|
German Ambassador Wants More Nazis? – 112 Ukraine Makes A Curious Little Translation Mistake
The privately owned media organization 112 Ukraine, recently banned by the government as 'pro-Russian', reports of a Nazi march in Kiev.
March dedicated to Waffen-SS Division Galicia held in Kyiv
On April 28, about 250 people marched in black embroidered shirts (vyshyvankas) on the occasion of the 78th anniversary of Waffen-SS Division "Galicia" and came on the Independence Square in Kyiv. This was reported by Ukrainian News agency.
The march began near the Arsenalna metro station and ended near Independence Square.
The marching participants carried the emblems of the Galicia division, the flags of the Cossack Sich, the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, flags with the Sun and the inscription Solaris with a cross inside the letter "o", flags of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).
The marchers chanted: "Glory to the nation-Death to the enemies", " Glory to Ukraine- Glory to heroes!", "Under the sign of lion!", "Galicia – division of heroes"," Glory to the soldiers of the Ukrainian-Russian war"," One and only free Ukraine!"
Among the them were children. Most of those present were dressed in black embroidered shirts, some in white shirts or military camouflage, and people in plain clothes were also present.
I can not find any 'western' media that reported the march.
Anka Feldhusen, the German ambassador to the Ukraine, condemned it. But here is how 112 Ukraine reported that:
German Ambassador condemns March dedicated to SS Division Galicia
Ambassador of Germany in Ukraine Anka Feldhusen has condemned the March dedicated to Waffen-SS Division Galicia that took place in Kyiv yesterday as she reported on Twitter.
“The detachments of Waffen-SS participated in the gravy military crimes and the Holocaust during World War II. Any volunteer organizations that fight and work in Ukraine today should be associated with them,” she wrote.
"Any volunteer organizations … should be associated with them?"
Really?
Cont. reading: German Ambassador Wants More Nazis? – 112 Ukraine Makes A Curious Little Translation Mistake
Open Thread 2021-032
Something Is Wrong When You Need A High Rate Of Fire But Ammunition Costs $500 Million Per Shot
North Korea was just reminded how it could ruin the United States:
The Pentagon plans to spend almost $18 billion to develop, produce and support its new interceptor to stop incoming nuclear missiles from North Korea or Iran, the first major defense procurement award of the Biden administration, according to newly released figures.
…
The interceptors are designed to crash into and destroy incoming missiles from an adversary such as North Korea or Iran. They would be installed on missiles based in Alaska. Each of the 31 interceptors is estimated to cost about $498 million.
The new interceptor is intended to correct the mistakes of a failed warhead program that spanned the Obama and Trump administrations before it was canceled in August 2019 after $1.2 billion was spent on a project meant for deployment in 2023.
Out of the 31 interceptors 10 will be for testing and only 21 will be deployed.
To hit an incoming warhead or decoy three interceptors must be fired to reach a kill probability above 95%. 21 interceptors could defeat 7 targets. That are probably more than North Korea has.
But North Korea could MIRV its missiles, i.e. put Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles on top of each of them. They do not need to carry expensive nuclear warheads. One missile carrying seven decoys would be enough to empty all of the Ground Based Missile Defense (GMD) silos. That would leave the U.S. unprotected from the next shot which could or could not come.
One missile, build for probably a few million dollars, could easily put the new $18 billion defense missiles to waste.
Could Kim Jong Un release some photos that show a MIRV-ed North Korean missile? Could he hold a parade with more missiles on show? That might induce the U.S. to buy more interceptor missiles. Rinse and repeat and the U.S. is ruined.
The Government Accountability Office just published its 2020 report on the Missile Defense Agency. Unsurprisingly the MDA delivered less than planned, tested less than planned while many of its tests still failed. The whole agency is a huge waste of money that has no discernible way to success.
Missile defense is a boondoggle for weapon producers. That is the only reason why Congress keeps financing it.
U.S. Four Star Generals Ask DNI To Stop Lying
These folks have had it with the constant stream of baseless propaganda U.S. intelligence is spilling over the world:
Dear Director of National Intelligence,
we, the the 4-star Generals leading U.S. regional commands all over the world, are increasingly concerned with about the lack of evidence for claims you make about our opponents.
We, as true believers, do not doubt whatever judgment you make about the harmful activities of Russia, Iran and China. However – our allies and partners do not yet subscribe to the bliss of ignorance. They keep asking us for facts that support those judgments
Unfortunately, we have none that we could provide.
You say that Russia thought to manipulate Trump allies and to smear Biden, that Russia and Iran aimed to sway the 2020 election through covert campaigns and that China runs covert operations to influence members of Congress.
Media reports have appeared in which 'intelligence sources' claim that Russia, China and Iran are all paying bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers. Fortunately no soldier got hurt by those rumors.
Our allies and partners read those and other reports and ask us for evidence. They want to know how exactly Russia, Iran and China are doing these things.
They, of course, hope to learn from our experience to protect their own countries.
Currently we are not able to provide them with such information. Your people keep telling our that all of it is SECRET.
We therefore ask you to declassify the facts that support your judgments.*
Sincerely
The Generals
—-
PS: *Either that or shut the fuck up.
The above may well have been a draft for the letter behind this report:
Cont. reading: U.S. Four Star Generals Ask DNI To Stop Lying
‘ALLEGED That The United States Had Persuaded Brazil To Deny The Vaccine Approval’
alleged – adjective
Definition of alleged
- accused but not proven or convicted
– an alleged burglar
- asserted to be true or to exist
– an alleged miracle
– an alleged conspiracy
- questionably true or of a specified kind: supposed, so-called
– bought an alleged antique vase
—
NYT, Apr 27 – Brazil’s health authority rejected importing Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.
The official Sputnik V Twitter account pushed back on Monday in a series of tweets, in Portuguese, saying that the vaccine’s developers had shared “all the necessary information and documentation” with Anvisa. In another tweet, it said Anvisa’s decision “was of a political nature” and had “nothing to do with access to information or science,” and alleged that the United States had persuaded Brazil to deny approval.
'Alleged' seems to be the wrong word for this:
WaPo, Mar 16 – U.S. officials pushed Brazil to reject Russia’s coronavirus vaccine, according to HHS report
Buried deep in the dry, 72-page annual report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lay a startling admission: U.S. health officials under President Donald Trump worked to convince Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine.
…
Brazil, which has the second-highest coronavirus death toll worldwide, has struggled to obtain adequate vaccine supplies. But the Health Attaché office within HHS’s Office of Global Affairs pushed the country to turn down offers of help from the Russians last year, according to the report.
—
Source: Department of Health & Human Services – 2020 Annual Report (pg 48) – bigger—
Meanwhile the European Medical Agency, the drug regulator for the European Union, is intentionally slow walking its approval of Sputnik V by probing the 'ethical standards of the Sputnik vaccine trials'. No other vaccine trial has been questions in this regard.
This while the slow vaccine roll out and continuing lockdowns are costing EU countries billions of Euros per day.
Saudi Broadcaster ‘Leaks’ Context Free Quotes From Iran’s Foreign Minister Talk – Should It Be Trusted?
A rather weird leak from Iran appeared yesterday. But even weirder is the reporting about it. From the New York Times:
Iran’s Foreign Minister, in Leaked Tape, Says Revolutionary Guards Set Policies
Javad Zarif of course did not say what the headline claims:
In a leaked audiotape that offers a glimpse into the behind-the scenes power struggles of Iranian leaders, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the Revolutionary Guards Corps call the shots, overruling many government decisions and ignoring advice.
In one extraordinary moment on the tape that surfaced Sunday, Mr. Zarif departed from the reverential official line on Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of the Guards’ elite Quds Force, the foreign-facing arm of Iran’s security apparatus, who was killed by the United States in January 2020.
The general, Mr. Zarif said, undermined him at many steps, working with Russia to sabotage the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers and adopting policies toward Syria’s long war that damaged Iran’s interests.
If the Revolutionary Guard really 'calls the shots' and was against the nuclear deal why was it signed and sealed?
If Soleimani and/or Russia really wanted to 'sabotage the nuclear deal' why did it come into existence?
Russia by the way would have had no need to 'sabotage' the deal. It simply could have vetoed it during the negotiations or later at the UN Security Council.
“In the Islamic Republic the military field rules,” Mr. Zarif said in a three-hour taped conversation that was a part of an oral history project documenting the work of the current administration. “I have sacrificed diplomacy for the military field rather than the field servicing diplomacy.”
Well – if your ally Syria is under attack from U.S. backed Al-Qaeda terrorists and your neighbor country Iraq gets overrun by the Islamic State there is little that diplomacy can achieve. Those are issues and moments where the military is needed before diplomacy can take over.
Then comes a paragraph that is typical for the manipulative lying that distinguishes NYT scribbling from real reporting:
The audio was leaked at a critical moment for Iran, as the country is discussing the framework for a possible return to a nuclear deal with the United States and other Western powers. Talks through intermediaries have been taking place in Vienna.
It is not Iran that is discussing 'for a possible return to a nuclear deal'. Iran never left the deal. It is the U.S. that wants to reenter a deal the U.S., but not Iran, had left. Iran isn't discussing with 'the United States and other Western powers' but, through intermediaries, with the U.S. alone. That's because the other powers involved in the deal are a. not solely 'western' but include China and Russia and b. also never left the deal.
As for the authenticity of the 'leak' and real meaning of the selected few quotes from Zarif's talk consider the source:
The recording, of a conversation in March between Mr. Zarif and an economist named Saeed Leylaz, an ally, was not meant for publication, as the foreign minister can repeatedly be heard saying on the audio. A copy was leaked to the London-based Persian news channel Iran International Iran International, which first reported on the recording and shared it with The New York Times.
Iran International is not a 'London-based Persian news channel'. It is a Saudi government news channel with a studio in London that broadcasts in Farsi:
The media outlet is funded by the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman via a Royal family tycoon owner and has close ties with all Saudi-backed groups and allies, including the son of the dethroned Pahlavi Regime, Reza Pahlavi and pro-Pahlavi monarchists who have long had intimate relations with Riyadh as well as the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as the MEK, PMOI and NCRI) terrorists.
Given the source of the 'leak' and the very few context free Zarif quotes the NYT provides from it no conclusions should be drawn from them.
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2021-031
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
> The fundamental misperception appears to be the assumption that Russia aims to find its way back into the US-led order; rather, Russia is pursuing an organized decoupling from the US-led order. Furthermore, the willingness to reach a political settlement is absent. The US and Russia view each other as increasingly less relevant actors and no longer the main focus of their respective foreign policies.
…
Until a new format for cooperation is established that restores sovereign equality, any summit between the two world leaders will likely fall victim to political theatrics and harmful posturing. Moscow should politely reject the offer and instead rely on less public formats to negotiate pragmatic and mutually beneficial arrangements. <
Brahma Chellaney @Chellaney – 5:55 UTC · Apr 24, 2021
Thanks to COVID-19, many nations learned hard lessons about China-reliant supply chains. And the Quad agreed to build resilient supply chains. But now, thanks to Biden's hoarding of vaccines and raw materials, many nations are learning hard lessons about US-reliant supply chains.
—
Other issues:
Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2021-031
NYT Investigates U.S. Jewish Billionaire Funding For Anti-Islamists – Then Distracts With Loads Of Anti-Russian Slander
A current New York Times report finds that the British anti-Islam agitator and grifter Tommy Robinson was financed by American Jewish billionaires who promote Zionist colonialism in Palestine.
For several years Robert J. Shillman, founder and chairman of Cognex Corporation, and Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck fortune funneled a monthly check to Robinson via the exteremist Middle East Forum run by the notorious Daniel Pipes. Shillman sits on the boards of The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Rosenwald has served on the board of directors of many pro-Israel organizations and was vice president of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Another donor involved was the Jewish hedge fund manager Robert Mercer who gives to many extreme right causes.
As the Times summarizes it:
Mr. Robinson’s American connection was deeper than previously known. Interviews and internal documents newly released in court show how the U.S. research institute, the Middle East Forum, provided him with financial backing for three years, using cash from an American tech billionaire and Trump donor, while its president helped shape his message.
The details are quite intriguing and the reporting on the financial ties is well done.
But for the Times the fact that right-wing U.S. Zionists billionaires are financing proto-fascist anti-Islam movements in Europe is not the core concern.
Instead it uses a short visit to Russia Robinson made a year ago to smear and agitate against that country and its government.
That push of the story, not justified by any facts as we will show below, starts with the misleading headline:
U.K. Far Right, Lifted by Trump, Now Turns to Russia.
The anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson struck gold in America. Keeping it might require help from Moscow, where other British far-right activists are also finding friends.
The first part of the story introduces Robinson and lists his deep U.S. connections. It then turns to his short trip to Russia:
Now that Mr. Trump is out of office and the American money is apparently drying up, Mr. Robinson and some other far-right figures are turning to Moscow. Mr. Robinson, who is fighting a potentially costly libel case in London this week, did a media tour of Russia last year but three associates told The New York Times that part of his agenda was kept secret — to seek accounts with Russian banks.
“Why else would you visit Russia?” said Andrew Edge, a former senior figure in the English Defence League and another far-right group, Britain First, who said that he discussed moving money to Russian banks with Mr. Robinson and Britain First’s leader, Paul Golding.
In many ways, Mr. Robinson is now useful to the Kremlin — which has often encouraged fringe political figures who might destabilize Western democracies — for the same reasons he was welcome in Mr. Trump’s Washington.
How please has a discussion about opening a Russian bank account, to move money from Britain because it is under thread of being impounded, related to being 'useful to the Kremlin'?
Hint – it isn't.
It follows another long section describing in detail Robinson's connections to the U.S. Zionist billionaires and his various crimes. It reports of a riot during a pro-Robinson / anti-Islam rally in London:
Cont. reading: NYT Investigates U.S. Jewish Billionaire Funding For Anti-Islamists – Then Distracts With Loads Of Anti-Russian Slander
Investigation Launched Into Premature Release Of Turtle Through Windscreen Story
Covid Say – What Monroe Doctrine? What Commonwealth? – by Debs is Dead
by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment
Covid Say – What Monroe doctrine? What Commonwealth?
The Monroe Doctrine first established in 1823 really continues until today, ostensibly created to "prevent European Imperialism throughout the Americas", the real primary purpose of James Monroe's new foreign policy was aimed at ensuring that only America could colonise the rest of the two continents.
That policy continued through the 20th century – after all what was the 'Cuban missile crisis' about? The Monroe Doctrine that's what, America has consistently refused to allow any administration anywhere in North or South America that they believe may favour a closer relationship with a nation other than America.
This is why Venezuela, Peru, Nicaragua & Brazil for example have fallen foul of the American blob whenever they appear to reject America as their closest 'big brother'.
Mexico is copping it big time at the moment, simply because there is currently a slightly left of center administration in Mexico, an administration which sometimes questions when America instructs it how to behave.
Yet there is a completely unashamed lack of reciprocity between America and the other nations of the Americas. Even Brazil, currently suffering under the jackboot of the Bolsonaro mob who appear to exist solely to do as Washington DC instructs, but which is suffering an unimaginable number of Covid-19 deaths each day, is ignored by America. The American vaccination program is only for Americans – close friends and neighbours can jam it up their arses as far as America believes "we're all right Jack – bugger you!" has been the response of America to the people of South & Central America.
England is equally screwed up. Queen Betty and the rest of the royal bludgers have always been big on promoting joints such as Pakistan, India, Nigeria & South Africa for example; as being the closest friends England has, nothing to do with the oil, minerals, cheap labour and burgeoning markets, of course, /snark that is why the Commonwealth matters to England with Queen Brenda at the front, always shouts, yet even as England is getting close to total vaccination, What has England done?
Not only has it hoarded all available vaccines for itself, now it has decided to ban all arrivals from those Commonwealth countries whose inability to secure vaccines have left 'em vulnerable.
I jacked up a few weeks ago when Aotearoa temporarily blocked arrivals from nations where those arrivals were averaging close to 50% Covid positive. Why? because many of those who were coming to Aotearoa were Kiwi citizens – maybe they had been born in Pakistan or India, but they lived and worked here before going back to the villages they had been born in to celebrate a wedding or funeral.
Whack em in quarantine for two weeks & then they can get back into kiwidom just like everyone else coming back.
The government who had implemented a successful Covid elimination program refused to accept the risk of Covid seeping out of hotel quarantine.
I disagree on human rights grounds but at least since Aotearoa is Covid free, I get what they reckon they are trying to achieve,
Covid is rampant in America & England, yet particularly in England, politicians have 'blacklisted' a mob of nations such as Pakistan & India, preventing even Englander citizens from returning to their homes. WTF? Englanders have consistently failed to keep Covid to a minimum and now it seems that both they & America are warping the process to restrict the arrivals of brown people citizens or not?
How low can you go, eh?
When Regime Change Does Not Change A Thing
Some people think that a change in government actually changes things. Not so.
Venezuela – Before – After:
Ukraine Before – After:
Cont. reading: When Regime Change Does Not Change A Thing
The Ukraine Crisis Recedes – But A False Narrative Of It Leads To Bad Conclusions
Some two month ago we discussed how the U.S. focus on narratives will let it collide with reality. It is certainly not only the U.S. government that creates narratives, comes to believe in them, and then fails when it is confronted with reality. Carried by think tanks and media the narrative mold has grown throughout the wider 'western' world.
On the danger of this development the above piece quoted Alastair Crooke who wrote:
[B]eing so invested, so immersed, in one particular ‘reality’, others’ ‘truths’ then will not – cannot – be heard. They do not stand out proud above the endless flat plain of consensual discourse. They cannot penetrate the hardened shell of a prevailing narrative bubble, or claim the attention of élites so invested in managing their own version of reality.
The ‘Big Weakness’? The élites come to believe their own narratives – forgetting that the narrative was conceived as an illusion, one among others, created to capture the imagination within their society (not others’).
They lose the ability to stand apart, and see themselves – as others see them. They become so enraptured by the virtue of their version of the world, that they lose all ability to empathise or accept others’ truths. They cannot hear the signals. The point here, is that in that talking past (and not listening) to other states, the latters’ motives and intentions will be mis-construed – sometimes tragically so.
Over the last weeks we passed through a crisis that easily could have had a tragic ending.
Since February the Ukraine built up a force to retake the renegade Donbas region in east-Ukraine by military force. After waiting several week to see the situation more clearly Russia started to assemble a counterforce backed up by statements that were sufficiently strong to deter the Ukraine from continuing its plans. The danger of a Ukrainian assault has now receded.
Today the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu gave orders for the troops to return to their bases. Much of the equipment though will stay on training grounds near Ukraine until the regular fall maneuvers later this year take place. That minimizes transport costs and gives a little time advantage should someone in the Ukraine again have silly ideas.
Russia has clearly won this round.
Cont. reading: The Ukraine Crisis Recedes – But A False Narrative Of It Leads To Bad Conclusions
Open Thread 2021-030
Vladimir Putin On Petty Tabaquis And International Issues
“Nice sidekick, Shere Khan. A hyena who laughs at his own bad jokes.”
― Bagheera to Shere Khan about Tabaqui
Today Russia's President Vladimir Putin gave his annual Address to the Federal Assembly (English transcript).
Most of his talk was about domestic and economic issues. At the end he made some remarks towards international developments and other governments.
The warnings he is giving seems stronger than usual. Here are some snippets with emphasis added by me:
Setting the general tone:
Russia certainly has its own interests we defend and will continue to defend within the framework of international law, as all other states do. And if someone refuses to understand this obvious thing or does not want to conduct a dialogue and chooses a selfish and arrogant tone with us, Russia will always find a way to defend its stance.
On the coup attempt in Belarus which seems to have been planned with outside actors:
[L]isten, you can think whatever you like of, say, Ukrainian President [Viktor] Yanukovych or [Nicolas] Maduro in Venezuela. I repeat, you can like or dislike them, including Yanukovych who almost got killed, too, and removed from power via an armed coup. You can have your own opinion of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko’s policy. But the practice of staging coups d’état and planning political assassinations, including those of high-ranking officials – well, this goes too far. This is beyond any limits.
Suffice it to mention the admission made by the detained participants in the conspiracy about a planned siege of Minsk, including plans to block the city infrastructure and communications, and a complete shutdown of the entire power system in the capital of Belarus! This actually means they were preparing a massive cyberattack. What else could it be? You know, you cannot just do it all with one switch.
…
What if there had been a real attempt at a coup d’état in Belarus? After all, this was the ultimate goal. How many people would have been hurt? What would have become of Belarus? Nobody is thinking about this.
Just as no one was thinking about the future of Ukraine during the coup in that country.
A remark on the ankle-biters in the international scene who serve as U.S. proxies:
Cont. reading: Vladimir Putin On Petty Tabaquis And International Issues
Xi’s Boao Forum Speech And The Messed Up Reporting Around It
A Reuters piece about a speech held by China's President Xi Jinping reveals how 'western' reporting skew the view of global issues:
China's Xi calls for fairer world order as rivalry with U.S. deepens
BOAO, China (Reuters) – Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday called for a rejection of hegemonic power structures in global governance, amid growing tensions between Washington and Beijing over a widening range of issues including alleged human rights abuses.
Speaking at the annual Boao Forum for Asia, Xi criticised efforts by some countries to "build barriers" and "decouple", which he said would harm others and benefit no one.
China has long called for reforms of the global governance system to better reflect a more diverse range of perspectives and values from the international community, including its own, instead of those of a few major nations.
The bolted sentence is wrong. China has not called 'for reforms of the global governance system' but for a return to the existing global governance system that the 'west' over the last years tended to ignore.
Here is the relevant section of his speech (emphasis added):
– We need consultation on an equal footing to create a future of shared benefits. Global governance should reflect the evolving political and economic landscape in the world, conform to the historical trend of peace, development and win-win cooperation, and meet the practical needs in addressing global challenges. We need to follow the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, uphold true multilateralism, and make the global governance system more fair and equitable. We need to safeguard the UN-centered international system, preserve the international order underpinned by international law, and uphold the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core. World affairs should be handled through extensive consultation, and the future of the world should be decided by all countries working together.
To 'safeguard', 'preserve' and 'uphold' existing laws and organizations is not a 'call for reform' of the global governance system but a call for a return to its foundations which were set after the second world war. The Reuters writer pretends, like some 'western' politicians, that those foundations no longer exist.
The Reuters piece continues:
Cont. reading: Xi’s Boao Forum Speech And The Messed Up Reporting Around It
Why Washington’s Anti-Russian Policies Are Likely To Intensify
Thanks to a monoculture of anti-Russia hawks in U.S. policy institutions relations between the U.S. and Russia are likely to further decline. But some hope might be seen at the horizon.
Scott Ritter predicts the end of a generation of anti-Russian influencers in Washington DC who depict Russia and is policies as being run by just one man:
These “Putin whisperers” infiltrated every aspect of American culture and politics, their writings achieving near-scripture-like reception in the pages of American newspapers and political journals, and the authors of this intellectual dreck being offered prime seats at the table of national security policymaking, either on the National Security Council, or as a National Intelligence Officer.
…
These “Putin Whisperers” thrived during the administration of President Barack Obama, led by the likes of Michael McFaul, and achieved near-critical mass during the Trump administration, empowered by overly politicized claims of collusion with Russia by people in the Trump circle. They continue to play an important role today, filling the airwaves and pages with anti-Putin propaganda whose cumulative effect is to dumb down the American public by demonizing Russia and its president to the point that any accusation will be accepted at face value, regardless of the lack of corroborating evidence or the improbable veracity of its claim; the recent scandal over allegations that Russia paid the Taliban bounties to kill Americans in Afghanistan serves as an apt illustration of this phenomenon.
Unfortunately the constant demonization of Russia's president by the 'Putin-whisperers' has already led to some tragic consequences:
A children’s author and parish councillor died after a neighbour with mental health issues shot him in the face and stamped on his head, believing he worked for Vladimir Putin and was to blame for the spread of Covid-19, an inquest heard.
But the danger of seeing everything caused by just one man is much greater. It explains the confused policies of the Biden administration which may lead towards war.
Ritter argues that Biden trapped himself:
Biden is a prisoner of his own anti-Russian rhetoric, influenced in large part by the need to be seen as responding to a domestic political prerogative founded on decades of Russia – and Putin-bashing at the hands of the “Putin whisperers” and their ilk. It is one thing to spout off as a candidate for president; it is an altogether different reality to be serving as president, where words and actions have life-or-death consequences.
As the realities set in the people and their policies will have to change:
These are policies pushed and promoted by the “Putin whisperers.” For the moment, their will continues to prevail. But their days are numbered, as realpolitik pragmatists in the White House, Pentagon and Intelligence Community are recognizing the reality that the days of taking for granted US global hegemony are over, and that for the United States to remain relevant, it must adapt to the reality of a multi-polar world, and Russia’s rightful role therein. This will not happen overnight, but it is in the process of happening. In promoting and supporting Biden’s latest round of sanctions, the “Putin whisperers” have reached their high-water mark. From here on out, their influence will begin to ebb as the national security demand for fact-based assessments outstrips the domestic political need for fact-free propaganda.
I am not that optimistic. The Blob is resistant to change because those who are inside it tend to bite away anyone with even a slightly different view.
Consider the case of Matthew Rojansky, Director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He is known as a middle-of-the-road expert of U.S. and Soviet/Russian relations – not a hawk, but also not an appeaser.
Rojansky was supposed to chair the Russia desk in Biden's National Security Council. As soon as that became know the 'Putin Whisperers' came out in force to fight the nomination. Axios led the charge:
Cont. reading: Why Washington’s Anti-Russian Policies Are Likely To Intensify
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2021-029
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
- April 14 – RIP Anna Missed
Related:
Check how the color of the hand changes when looked at from different angles. How did he do this?
notebook #1 – by anna missed
—
Other issues:
Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2021-029
Biden’s Russia-China Tactic Is To Wage War AND To Ask For Cooperation. It Will Fail.
The policies of the Biden administration towards Russia and China are delusional. It thinks that it can squeeze these countries but still successfully ask them for cooperation. It believes that the U.S. position is stronger than it really is and that China and Russia are much weaker than they are.
It is also full of projection. The U.S. accuses both countries of striving for empire, of wanting to annex more land and of human rights violations. But is only the U.S. that has expanding aspirations. Neither China nor Russia are interested in running an empire. They have no interest in planting military bases all over the world. Though both have marginal border conflicts they do not want to acquire more land. And while the U.S. bashes both countries for alleged human rights issues it is starving whole populations (Yemen, Syria, Venezuela) through violence and economic sanctions.
The U.S. power structures in the Pentagon and CIA use the false accusations against Russia and China as pretense for cold military and hot economic wars against both countries. They use color revolution schemes (Ukraine, Myanmar) to create U.S. controlled proxy forces near their borders.
At the same time as it tries to press these countries the U.S. is seeking their cooperation in selected fields. It falsely believes that it has some magical leverage.
Consider this exchange from yesterday's White House press briefing about Biden asking for a summit with Putin while, at the same time, implementing more sanctions against Russia:
Q What if [Putin] says “no,” though? Wouldn’t that indicate some weakness on the part of the American administration here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the President’s view is that Russia is on the outside of the global community in many respects, at this point in time. It’s the G7, not the G8. They have — obviously, we’ve put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there should be consequences for the actions; the Europeans have also done that.
What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it’s in their interests to take him up on that offer.
The G7 are not the 'global community'. They have altogether some 500 million inhabitants out of 7.9 billion strong global population. Neither China nor India are members of the G7 nor is any South American or African country. Moreover Russia has rejected a Russian return into the G7/8 format:
“Russia is focused on other formats, apart from the G7,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a brief statement ..
Russia has no interest in a summit which would only be used by the U.S. to further bash Russia. Why should it give Biden that pleasure when there is nothing that Russia would gain from it. Russia does not need a 'bridge back'. There will be no summit.
Biden also called for a climate summit during which he hopes to show 'American leadership' and to dictated to other countries, especially China, how much they will have to reduce their output of climate changing gases:
Cont. reading: Biden’s Russia-China Tactic Is To Wage War AND To Ask For Cooperation. It Will Fail.
Three Recent Failures In Foreign Policy Coordination – Why Is Jake Sullivan Creating Such A Mess?
This was fun to watch.
U.S. Navy ships were supposed to sail into the Black Sea "in a show of support for Ukraine" and to "send a specific message to Moscow" due to "concerns about mounting tensions between Ukraine and Russia."
Moscow then let it be known that it was not amused about the obviously preplanned provocation: "We warn the United States that it will be better for them to stay far away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast. It will be for their own good."
Next the U.S. Navy put its tail between its legs "due to concerns about escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine."
So the U.S. wanted to send ships due to "concerns about mounting tensions between Ukraine and Russia" and then pulled them back due to "concerns about escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine".
Here is the trail:
CNN April 9 – US considering sending warships to Black Sea amid Russia-Ukraine tensions
The United States is considering sending warships into the Black Sea in the next few weeks in a show of support for Ukraine amid Russia's increased military presence on Ukraine's eastern border, a US defense official told CNN Thursday.
The US Navy routinely operates in the Black Sea, but a deployment of warships now would send a specific message to Moscow that the US is closely watching, the official said.
…
The Biden administration and the international community have expressed concerns about mounting tensions between Ukraine and Russia.
MEE April 9 – US notified Turkey about warship deployment in the Black Sea, Ankara says
The United States has notified Turkey that it intends to deploy two warships to the Black Sea amid rising tensions with Russia, Turkish foreign ministry sources said on Friday.
Washington made the notification just over two weeks ago, as required under the Montreux Convention on passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.
The warships will stay in the Black Sea until 5 May.
Reuters April 13 – Russia warns Black Sea-bound US warships to stay away from Crimea
Moscow warned the United States on Tuesday to keep its warships away from the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula, calling their deployment in the Black Sea a provocation.
…
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was cited by Russian news agencies on Tuesday as warning U.S. warships in the Black Sea to keep their distance, saying the risk of unspecified incidents was very high.
"There is absolutely nothing for American ships to be doing near our shores, this is purely a provocative action. Provocative in the direct sense of the word: they are testing our strength, playing on our nerves. They will not succeed," Ryabkov was cited as saying.
"We warn the United States that it will be better for them to stay far away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast. It will be for their own good."
Politico April 15 – U.S. drops plans to send destroyers into the Black Sea due to concerns over Russia
The Pentagon has scrapped a potential Black Sea transit by two Navy destroyers this week due to concerns about escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the plans.
…
The tentative transit, first reported by CNN, was not unusual or designed to send any particular new signal, as the U.S. Navy typically conducts eight or nine such movements per year, the person said.
But after new fighting erupted in Eastern Europe between Ukrainian soldiers and Russian-backed separatists, officials decided not to undertake the transit to avoid needlessly escalating the situation, the person said.
Then came the next funny thing.
Biden asked Putin for a summit in a third country. The Russians then said lets first see how you behave. Next Biden puts 'tough sanction' on Russia for things that it likely did not even do. Result – no summit.
Then there was this silly story about Russia (Iran, China) paying bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers but with no soldiers getting killed. That obvious nonsense was officially buried today:
U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops
[O]n Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
But just yesterday the Biden administration used the very same false bounty claim to justify the sanctions on Russia:
The sanctions will be among what President Biden’s aides say are “seen and unseen” steps in response to the hacking, known as SolarWinds; to the C.I.A.’s assessment that Russia offered to pay bounties to militants in Afghanistan to kill American troops; and to Russia’s yearslong effort to interfere in United States elections, according to American officials and others who have been briefed on the actions.
All three, the ship sending and pullback, the attempt to get a summit with Putin to then issue shortsighted and dangerous sanctions, and the contradicting 'Russian bounty' tale point to badly coordinated policy planning.
Isn't Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor, supposed to plan and coordinate such steps?
So far he has been a creating a total mess.
Open Thread 2021-028
|
