Posts
I am reposting this article in which I more-or-less foresaw today's events.
Things have never looked bleaker than today. This is going to divide an already small resistance movement in the West on the same scale as some events in history as pointed out here.
I see the following as a problem because it is so totally devoid of critical thinking -
"I totally respect the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts but I suspect he is underestimating the tactical brilliance of Vladimir Putin and his trusty lieutenant Sergey Lavrov"
It is by no means certain that the Russians would come to the aid of Iran
Seemorerocks
Here are some of the headlines of the last 24 hours. Note how most come from israeli media which, despite everything, shines more light on events than anywhere else.
There is one story from today that indicates how that scenario that so frightens Dr. Roberts could potentially come about.
And this -
Things have never looked bleaker than today. This is going to divide an already small resistance movement in the West on the same scale as some events in history as pointed out here.
I see the following as a problem because it is so totally devoid of critical thinking -
"I totally respect the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts but I suspect he is underestimating the tactical brilliance of Vladimir Putin and his trusty lieutenant Sergey Lavrov"
It is by no means certain that the Russians would come to the aid of Iran
Seemorerocks
I am taking a pause today from prolific reporting on the extremely dangerous situation in Syria and the evident move towards Israel waging war against Iran to briefly report some of the developments of the last 24 hours and try to make sense of what is going on.
I have just coming from listening to a little of AMTV coverage of the situation which is well-meaning and broadly correct but falls into a trap which I have fallen into in the past of seeing things in simple terms of Right vs Wrong, of an alliance of the West and its Sunni terrorist factions on the one hand against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia on the other.
I have been told, going back to the days with Mike Ruppert, that if, say, Iran, is attacked, Russia would come to their aid because they are allies.
But is this so?
I have noticed that there are so many convoluted webs in this, not the least Turkey, which plays a double game - involved, as they are, in the Astana peace negotiations with Iran and Russia but invading Syrian and Iraqi territory to carry on their agenda of trying to defeat the Kurds (and where do they stand in all this?) while defending western airstrikes and continuing to say: "Assad must go".
Israel, as we know, plays a completely duplicitous game which seems to revolve around "Greater Israel" (or its "national security" if you choose to see it that way).
I recall my brother-in-law saying 35 years ago that Ariel Sharon would defend Israel's "national security" right to the gates of Baghdad. I have always thought that was incredibly insightful and prescient.
Now I am coming to see that Russia has to be added to that list, and that their strategies and actions are far from straightforward.
We have seen how effective the Soviet-era Pantsir missiles were in bringing down American Tomahawk cruise missiles, something that was singularly spectacular. So, the question would have to be asked as to why the Syrian government has been just as spectacularly incapable of defending their sovereignty against what have been repeated acts of war against not only Syria,but also Iran.
It has not escaped my attention that, apart from reporting the bare facts, there has been a silence around the attacks against Syrian positions near Hama and Aleppo that produced such as huge explosion that killed many people, including Iranians.
Most noticeable has been that alternative media outlets close to the Russian position, such as Russia Insider and the Duran, which I have always looked to for serious comment, have remained silent more than 48 hours after Monday's attack, which in my view was far more dangerous than the tripartate airstrikes against Syria, notably involving Iran and Israel, two countries that mean business.
The Duran today is relitigating things like the Skripal affair, about which there is very little to add, and is full of justifiable moral outrage about Bibi Netanyahu's lies.
But moral outrage is about as far as it seems to get when it comes to Russia.
Russia and Lavrov have expressed moral outrage over the recent illegal act of aggression against Syria, but when it came down to it stood aside after threats to sink any ships and did not intervene in any way, something that surprised us all.
More than that, I have heard the contention (unverified as far as I am concerned) that the Russians and the Americans negotiated so that no Russian interests would be hit.
With the demonstated ability of the Syrians to shoot down incoming missiles, even without the S-300, it has long been a riddle as to why the Syrians have not only been incapable of intercepting incoming Israeli missiles but have never retaliated against egregious aggresssion.
I have seen arguments that say that the Russian systems are just not up to it, but I do not think that is the case.
Today, I heard Steven ben-Noon say that in his view, the Russians and the Israelis are allies and that the Russians have told Assad: "don't you dare retailiate against Israel".
I have no way to confirm or deny that, but I have also heard, on a personal level, that Vladimir Putin has a tremendous admiration for Bibi Netanyahu and would, despite some threats that seem to be mostly empty, would never act against the most aggressive player in the region - bar-none (except maybe the Saudis and the Turks).
This would certainly help to explain why there has never been any retaliation against Israeli aggression, and Russia's silence over the latest events.
There has been a lot of talk about the Russians supplying the Syrians with S-300's with the Israeli security site, Debka Files even claiming that Russian ships were already in port supplying the weapons.
We all thought the Russians were going to supply the weapons gratis, but this talk seems to have died down and we hear that the decision has not yet been made.
Today I came across this tweet:
You Retweeted
Looking at things as they stand today it does not look at all good for peace in the Middle East.
Here are some of the headlines of the last 24 hours. Note how most come from israeli media which, despite everything, shines more light on events than anywhere else.
As
Knesset kicks off summer session, 62 MKs back, 41 oppose law
spearheaded by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Avi Dichter
permitting cabinet to launch military operations without government
approval, and in extreme cases, only requires green light from prime
minister and defense minister; 'We must adapt ourselves to the
present state security requirements,' Shaked says.
Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei calls on US to 'leave' Middle East, says any power
challenging Islamic republic will be defeated; US 'provoking region's
inexperienced rulers to create further regional crisis'; in meeting
with Iranian lawmaker, Syrian President Assad says region's maps
being redrawn, 'hostile countries now trying direct aggression after
proxies failed.'
Israel
has just announced that the skies over the Golan, Upper Galilee and
areas east of the Jordanian River are closed to civilian flights up
until the end of May.
Officials
believe Israel should strike Iran if Tehran carries out attacks
against population centers through Syria or Hezbollah. Defense
officials, on the other hand, caution against taking the conflict out
of Syria's borders
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used a speech at Israel’s annual
Holocaust commemorations on Wednesday to call for action against
Syria following a suspected poison gas attack
When
pressed on Israel’s own nuclear capability, the prime minister
repeatedly refused to directly answer the question and only said that
he did not seek war with Iran.
“I’ll
tell you one thing, we’ve never called for the annihilation of any
country,” Netanyahu told CNN’s “New Day” host Chris Cuomo.
“Nobody is seeking that kind of development.”
While one might expect Russiato weigh in on the side of their allies, Syria and iran, given all of the factors above, I would not be surprised if Russia stood aside and we might be looking at a repeitition of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
I am coming around more and more with every day to the position of Paul Craig Roberts, who says that Russia's determination to do everything in its power to avoid a global conflagration is laudable, but in fact equates to a policy of appeasement.
This will, if true, encourage further acts of aggression and further false flags, such as the recent "chemical attacks" in Douma, until Russia is painted into a corner and confronted with aggression on its own territory and will have no alternative but to throw everything it has (nuclear weapons) in response.
This is not a question of ethics or right vs wrong. In fact, from a moral point-of-view it is right.
We have to understand that Russia definitively has right on its side and acts out of its own national self-interest and despite having a distinct technological advantage has to rely on this effectiveness as it has to rely on a military budge that is a small fraction of that of the Anglo-zionist Empire.
We have to understand that Russia definitively has right on its side and acts out of its own national self-interest and despite having a distinct technological advantage has to rely on this effectiveness as it has to rely on a military budge that is a small fraction of that of the Anglo-zionist Empire.
I suggest you take the time to listen to this interview with Dr. Roberts from before the recent airstrikes, in which he shows actions Russia could have taken to face down western aggression.
There is one story from today that indicates how that scenario that so frightens Dr. Roberts could potentially come about.
President
Poroshenko cheers arrival of 'long-awaited weapons'
I
fear that we are going to hear a lot more about events in Ukraine in
coming weeks
Russia:
Washington’s Next Vassal?
Paul Craig Roberts
5 May, 2018
If
reports coming out of Russia are true, Vladimir Putin is considering
appointing Washington’s agent, Alexei Kudrin, to negotiate Russia’s
surrender to
Washington. http://johnhelmer.net/vice-president-for-capitulation-putin-decides-what-job-to-give-kudrin/#more-19143 and https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-has-shown-weakness-armenia-and-syria-his-credibility-collapsing/ri23361
In checking out this
story with well-informed and connected experts, I am advised that
John Helmer in his report might have put too much credence in the
story planted on the Financial Times by Kudrin. One expert whose
judgment I trust told me that Kudrin and other members of the “pro-US
lobby”—the traitors that The Saker calls the Atlanticist
Integrationists—are playing their usual games. Kudrin may
have gone too far this time by planting the story in the UK’s
Financial times of his forthcoming appointment as negotiator of
Russia’s surrender to Washington. The expert, whom I trust, told me
that everyone in the Putin administration really dislikes Kudrin as a
person and political figure — the sly games he plays, exploiting
Putin’s personal loyalty from the past. It is widely said in Russia
that Putin is too loyal to old friends like Kudrin who no longer
serve him well. Kudrin’s few allies are in Medvedev’s group, and
Washington’s incompetence recently sanctioned a couple of Kudrin’s
Russian allies.
Another expert whom I
trust responds that rumors fly in Russia like they do everywhere as
ambitious people jocky to elevate themselves in the media. In
contrast to the rumors that Putin is going to turn Russia’s fate
over to an American agent, he reports rumors that Putin, pushed by
nationalist patriotism and the military, is about to purge the
Russian Fifth Column—Kudrin and the pro-Washington faction.
On the other hand, a
Russian journalist tells me that in actual fact Putin himself is the
biggest pro-Western liberal of them all and that Kudrin was
instrumental in bringing Putin from St. Petersburg and installing him
in the Moscow establishment.
Perhaps Putin’s
inaugural address will indicate whether Kudrin will be given the
power to surrender Russia or whether the pro-American Fifth Column
will be finally excluded from the government or whether nothing
changes.
Kudrin sounds like a
traitor who should be put on trial for treason. It seems unlikely
that Putin would make Kudrin the number two man in the Russian
government. Kudrin, a protector of oligarchic control of Russia by
billionaires who stole their fortunes by “privatizing” public
assets, is also known for his advocacy of austerity for the Russian
population while creating more billionaires by privatizing state
assets.
Possibly there is as much
fake news in Russia as there is in the US and Europe and that the
truth is that Kudrin is a nonentity and not a player in Russian
government decisions. However, if Kudrin is elevated, perhaps his
rise is due to neoliberal economics.
Kudrin along with the
Russian central bank and most Russian economists who have been
brainwashed by American neoliberal economics—“junk economics”
in Michael Hudson’s accurate characterization—believe that the
success of Russia’s economy depends on being tied to Washington’s
imperial system. They believe—very erroneously and quite
stupidly—that without American investment and the lifting of the
sanctions, the Russian economy is doomed. That is what they say. The
case could be that, like global economic interests everywhere, the
oligarchs are only concerned with money, not with their country’s
sovereignty.
As
Michael Hudson and I have pointed out, the neoliberal economics
taught to Russians by Americans in effect makes Russian economists
agents of the West. The Russian economists represent policies that
work to Washington’s, not to Russia’s, interest. Pepe Escobar,
who believes Putin is moving in the opposite direction from Kudrin,
acknowledges the pro-Washington faction’s control over Russian
economic and financial
policy. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/05/popular-putin-prepares-for-cold-war-2.html
As there are few
economists to tell Putin any different, the Russian government
receives advice that Russia will fail unless its economy is
integrated with the West.
Kudrin also intends to
cut Russia’s military capability in order to save money with which
to pay interest on foreign loans that oligarchs will use to privatize
public assets. The consequence would be to make Russia’s vassalage
permanent as a colony of the West.
In my article on May 3, I
asked if Russia knows what’s up. Apparently not in the Middle East.
The Russian government thinks Syria is about fighting terrorism and
working out a peaceful settlement. But this is the last thing that
Washington and Israel want. Washington and Israel want Assad and Iran
overthrown so that Hezbollah is left without support and Israel can
occupy southern Lebanon. Perhaps the Russian government’s inability
to decipher the situation is the reason that Russia, always hoping to
involve Washington in a peace settlement, never decisively brought
the war in Syria to an end. Now Russia is faced with US, French, and
British forces in the American-occupied part of Syria and with
Israeli military attacks on Syrian army positions.
If Kudrin is permitted to
put Russia under Washington’s control, China, whose government also
seems impervious to the real situation that it confronts, will stand
alone. By privatizing state assets and creating billionaire oligarchs
more loyal to money than to China, the Chinese government has created
levers for Washington to use to neutralize China.
Even if Helmer’s report
is true, Washington and its ally Kudrin might still fail for any
number of reasons, including the mounting problems of the US.
Nevertheless, that Putin is reportedly considering endorsing Kudrin
and his surrender policy is an indication that Russians face a
challenge to their sovereignty from the pro-American forces in
Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.