|
The Big White House Plans Behind Its ‘Russian Invasion’ Scam
As the 'Russian invasion' scam reaches new heights it is time to look at the motives behind it.
The noise has become deafening.
> The U.S. intelligence briefing included specific reference to next Wednesday, February 16, as a start date for the ground invasion, three officials — based in Washington, London and Ukraine — told POLITICO. <
'Could' is doing a lot of work in those headlines.
Can we get it a bit more precise?
1am or 3am?
Which is it?
And in what timezone?
And 200,000 troops? Yesterday there were only 100,000. How can those have doubled over night?
There is also the question of why.
Why has the Biden administration created an artificial 'crisis' about a Russian invasion of Ukraine when such an invasion is neither planned nor likely to happen? Why is it claiming that a Russian invasion of the Ukraine is 'imminent' when Russia as well as the Ukraine deny that any will be coming.
Why does it distribute misleading satellite pictures of allegedly deployed tanks when those are directly next to the barracks where they belong? Why does it hype a 'Russian buildup' when that is something that is claimed each and every year?
Jack Matlock, the last U.S. ambassador to the USSR, has one answer:
Maybe I am wrong – tragically wrong – but I cannot dismiss the suspicion that we are witnessing an elaborate charade, grossly magnified by prominent elements of the American media, to serve a domestic political end. Facing rising inflation, the ravages of Omicron, blame (for the most part unfair) for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, plus the failure to get the full support of his own party for the Build Back Better legislation, the Biden administration is staggering under sagging approval ratings just as it gears up for this year’s congressional elections.
Since clear "victories" on the domestic woes seem increasingly unlikely, why not fabricate one by posing as if he prevented the invasion of Ukraine by "standing up to Vladimir Putin"?
Actually, it seems most likely that President Putin’s goals are what he says they are – and as he has been saying since his speech in Munich in 2007. To simplify and paraphrase, I would sum them up as: "Treat us with at least a modicum of respect. We do not threaten you or your allies, why do you refuse us the security you insist for yourself?"
Alastair Crooke points to a different motive:
The authoritative Global Times in an editorial warns that the U.S. is instigating conflict in Ukraine in order to tighten bloc discipline – to corral European States back into the U.S.-led fold. No doubt, China makes the connection that Ukraine provides the perfect pivot for shepherding Europe towards America’s next stage of requiring a united front with the U.S. for the later task of barricading-in China, behind her borders.
In play, therefore, are key decisions that will define Europe for the future. On the one hand, (as Pepe Escobar noted some two years ago), “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass à la Mackinder into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history – switching world power in favour of these three great powers, and against Anglo-Saxon sea power”.
And on the other hand, NATO was conceived, from the outset, as a means of Anglo-American control over Europe and more precisely for keeping Germany ‘down’, and Russia ‘out’ (in that old axiom of western strategists). Lord Hastings (Lionel Ismay), NATO’s first Secretary General, famously said that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.
This mindset lingers on, but the formula has acquired today a greater import, and a new twist: To keep Germany ‘down and price uncompetitive’ versus U.S. goods; to keep Russia ‘out’ from being Europe’s source of cheap energy; and to keep China ‘fenced out’ from EU–U.S. trade. The aim is to contain Europe firmly within America’s narrowly defined economic orbit and compelled to forgo the benefits of Chinese and Russian technology, finance and trade – thus helping towards achieving the aim of barricading China within its borders.
I find both explanations, the domestic one and the foreign policy one, very plausible and a combination of them is the most likely motive behind the plan for is affair.
The Washington Post explains how the campaign was hashed out and directed from the White House. Its headline though is misleading:
Inside the White House preparations for a Russian invasion
A “Tiger Team” of administration officials has spent the past several months preparing a clear series of responses, gaming out scenarios from cyberattacks and limited intervention to an invasion of Ukraine.
A more correct headline would have been "Inside the White House preparations of the 'Russian invasion' scam".
Lets look into that:
As fears grow of potential Russian aggression against Ukraine, a “Tiger Team” led by the White House is quietly gaming out how the United States would respond to a range of jarring scenarios, from a limited show of force to a full-scale, mass-casualty invasion.
The White House team has staged two multihour tabletop exercises — including one with Cabinet officials — to bring the scenarios to life and assembled a playbook that outlines an array of swift potential responses, starting with Day One and extending through the first two weeks of an envisioned Russian invasion.
The effort, senior administration officials said, has not only helped them anticipate possible complications, but has also prompted them to take actions ahead of time, such as exposing Russian information warfare before it’s carried out to blunt its propaganda power.
The team preplanned their daily propaganda releases step by step:
The “Tiger Team” — a term referring to a diverse group of experts who are tackling a specific problem and that suggests alertness and a readiness to pounce — was created after National Security Council officials last October detected troubling signs of a massive Russian troop buildup on the Ukrainian border.
NSC officials readily admit they may be unable to precisely anticipate the moves of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his military leaders. But the exercise and robust planning is still worth it, they said.
“The reality is that what the Russians may end up doing is not likely to be a 100 percent match for any of these scenarios,” [Jonathan Finer, deputy national security adviser to President Biden,] said. “But the goal is for them to be a close enough facsimile of what they end up doing that the plans are useful in terms of reducing the amount of time we need in order to respond effectively. That’s really the whole goal.”
The 'massive Russian troop buildup on the Ukrainian border' has never happened in real life. Most of the Russian troops are hundreds of miles away from Ukraine.
It was the Washington Post which on October 30 2021 was the first to publish the claims by 'anonymous officials' of a 'Russian buildup'.
(Side remark: The name 'Tiger team' or 'Tiger squad' was also used for the Saudi group that killed and hacked up a Washington Post opinion writer Jamal Khashoggi. Funny that the Washington Post piece does not mention that fact.)
Back to the 'tic toc' the WaPo provides:
The Tiger Team was officially born in November, when national security adviser Jake Sullivan asked Alex Bick, the NSC director for strategic planning, to lead a planning effort across multiple agencies. Bick has brought in the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Treasury and Homeland Security, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development to look at a possible humanitarian crisis.
The intelligence community is also involved, gaming out various courses of action the Russians might pursue and the risks and advantages of each, officials said.
While the official launch of the 'Tiger team' might have been in November it is clear that the whole operation started earlier when the Ukrainians were asked to take part in the sham:
Simon Shuster @Shustry – 8:29 PM · Feb 14, 2022
Source close to Zelensky told me the U.S. first warned his team of a Russian invasion last fall, putting the chances at 80%. The Ukrainians didn't buy it, but they saw an opportunity — "more aid, more attention" — and played along. Now they have regrets. Too much attention.
The CIA has flown paramilitaries from Ukrainian Nazi groups to the U.S. to train them:
While the covert program, run by paramilitaries working for the CIA’s Ground Branch — now officially known as Ground Department — was established by the Obama administration after Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, and expanded under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has further augmented it, said a former senior intelligence official in touch with colleagues in government.
By 2015, as part of this expanded anti-Russia effort, CIA Ground Branch paramilitaries also started traveling to the front in eastern Ukraine to advise their counterparts there, according to a half-dozen former officials.
The multiweek, U.S.-based CIA program has included training in firearms, camouflage techniques, land navigation, tactics like “cover and move,” intelligence and other areas, according to former officials.
These groups will be the forces to use when the U.S. decides to launch some false flag 'Russian attacks' on Ukrainian civilians.
As you watch it consider that every move in this is preplanned:
The playbook itself goes far beyond battlefield scenarios, looking at questions like how to address Ukrainian refugees who might stream into Poland and Romania, how to secure the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, exactly what sort of sanctions to impose on Moscow, and how to fight back against a sophisticated cyberattack.
The playbook — which synthesizes nearly three dozen papers and intelligence assessments commissioned by the team from various agencies — has been distributed to the various officials, including military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon.
The playbook also considers “second order” consequences, such as Russian retaliation for any penalties.
Those 'sophisticated cyberattacks' will most likely come from the National Security Agency which is part of the Pentagon. When the White House will claim that it has evidence of a 'Russian cyberattack' on Ukraine, which it is likely to do, keep in mind that anyone who claims to be able to find the real source of such an attack is selling snake oil.
Along the playbook the White House also released disinformation which claims that Russia will use such:
Among the Tiger Team’s top concerns is a Russian effort to promote the false narrative that it is Ukraine, aided by the West, that is preparing to launch an offensive in eastern Ukraine, and that Russia is the victim.
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has declassified intelligence about such efforts, including a potential “false flag” plot in which Moscow would stage an explosion that kills ethnic Russians in Ukraine or in Russia itself, and then blame it on Kyiv as a possible pretext for an invasion.
The White House has declassified nothing that anyone was allowed to see. As the NYT correctly remarked:
For all the disclosures, the Biden administration has provided no evidence of the disinformation plots they say they have uncovered.
The 'Russian invasion' scamp was approved from the top:
In December, the Tiger Team held two virtual tabletop exercises to road-test various scenarios and responses. The first brought together deputy secretaries and the second involved Cabinet officials. Biden has reviewed the playbook and was briefed on the results, officials said.
“It’s one thing to consider each of these problems — energy, sanctions, military posture — in isolation. It’s quite another to put them all together and execute a plan on all of them,” the NSC official said. “What I saw over the course of this planning exercise was, including at the most senior levels, lightbulbs go on about the way the pieces fit together.”
The plan is integrated enough to allow for aims and achievements in multiple fields.
That is why I believe that both, Matlock and Crooke, are right in their guesses of the motives behind the 'Russian invasion' scam.
There are domestic aims and there are foreign policy aims and the pieces of the plan fit them together.
But that is only so if the whole thing does not unravel. In real life no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy.
Zelensky's much criticized unwillingness to play his part of the show may just be one of the elements that will let it all fall apart.
Then there is Russia which is always good at creating real surprises. I bet that its security demands and the draft treaties it provided where not foreseen in the playbook. They already succeeded in pressing Biden into concessions the U.S. had previously been unwilling to make. More surprises in different areas will follow. As soon as the Olympics are over China may also come to play a role in this.
Big plans make for big failures.
Much has occurred during the last 48 hours that’s unmentioned in b’s report on the invasion scam. First we have the meetings Putin held with Lavrov and Shoigu yesterday. Today, the meeting with the German Chancellor followed by the presser. Today, Blinken called Lavrov, but nothing of substance resulted. Earlier, Lavrov held talks with OSCE Chairperson-in-office, Foreign Minister of Poland Zbigniew Rau afterwhich there was a presser, transcript in Russian.
I’ve only had a chance to examine the Putin’s meetings with Lavrov and Shoigu. The talks with the latter are mostly classified, while Lavrov’s report is crucial. It tells us a number of things, first and most importantly:
“I have received unsatisfactory responses; none of my fellow ministers have responded to my direct address … The messages read: don’t worry, the dialogue must continue; the main thing you need to do is to ensure de-escalation around Ukraine. I think this is exactly a neglect of the norm as stated at the top level which says that no organisation can consider itself the main and dominant one in the Euro-Atlantic Region. So, we will continue to seek a concrete response from each country since all the documents I reported to you were signed under national status, and the responsibility for their content and the commitments under these documents must be accounted for at the national level. This is about the first part of the response, basically the Americans, which does not suit us.”
The above was already known but is now formally reported. As for the secondary issues the Outlaw US Empire finally responded to:
“So, I would say we can consider further progress in these areas, but only while maintaining the integrity of our December 2021 initiative, maintaining an integrated approach … but above all, this approach is about the legal settlement of issues that generally threaten the Euro-Atlantic Region. I am referring to where we started with in our initiatives, when you repeatedly emphasised, including during your recent telephone conversations and news conferences – we need to ensure indivisible security, including with regard to NATO’s non-expansion, non-deployment of strike weapons and returning to its 1997 configuration.”
Lavrov then provides his closing assessment, then Putin asks him the key question:
“We at the Foreign Ministry are convinced that this approach must remain a priority. In developing a dialogue on some aspects that are of practical importance today, with our Western, primarily American colleagues, we will be seeking in parallel their responses to the legitimate concerns that we have raised and that you have repeatedly confirmed, including at the news conference with Emmanuel Macron. I believe you have very clearly described the potential for drawing Ukraine into NATO under these conditions, considering Kiev’s ambitions.
“Vladimir Putin: Do you think we still have a chance of coming to terms with our partners on the key problems of our concern or is this simply an attempt to drag us into an endless negotiating process with no logical conclusion?
“Sergey Lavrov: You, along with us and other representatives of the Russian Federation, have said that we are warning that an endless discussion on the issues that must be resolved today is unacceptable. That said, as the head of the Foreign Ministry, I must say that there is always a chance. I am referring to your recent meetings with the US and French leaders; the Federal Chancellor of Germany is coming tomorrow; our colleagues are addressing me: the Polish Foreign Minister will be here tomorrow; the Italian Foreign Minister will come here in two days, and other meetings are being planned. We have consistently conducted explanatory work; we are committed to explaining why we are right, and that we are ready to listen to serious counter arguments. That said, I think our opportunities are far from exhausted. Of course, they should not be endless, but I think we should still continue to pursue and build on them at this point.
“Vladimir Putin: All right. Do you have a draft response yet to the documents that Brussels and Washington sent us? Has it been formulated?”
Of course, Lavrov has the paper formulated, and they probably went on to discuss it, but we’re not allowed to know its contents. I also checked the Russian transcript to see if it was just omitted from the English, but it wasn’t. You’ll note I didn’t provide any additional emphasis because I would bold it all.
Now on to the Presser with the German Chancellor, which will require another comment. Another bit of activity I omitted above was Lavrov’s talks with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres about the Outlaw US Empire’s continuing denial of visas to Russian’s UN Delegation so it can perform its duties, a problem going back to Trump that violates the law, as you might expect.
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 15 2022 22:54 utc | 75
And now the presser with Scholz. As I noted in a previous comment a few days ago, Germany and Russia’s trade volume is growing despite everything. Here’s Putin on that:
“This [relations] applies primarily to economic ties, which are as intensive as ever. Germany is Russia’s second biggest foreign trading partner after China. Despite the difficulties caused by the coronavirus pandemic and volatility in global markets, by the end of 2021, mutual trade grew by 36 percent and reached almost US$57 billion. German investment in the Russian economy exceeds US$21 billion, while Russian investment in Germany amounts to US$10 billion. About 4,000 companies co-owned by German investors are operating in Russia.” [My Emphasis]
On energy, here’s Putin again:
“Today, Russia provides over a third of Germany’s energy needs – both oil (34 percent) and natural gas (35 or even 35.4 percent). In 2021, Germany received 50.7 billion cubic metres of Russian gas.
“I would like to note that even during the high exchange quotes for gas and the shortage in Europe, we have continued to deliver fuel to German customers for the prices in our long-term contracts.
“As you know, the national regulator of the Federal Republic is charged with certifying the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which has technically been complete since last December. This is one of Europe’s largest infrastructure projects. It is designed to substantially enhance energy security in Europe and facilitate the resolution of pan-European economic and environmental goals. As I have said on many occasions, this is strictly a commercial project without any hint of politics.
“I would also like to note that we are ready to continue distributing gas through Ukraine even after 2024 when the current contract for the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine expires. Naturally, we will do this if there is demand from European importers, if it is profitable and if Ukraine’s gas transport system is in proper technical shape.
“We see many prospects for expanding Russian-German cooperation in other energy areas, including the development, commercialisation and use of renewable energy sources. We have talked about this as regards hydrogen.
“A bilateral working group on sustainable energy is already holding a dialogue on all these issues.” [My Emphasis]
The latter point shouldn’t be overlooked as Russia has a number of such working groups with other nations and not just about energy. The statement about transit via Ukraine reiterates what’s been stated and ought to help shore up Zelensky’s confidence about resisting the Outlaw US Empire’s plotting.
After his meeting with Lavrov, Putin had this to say about security:
“Russia cannot turn a blind eye to the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance interpreting the key principles of equal and indivisible security, as enshrined in many pan-European documents, so loosely as to suit their own interests. Let me remind you that equal and indivisible security spans more than the right to freely choose methods of ensuring one’s security and entering into military alliances and blocs, which our colleagues keep reiterating; it also refers to a commitment to not strengthen one’s own security at the expense of other states….
“We see the forceful containment of Russia as a direct and immediate threat to our national security; legal agreements based on the drafts we have proposed would in fact remove this threat.”
And here we have Lavrov’s recommendations:
“I will repeat that in our view US and NATO responses to our proposals on security guarantees do not meet the three fundamental Russian requirements. However, as the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation reported yesterday, the responses still contain a number of considerations that we are not only ready to discuss but that we have actually suggested to our partners over the years. I am referring to our proposals on European security, certain weapons systems, notably, intermediate and shorter-range missiles, and military transparency. We are ready to continue this joint work. We are also ready to follow the negotiating track, but all issues, as we said before, must be considered in a package, without being separated from Russia’s fundamental proposals, which we consider an unconditional priority. [My Emphasis]
In his statement on Ukraine, Putin added a point I haven’t seen before and applaud its inclusion finally:
“Ukraine is systematically violating human rights on a large scale and continues to endorse discrimination against Russian speakers at the legislative level.”
Now it’s Scholz’s turn. He reciprocates many of Putin’s points then says a few rather important words:
“An indispensable element of our relations is the dialogue between our societies which made a great contribution to mutual understanding and reconciliation of our nations after World War II. All that should be supported further, and this is why we spoke about the St Petersburg Dialogue. It has been for many years a symbol of German-Russian mutual understanding, and today it is more important than ever. Therefore, I expressed hope that we will find solutions during subsequent high-level talks in order to lift the blockade we are experiencing at the moment. We need space for open and candid dialogue in order to discuss all issues and so that everyone can join in the dialogue.
“We are watching with concern as the space for action by civil society becomes smaller and smaller. There are partners with whom we have been working for a long time. I will name Memorial by way of example. We in Germany fail to understand why Memorial has to stop its activities. This organisation made an important contribution to uncovering the fates of Soviet people carted off to Nazi Germany for forced labour. I hope some positive prospects are possible here.”
Unfortunately, on the Ukraine situation, it appears Scholz is hoodwinked by the scam:
“I expressed my views on security. I explained how we and our European partners assess the situation. I said they regard the military build-up as a threat.
“I must emphasise in this context that we are very concerned over the massing of 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border for no apparent reason. This is why urgent de-escalation is necessary. It is very important to prevent war in this tense situation.”
As he continued, further examples were provided. Most importantly, Scholz didn’t utter the principle, indivisibility of security, which happens to be THE QUESTION at issue. However, he did say:
“To conclude, I will say the following: it is absolutely clear for us, Germans, and for all Europeans that sustainable security cannot be built against Russia but only with Russia. We are united on this point, both in NATO and the European Union. Therefore, a solution must be found. However difficult the situation is now, I would not call it desperate. Now we must act courageously and responsibly.” [My Emphasis]
I’d argue Scholz’s incorrect when he says “We are united on this point, both in NATO and the European Union.” For the Outlaw US Empire is clearly against any such accommodation as are several EU/NATO members.
The Q&A session currently is only available via the Russian transcript, the lead question being very pathetic as the person doesn’t recall events from the 1990s:
“Question (retranslated): Michaela Küfner, Deutsche Welle.
“President Putin, you simultaneously signaled that you want dialogue, you see dialogue, and at the same time you criticize the fact that the Federal Chancellor did not bring enough in his luggage, that President Zelensky’s promise is not enough. All Europeans ask themselves: despite the close ties with Russia, will there be a war in Europe? Do you rule out a war in Europe?
“And, Mr Federal Chancellor, you have a question. How do you assess the situation now, after this conversation? Has there been any progress as you imagined it to be? And what should be the next step?”
Did anyone read the critiques the reporter asked about? I didn’t. Putin’s reply:
“As for the war in Europe, Mr Federal Chancellor has just said that people of his generation – and I belong to this generation – have a hard time imagining a war in Europe. And this is said, of course, in relation to the situation around Ukraine. But after all, we were witnesses to the war in Europe unleashed by the NATO bloc against Yugoslavia. A major military operation with missile and bomb strikes on one of the European capitals, on Belgrade, was carried out without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. It’s a very bad example, but it was – that’s the first thing.
“The second is about whether we like it or not. Of course not. That is why we put forward proposals for a negotiation process, the result of which should be an agreement on ensuring equal security for all, including our country.” [My Emphasis]
The remainder was reiteration. In his part of the answer, Scholz promotes the BigLie to cover NATO’s illegalities:
“I would like to stress that the situation in Yugoslavia was somewhat different. There was a danger and a threat of genocide, and this had to be prevented. I am very pleased that everything is developing peacefully there, that the peoples of the Balkans have found a prospect in the direction of the European Union.”
I’d say that those peoples’s prospects are worse than they were in 1992, and most would say they’re worse off than 30 years ago. But as noted in commentary above, Putin’s rejoinder is highly important:
“Vladimir Putin: Let me just add that, according to our estimates, what is happening in Donbass today is genocide.” [My Emphasis]
The report about the Duma vote on recognizing Donbass Republics deserves its own comment; indeed, that entire question deserves to be commented about separately from the security issues.
Overall, I’m not very impressed with Chancellor Scholtz as he’s clearly not his own man; he’s captured. As with Macron, he seeks to speak for all NATO/EU when he can’t as the Russophobes and their Outlaw US Empire sponsor won’t budge. And as of now there’s no definitive answer as to how long Russia will allow the main security issue fester. IMO, Russia must come out and declare all the security related OSCE Treaties to be broken and demand fast-track negotiations to repair them. IMO, it makes no sense to formulate something new when the principle at issue is well stated within the broken treaties.
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 16 2022 0:15 utc | 88
|
