GDP grew at 1%."
Wow, great set of numbers there. On top of that, it will be good to see how FAST politicians wealth grew as a result of gaining office, including the 5 years after leaving office, counting martha vineyard mansions and revolving door appointments.
Posted by: kiwiklown | Oct 21 2020 10:25 utc | 91
Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 20 2020 22:29 utc | 41 -- "I wonder what's on Lucifer's mind after seeing all that has happened."
Perhaps Lucifer will try a stronger virus? one that will kill Asiatics, but not Occidentals?
As the movie said, "Release the krakens !!!"
Posted by: kiwiklown | Oct 21 2020 10:32 utc | 92
Posted by: arby | Oct 20 2020 23:07 utc | 45 -- "The US and western countries who seem to know only about throwing money at problems didn't know what to do when it showed up on their shores. First they through a few zillion at the banksters and then did a half assed copy of what China did. Of course they are getting half assed results.
Western leaders love to say not to let a good disaster go to waste.
And so, that initial money throwing is part of the design, not a bug: they throw money at friends. Theirs is a large club, but you and I are not in it.
The half assed effort and the half assed results are also part of the design, not a bug: they promised to serve the people, but didn't mean it. Deplorables are also a large club, but our 'leaders' are not in it.
Posted by: kiwiklown | Oct 21 2020 10:42 utc | 93
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 20 2020 21:50 utc | 37
Tomorrow Thursday Putin will tele-participate in the Valday Conference closing day, could be interesting and I'll try to follow it live.
This article by the Valday Club Director Lukyanov is worth reading, regarding the arch of instability around Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kirguizia. Since machine translation is getting better you could take a look at it, there are some interesting thoughts there.
https://vz.ru/politics/2020/10/21/1060013.html
Another event worth mentioning, Prime Minister Mishustin presided the ceremony raising the flag on the icebreaker Arktika, the most powerful ever built and first of a planned series.
Posted by: Paco | Oct 21 2020 10:47 utc | 94
kiwiklown 93
The bug is a feature, not a bug.
And wonder of wonders, those who believe in and obey the elites are, wait for it, doing what the elites want them to do. What a concept!
x-posted in other thread
I'd like to offer Russophrenia to those who think they know Russia through the media.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/10/20/russophrenia-or-how-a-collapsing-country-runs-the-world/
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Oct 21 2020 12:56 utc | 96
You can't negotiate with a proverbial snake.
And you certainly can't negotiate with the malignant entity that is the United Snakes of America.
Any treaty that you sign with America is worth even less than the soiled toilet paper currency called the US Dollar.
Ultimately, the Americans are only good for two things: Raping the rest of the world, and then spewing Orwellian propaganda/lies to justify America's crimes.
What's truly pathetic is that the vast majority of the American hordes--and NOT just the so-called 1% or elite--believe and push America's propaganda narratives, whereby the poor innocent USA is perpetually being threatened or taken advantage of by other nations!
Sick fuckers.
And since the United Snakes has shredded these nuclear weapons treaties--whether that be JCPOA with Iran or START with Russia--some day, perhaps in the not too distant future, Americans will reap what they have sown and be on the receiving end of these weapons, with extreme prejudice.
America will not escape its (nuclear) Karma.
Posted by: ak74 | Oct 21 2020 13:19 utc | 97
And if in fact it were true that the people were at least passively resistant to war and needed to be fired up, how would a deep state campaign to demonize Trump in the eyes of the people help with that?
______________________________________________
The better question is how would it not help.
First of all there is "no deep state campaign to demonize Trump in the eyes of the people". What in fact has been created is enough support for Trump that he got elected in 2016 and likely will also get the same amount of support in 2020 election using the same old same old that worked so well in 2016.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Biden gets elected it is going to make it very hard for the power elites to start any new wars in the next 4 years. There will be a huge backlash from the anti-Biden segment of the population for any war led by Biden as commander-in-chief.
Trump does not have that problem. Trump's supporters will support anything that trump tells them to. Most of Biden supporters will support anything the left arm of the corporate media tells them to support and thus Trump will command nearly universal support for any war he starts while Biden won't even be able to get majority support without some extraordinary false flag to get the gullible population behind it.
Posted by: jinn | Oct 21 2020 13:20 utc | 98
Russia's latest:
20.10.2012:18
Foreign Ministry statement on New START Treaty Extension
We have received no official response from the United States to our Note dated October 16 which contains the proposal put forward by President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START Treaty for one year. We have noticed only some comments made by U.S. officials on social media platforms. Given contradictory reactions to the actual situation, we want to clarify.Russia offers to extend the New START Treaty for one year and meanwhile is ready to jointly with the U.S. undertake a political commitment to “freeze” for the above-mentioned period the number of nuclear warheads that each side possesses. This position of ours may be implemented only and exclusively on the premise that “freezing” of warheads will not be accompanied by any additional demands on the part of the United States. Were this approach be acceptable for Washington, then the time gained by the extension of the New START Treaty could be used to conduct comprehensive bilateral negotiations on the future nuclear and missile arms control that must address all factors affecting strategic stability.
We expect to receive an official response to our Note dated October 16.
Posted by: Fnord13 | Oct 21 2020 8:47 utc | 87 There was really no doubt about where the potential profits of conquering Iraq lay. The US wanted control of the oil
I'm well aware of that. I've read what Greg Palast has reported on that.
"So I must disagree with your claim that we can't really know what the US government was trying to do when they invaded Iraq"
What makes you think the fact that a *faction* of the Deep State wanted control of the oil explains *everyone's* motivations in the Deep State? I've already pointed out what the neocons wanted - and they got it, at least as far as Iraq went. And as I said, now they're onto Iran - a decade late, but still at it.
We know what the oil companies wanted - Palast proved that. We know what Jim Baker and Bush SR wanted - Palast reported on that, too. What Baker and Bush SR wanted was not what the neocons wanted - cheap oil to pay for the war. Baker and Bush SR as representatives of the oil industry wanted control of the oil as per the OPEC price rules, which Saddam flouted; that was the first regulation George W imposed on Iraq - to price its oil according to the OPEC rules.
We can also guess what the military-industrial complex wanted - profits.
We also know what Israel wanted - Israel wanted the US to invade *Iran*, not Iraq, and only came on board with Iraq when the neocons promised Iran would be next (per the Leveretts).
What we don't know is exactly who's motivation was the one that actually got the war started. I personally think it was a perfect storm, a confluence of everyone's motivations aimed at the same target - a war with Iraq. What happened afterward is merely the consequences of war. As I said before, no one can be sure of the outcome of a war once the war has started - which is why even warmongers are wary of starting one until they feel confident it will go their way.
We can also say that undoubtedly someone succeeded in getting what they wanted - because the invasion happened. If no one wanted it, it would not have happened.
We can also say with certainty that very few people knew the real motivations of all the parties involved *before* it happened. A number of people guessed correctly the motivations of this party or another, because some of them were obvious, but few people knew exactly how and why it was being prepared. Certainly next to no one in the US electorate knew. It's one thing to say so-and-so achieved this desired result after the fact, quite another to say with certainty who so-and-so is before the fact - and be able to prove it. Without deep access, that's mostly not possible, which is all I'm saying.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 21 2020 13:41 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
It is absolutely clear that any Russian initiative to rescue the treaty is going to be seen in Warshington as evidence of Russian weakness. In fact I do not see what advantage lies in Russia extending the treaty with someone that Russia itself says is "not agreement capable". As for being blamed, literally what is there that happens on the earth or above it that is not blamed on Russia already by the Amerikastani Empire?
It's time for Russia to say, "If you don't want an honest discussion and extension, then to hell with you. And to hell with the treaty too. We survived the 1980s, we'll survive this too.
"Will you?"
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 20 2020 17:10 utc | 1