In truth, the dangerous Washington consensus that Russia must for some reason to be confronted and even destabilized truly boggles the mind, particularly as it has become dogma for both political parties and even for many critics of the global war on terror and all its tainted fruit. And the brinkmanship game with a nuclear weapon armed adversary that is being played is, as veteran diplomat William Polk has observed, “…moving closer to the danger point of provoking their use.” It is difficult to understand why it is so.
Russia is, if anything, helping in Syria and could even broker some kind of negotiated settlement, while the situation with Ukraine and Crimea is far less Manichean that the U.S. media has depicted it to be. Russia does not threaten the United States and it does not threaten Western Europe, but push hard enough and long enough and a nightmare scenario could easily arise, driven by carelessly stoked fear and the thoughtless language employed by an array of presidential wannabes as well as their punditry enablers.
The Unz Review
Someone Wants War with Russia – Victoria Nuland is not alone
Philip Giraldi | executive director of the Council for the National Interest, and former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer
See also
TRANSCRIPT: Victoria Nuland Remarks at the Berlin Security Conference
Victoria Nuland Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Berlin, Germany, U. S. Department of State
Berlin, Germany, U. S. Department of State
Also
But why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration agree to appoint to this politically sensitive position someone who willingly served such a controversial figure in suppporting and implementing the “war on terror” and all the baggage that comes with it?
Because they are all neocons?
From what I know about the Department, an FSO doesn’t just get detailed to the staff of a highly charged and ideological Vice President unless that detailee agrees to follow the boss’s dictates. Cheney’s were all too often forceful and odious. Furthermore, does anyone really think that Cheney –with his penchant for super loyalty and secrecy - would have ever accepted Nuland (or anyone else) for the position without some kind of loyalty test?The post is all downhill from here. HRC and her boss may as well have appointed Liz Cheney instead of Victoria Nuland. They are cut from the same cloth.
Surely the State Department under Hillary Clinton could have found equally (or likely even better) qualified career candidates who do not carry Nuland’s political baggage.
The strange appointment of Victoria Nuland as State Department Spokesperson
Patricia H. Kushlis
13 comments:
My take on the relevant history:
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US helped engineer the near collapse of the Russian state into a gangster realm run by plutocratic oligarch-thugs.
These oligarchs ran the country like mob bosses, looted the state and funneled some of the proceeds to Israel and other US projects in the Middle East. The Russian people were imprisoned in an economically depressed, crime-ridden failed state to serve these interests.
Marc Rich was right in the middle of this commodities-based money laundering action, while he wasn't busy defrauding Americans and screwing up other people's lives.
http://nypost.com/2001/02/15/how-marc-helped-plunder-russia/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131198&page=1
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2001/may/13/features.magazine37
In an act of brazen chutzpah, Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his way out the door. Involved in the pardon were neocon mouthpiece Scooter Libby and Wall Street flak Eric Holder. Rich was apparently working for the Israeli government, and Ehud Barak put in a good word for him.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have since made a fortune, and neocons have cultivated and groomed Hillary for 15 years to try to get a foothold in the White House again.
Vladimir Putin wrested control of Russia from the gangsters, threw several in jail, re-established the authority of the national government and gave Russians a functioning economy again and half a chance at a normal life and prosperous future. Many Russians love him for this; neocons have never forgiven him for busting up their looting and failed state operation.
Once it became clear post-Iraq that Putin was going to stand in the way of US and Israeli efforts to pull off a regime change in Syria and install a puppet - especially after he out-maneuvered the drive toward a US war in Syria by interceding during the chemical weapons incident - they decided to take him down. They mobilized their NGO front organizations and intelligence services to engineer a coup in the Ukraine, and unleashed a brutal propaganda campaign timed to coincide with the Olympics to inflict maximum embarrassment on Putin. But grabbing Ukraine for Nato, they were probably trying to lay hold of Russia's main naval access to warm water - a central preoccupation of Russian foreign policy for centuries. They got the coup, but lost Crimea - so the plan backfired.
These characters are deeply embedded with the (relatively small but very influential) neocon wing of the Democratic Party - primarily the Clinton machine. And of course they have even broader control over much of the Republican Party.
Obama has tried a bit to extricate the US from its Middle East quagmires and turn the focus to East Asia, but he has been out-maneuvered by them, and is for some reason unable to say no to their adventures. The appointment of Nuland - wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan and former foreign policy adviser to Dick Cheney - was bizarre. But the neocons are thugs, so who knows what they are holding over Obama.
Anyway, Russia now working with France - which is good news:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/18/456546023/russia-says-its-planning-joint-anti-isis-operations-with-france
Good analysis, Dan
for some reason unable to say no to their adventures
The reason is the big question, if he is not one of them.
I don't rule anything out.
I like you're analysis. So all the beltway, all the western media and all the US allies buy into the neocon narrative without ever questioning it in public?
I know a broad section of the population easily buy into their story, but many others don't buy it. It's the group think and complete lack of criticism at the top that freaks me.
In my corporate days, on the day I joined management the local VP swung by my desk and said to me, "You're one of us now, no matter who used to be your friend, whatever you think or believe we always speak with one voice to the employees". I'm guessing it's the same way things are done in Washington and elsewhere.
Guess that's just what happens in hierarchical organisations, one reason they collapse.
Bravo, Dan. Someone who can connect the dots.
The coincidence theorists will appear shortly to dismiss you take as sick or insane.
Make a post of Dan's remark, if Dan approves?
IMO the ride on Russia after USSR collapse went beyond simple looting, the ultimate goal was the dismemberment and destruction of Russia as known so it could be partitioned and expoliated by western powers controlling the access to its huge resource base.
Russia population was really decimated in the period until Putin got power and the country very weakened. They are really bitter that they never got their plan to work out and Russia managed to recover from such huge collapse and since then have tried in every way to ignite again instability in Russia again to continue their imperialistic plans.
Hopefully this sect is further away each day from the levers of powers, and in the next elections their power will be greatly diminished (either by Sanders or Trump).
Rather not.
Dan you have to add the "Israel Factor" in there...
Youre not from the right.
Israel, our alliance and protection/advocacy for it, is a BIG factor in the 'neo-con' mindset and within the right generally... there are religious aspects to what is going on.
Here is John Hagee I'll throw out as just ONE example he is NOT Jewish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo1lIrkw14w
This is very typical on religious right... Chuck Misler, Hal Lindsay, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Chuck Smith...
Also, dont forget about Soros and his hippy-dippy "open society" stuff.
He is a YUGE Democrat donor... I'd pin the whole Ukraine thing on Soros influence with Democrats... maybe Nuland is there at Soros behest...
Here is Soros recently: "I have been strenuously arguing that Ukraine should be given top priority."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/08/ukraine-europe-what-should-be-done/
So... Ukraine: Soros $ Democrat Fest...... "Neocons": perfectly congruent with Religious right...
No "corruption" "neo-liberal" tie in necessary... they are true believers and they vote...
This version of neocon madness in the region and beyond has been coming from Pat Buchanan for many years. The madness in inciting conflict with Putin in unimaginable by any degree of right reason. Amen Corner can't be that stupid or can it?
Matt is always hard to tell with this ideological movements, kind of chicken and egg situation.
It's Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR level of propaganda and brainwashing: they believe their own bullshit, but foremost, those closers to decision-making positions (and the closer the worst) are interested in raw power.
So yes, the religion element IMO is present, specially when selling it to the masses. But above everything, those who call the shoots are guided by their own vision and implementation of power and control.
IMO to understand the underlying motifs of this people you have to understand the psychology and appeal of power by itself alone. Above everything what they are, is control freaks, who want to decide who lives and dies and for what reasons.
So the usage of religion or ideology is subservient to their ultimate motivation to control history (what they call "creating history"), this is nomothetic to all this ideologies of control (which is what they are in the end) IMO.
In the case of Irael IMO is not this what drives decision calling, is a much more mundane and pragmatic world view, instability is a necessity, in their view, due to the past recent history and conflicts with the regional powers (secular or theocratic) and the power of their own defense industry (so you got first the statesman motive of nation building and defense, and in parallel and as a supporting role, the lucrative business of the military industry). Religion in that part of the world is used as a weapon, just like part of the right tries too in USA but obviously to a much lesser degree of success (because conditions are different), to move the population to support whatever the desires of the ones calling the shoots.
Or drawing parallelisms, some nazi officials were true believers, and bombarded the population with the messages, but ultimately was the own dynamic of power which drove the movement. In the case of neocons I'm afraid is the same.
Just to clear it up if not done so already. Syria is Obama's baby, neocon or no neocon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLufaTK29s
Nazis wanted to restore German pride, ensure Germany had access to markets and resources and take their rightful position on the world stage as a leading economic power. They used fear of communists and hatred of Jews to unite their base.
You can see the similarity.
Neocons wish to maintain American pride, ensure US has access to markets and resources and keep their rightful position on the world stage as a leading economic power. They use fear of Putin and hatred of Muslims to unite their base.
The problem is they are too good at getting what they want.
Yes. A useful, succinct, summary, Dan. Most useful comment I've ever seen from you. Pity that summary can't be sent to every voter, coast to coast.
Post a Comment