Lincoln: “The Yankee Nero,” Comic News, London, 1864
Abraham Lincoln is a butcher who attacks his own people. He is responsible for the blood of countless Americans and has to go. He declared a brutal war on the democratic, peace-loving opposition in the South. There is no end in sight to the bloodshed until Lincoln steps down or is removed from power. We can’t just stand idly by and watch the carnage as the death toll grows by the day. We have to do something!
Mr. Lincoln has lost his legitimacy and is no longer fit to rule!
Yes, that’s right! Not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but LINCOLN!
If you had lived in London or Paris during the time of the American Civil War, this is the Abraham Lincoln you would have known – not the great (or perhaps greatest) American President, liberator of slaves, preserver of the Union, proponent of the American system of economics, etc. The aristocracy of Great Britain (especially Lord Palmerston) and France were anti-Lincoln and pro-Confederacy, and there was a very strong sentiment among their ranks that Britain and France should intervene in order to stop the bloodshed and help the rebels gain their freedom from the tyrant Lincoln who was not only slaughtering his own people but was even cracking down on the once free press of the United States and exercising total government control over the media. As current US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power would say, Britain and France had the “responsibility to protect”.
The moderate opposition
If all of this sounds very familiar – wait, there’s more!
You’ll never guess in a million years which nation actually intervened in order to stop this planned Anglo-French intervention. Go ahead and try anyway!
Did you say Canada? Sorry, guess again. That was the place where the British troops were waiting to swoop in and bring “peace and freedom”.
Mexico? No, not them either.
Japan? No, you’re thinking of something else.
Did you by any chance say Russia? Really? Russia? The evil Czarist Russian Empire? That’s insane!
What’s even more insane is that you would be correct! It was Russia – Lincoln’s only significant international friend was Czar Alexander II of Russia, and yes, they did intervene on behalf of the Union. If you didn’t hear about this in school, you might want to ask yourself why.
I highly recommend listening to Dr. Webster G. Tarpley’s excellent and scrupulously researched 2013 CSPAN Lecture on the Russian Fleets of 1863:
In 2013, the leader of Russia intervened to keep the peace yet again.
Much more serious was the situation that developed late in the summer of 1862. At that time, as far as any European could see, the Confederacy was beginning to look very much like a winner – a point which James Mason insistently pressed home with British officialdom. The Northern attempt to capture the Confederate capital had failed, Virginia’s soil had been cleared of invaders, and in the East and West alike the Confederates were on the offensive. Minister Adams warned Seward that the British government might very soon offer to mediate the difficulty between North and South, which would be a polite but effective way of intimating that in the opinion of Great Britain the quarrel had gone on long enough and ought to be ended-by giving the South what it wanted. Adams knew what he was talking about. Earl Russell had given Mason no encouragement whatever, but after news of the Second Battle of Bull Pun reached London, he and Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, agreed that along in late September or thereabouts there should be a cabinet meeting at which Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary would ask approval of the mediation proposal. (Implicit in all of this was the idea that if the Northern government should refuse to accept mediation, Britain would go ahead and recognize the Confederacy.) With a saving note of caution, Russell and Palmerston concluded not to bring the plan before the cabinet until they got further word about Lee’s invasion of the North. If the Federals were beaten, then the proposal would go through; if Lee failed, then it might be well to wait a little longer before taking any action.
Undeniable, glaringly obvious facts about the US, Russia & Syria that people need to get into their heads:http://tinyurl.com/qx5fbyf
Keep this little history lesson in mind the next time the media start another smear campaign against whatever evil dictator du jour finds his or her way onto the Pentagon hit list.
Terms like “the responsibility to protect”, “moderate rebels”, “humanitarian intervention”, and “evil dictator” are usually nothing more than doublespeak dreamed up by some PR agency. Ask the people of Libya what they think of the US / EU “humanitarian intervention” now that they live in the chaos and hell that followed the removal of their “evil dictator” from power.
If nothing else, consider all the taxpayer money wasted on these interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, just to name a few. You pay for all of this.
Ignore the consequences of endless foreign interventions at your own peril.
Rest in peace, little boy.
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
1. The democratically-elected government of Syria invited Russia to help them fight ISIS and related terrorist groups. This is in accordance with international law (host-state consent, intervention by invitation). The United States was never invited by the Syrian government to intervene.
2. There are no moderate rebels fighting against the government of Syria. The moderate opposition is in the parliament. The armed opposition outside the parliament that’s attempting to overthrow the government are terrorists. These so-called “moderate” rebels are linked with well-known terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Nusra, and are responsible for handing US weapons over to ISIS. It is simply a matter of playing with words to speak of moderate rebels or relatively moderate rebels or reconcilables as Former CIA Director and CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus recently put it. The reconcilable, relatively moderate Syrian rebels are doing the same things and pose the same threat to civilization that ISIS, ISIL, or IS do.
Can we get over this “moderate Syrian rebels” myth, for crying out loud? There is no “moderate” opposition running around with machine guns and shooting at people, even if the people they’re shooting at are all military and police. What would you call, say, “moderate” Tea Party rebels (and this is totally hypothetical) trying to remove Obama from office through an armed uprising? Would you call that a “legitimate” and “pro-democracy” moderate opposition? And what would you call it if another country actively supported and funded it? Would it matter to you if you approved of President Obama’s activities or not?
Bashar al-Assad: Do you have military opposition in the United States? Would you accept it? You wouldn’t!
3. Bashar al-Assad (the democratically-elected leader of Syria) has never attacked and has never even threatened to attack the United States.
Assad has warned of blowback against the West if they attack Syria, but he has never threatened the United States or the NATO allies. Newspapers such as The Guardian try to spin his warnings into direct threats:
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has hinted at terrorist reprisals against western interests in the event of a US strike against his country, saying he could not rule out that chemical weapons might be used.
If you read his actual statements, it becomes clear that Assad is simply warning of repercussions in the region (or blowback) as many western analysts have also said:
Assad: “If you strike somewhere, you have to expect repercussions somewhere else. It may take different forms, direct and indirect. Direct when governments want to retaliate, and indirect when you are going to have instability and the spread of terrorism over the region that will influence the west directly.”
Asked if chemical warfare could be one repercussion, Assad added: “That depends if the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it. It could happen. You are going to pay the price if you are not wise with dealing with terrorists.”
What he is saying is factual and based on historical precedent – if you attack Syria, you will unleash forces that neither I (Assad) nor you (the West) can predict or control. This is actually a friendly warning and nothing more.
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has also made the same type of warning to Russia for being involved in Syria, but the Western media do not attempt to spin this into a direct threat.
4. The refugee crisis in Europe was caused by ISIS and their allies, the “moderate” Syrian rebels, not Assad.
5. The regime-change policies of the United States have ended in catastrophe in every case.
6. “Humanitarian intervention” means war. This is doublespeak.
“Police actions” are wars. The Vietnam “conflict” or “police action” was a war, and it doesn’t matter what words are used to designate it.
“Kinetic military actions with no boots on the ground” are wars. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a kinetic military action with no boots on the ground, and it was indeed an act of war.
This also applies to the following (real) examples: limited operations; time-limited, scope-limited military action; a very limited operation that is geared to save lives; an unbelievably small military action; a response to violations of a norm; surge; overseas contingency operation; humanitarian mission; nation-building mission; action limited in duration and scope; a signal; the authorized use of force; a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort; putting enablers on the ground.
7. The US and UK governments lied about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons. They invaded Iraq and overthrew his government. The US, UK, and France lied about Muammar Gaddafi killing peaceful protesters and overthew his government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then gloated over his brutal death. The US and UK lied about Assad using chemical weapons on his own supporters. They’ve been obsessed with overthrowing his government ever since.
8. If pro-American, anti-Russia propaganda is OK, then so is Russian propaganda. The difference is that the US media does it on a much larger scale with a lot more money and bigger audiences, and relies more on lies (eg. Saddam’s nuclear weapons), deception, doublespeak (eg. kinetic military actions), twisted logic, blatant hypocrisy (eg. accusing Russia of bombing “moderate” rebels in Syria at the same time the US bombed a hospital in Afghanistan), constantly claiming to be unbiased (eg. Fox News), and faked evidence (eg. the September Dossier).
A bias in reporting the news will always be present – it can’t be avoided. In telling any story, decisions have to be made about what to leave in and what to leave out. It is impossible to present every angle to a story and to do so in an entirely neutral way. Nor is this necessarily a bad thing. Who, for example, would care to see the History Channel give a “fair and balanced” or unbiased account of Nazi Germany, giving equal time and weight to both the pro- and anti-Nazi sides?
Nearly the entire US media tells the US side (or the Pentagon side) while bashing Putin at every opportunity. Why shouldn’t Russia be allowed to tell their side of the story? Why is it always propaganda when they do it, and “investigative journalism” when we do it?
9. Russian news outlets RT and Sputnik are state-funded.So is the BBC. In shaping public opinion against the Assad government and their supposed war crimes against the Syrian people, the BBC and other news outlets have relied heavily upon “evidence” gathered from “experts” such as Eliot Higgins (an unemployed office worker with no training in weapons) and his Brown Moses blog. There is also the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (according to Wikipedia: cited by virtually every western news outlet since the beginning of the uprising), which is run by Rami Abdulrahman (a shop owner in Coventry, England) from his home.
10. Russia (unprovoked) poses no threat to American national security – on the contrary, they are vital partners in the national security of the United States. Russia has neither attacked nor even threatened to attack the United States or Europe.
On September 11, 2001, Vladimir Putin was the first international leader to call President George Bush to express his sympathy and to offer the support of Russia in the war on terror. When the US was preparing to launch the invasion of Afghanistan, Putin said, “Russia will continue to provide intelligence information we have collected on the infrastructure, location and training of international terrorists.” He also allowed and coordinated for the US the use of former Soviet military bases in central Asia. Until 2015, Russia generously gave the US and NATO allies access to Afghanistan through a vital transit route for military and non-lethal supplies.
On two occasions, Russian authorities warned the US government about the Tsarnaev brothers who were accused of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombings.
When the US and UK governments were planning a lunatic invasion of Syria over the made-up story of Assad gassing his own people, it was not Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize winner) who prevented the US from leaping into yet another Iraq war disaster, it was Putin and Lavrov who gave Obama a way of getting out of his foolish “red line” promise. It was Putin and Lavrov who saved American and British kids from getting plunged into the chaos of the Syrian Civil War.
And now Russia is joining Assad in the fight against ISIS in Syria. This means that Russian soldiers are now putting their lives at risk instead of Americans. Isn’t this worth our gratitude?
11. Putin never said that he wants to bring back the Soviet Union. Here’s what he said:
“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
“Anyone who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.”
12. Syria, Ukraine, and Crimea are all of vital national security interest to Russia. Russia has close ties to Assad and has a naval base in Syria, as well as in Crimea. The United States may have some security or economic interests in Syria, but is currently unwelcomed there. The United States has countless military bases all over the world. Ukraine and Crimea represent no national security interests for the United States.
13. The US strategy in Syria has been muddle-headed (at best) and doomed to failure from the beginning. This is due in large part to the unwillingness of the US government to work with Assad. Instead, the US has adopted the hopeless strategy of working with so-called moderate rebels to overthrow Assad while at the same time fighting terrorist groups who also seek to overthrow Assad. The worst-kept secret in the world is that these “moderate” rebels have been working with ISIS to overthrow Assad all along. As pointed out by Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif in an interview with Charlie Rose, the US government didn’t care about ISIS until they started attacking Iraq. Before that, the US was content to sit back and watch ISIS attack the Syrian government.
Now, after over a year of fighting ISIS, the US and NATO allies have achieved practically nothing.
In spite of this, we still have people like David Ignatius, one of the US State Dept. mouthpieces at The Washington Post, saying that the Pentagon needs to find a more secretive way to work with al Qaeda in Syria: “The Pentagon needs to assess immediately why this overt, U.S.-backed program failed so badly, and whether it can be rebuilt. A better bet may be the CIA’s covert training program, whose fighters can make tactical battlefield deals with Jabhat al-Nusra without publicly allying with it.”
By working with the government of Syria and refusing to work with any terrorist groups, Russia has a much better chance of eliminating the threat of ISIS and alleviating the refugee crisis in Europe. This should be cause for celebration everywhere.
14. Everyone, starting with the United States, should be happy that Russia is fighting terrorists in Syria, but instead they whine, criticize, and even threaten military retaliation against Russia!
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov: “One would think the world should applaud, but then we have US and the West worrying about ISIL losses. Yesterday they said it was evil, yet as soon as Russian aviation started conducting airstrikes, they suddenly condemn bombings and call for taking measures against Russia. But there’s the nation behind our army, and nobody cares about the West’s whining.”
Among the lunatics in the US who have actually called for military action against Russia to protect our so-called “assets” in Syria, we have: Presidential candidates Carly Fiorina and Senator Marco Rubio, career Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Senator John McCain. I submit to you that these people are traitors to the real national security interests of the United States. These fascist lunatics talk about “standing up to Russia” and protecting our “assets” in Syria, but nobody wants to call it what it really would be: World War III. We have no assets in Syria worth that! We need to get our ASSETS out of Syria now if they’re so important, and anyway, didn’t we already say NO several times to “intervention” in Syria?
15. Obama’s (now former) ISIS Czar General John Allen conducted the “fight” against ISIS by doing everything possible to undermine the main enemy of ISIS – Assad. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has employed the same strategy by working to overthrow Assad, bombing ISIS a little from time to time, bombing the Kurds (true enemies of ISIS and effective fighters as well) a lot, and refusing to seal the Syria-Turkey border, allowing ISIS terrorists in and out of Syria. Erdogan’s daughter even runs a covert hospital to treat wounded ISIS terrorists!
15. Globalization (including the Washington Consensus and global free trade policies with America as the world policeman) has been an unmitigated disaster for the entire world, including the United States.
The unipolar world led by the United States as the lone superpower (otherwise known as the world police) has not led to a golden age of universal democracy and freedom and the free market utopia promised in the post-USSR 90s. It has led instead to a world of brutal IMF-style austerity, out-of-control speculation and toxic derivatives markets, the absolute rule of finance capitalism in place of industrial capitalism, a Wall Street / military-industrial-complex oligarchy with an utterly subservient, toothless political class to do their bidding (lest the Too-Big-To-Fails fail and the apocalypse ensues, bringing, so they say, death, destruction, anarchy and martial law), seemingly endless wars (not of conquest of land, but of the vital assets and resources of nations), nation-building (doublespeak for attacking nations), CIA-backed color revolutions and uprisings (the disastrous Arab Spring, the Euromaidan in Kiev), speculation-driven financial warfare on nations such as Greece (followed of course by demands for ruthless, barbaric austerity), and low-wage, rip-off, monetarist economies in place of the high-wage, productive labor-oriented economies of the past, just to name a few glorious triumphs of the globalized / free trade world. The living standards of the lower and middle classes have declined throughout Europe and America, while the wealthiest of the wealthy, the one percent of the one percent, have acquired ungodly, incalculable wealth, expanding the gap between the rich and the poor to unprecedented levels. Borders open up everywhere, first world jobs are lost, third world sweat shops thrive, profits roll in, bankers rejoice, the jobless recovery is trumpeted from the mountaintops, and Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” gets louder and louder year after year.
The return to a multipolar world will not solve all of these problems, nor will socialism, or communism, or Bernie Sanders, or anything we can imagine. Jeremy Corbyn can’t save us and neither can Putin. But as Russia takes back their rightful place as a global power, along with China and the BRICS nations, what we can now hope for is the beginning of the end of Francis Fukuyama’s prophesied pseudo-Hegelian “End of History” American style – the ultimate and utter triumph of “Washington Consensus” liberal democracy, small (and feckless) government dominated by multi-national corporations and cocaine-addicted Wall Street speculators, and at the very least we can hope for an end to the nightmare of the lunatic “Wolfowitz Doctrine” neocon wars to spread democracy and topple governments around the world without any meaningful dissent. As Peter Lavelle put it, “Finally we are witnessing the first steps beyond the post-Cold War order – and praise God for this!” Since the neolibs and neocons couldn’t care less what the people think about all of this, we should all welcome Vladimir Putin’s insistent NYET, and we should all be asking our leaders the same question Putin put to them at the UN General Assembly:
Consistent with earlier analyses, most people who have tragically lost their lives in Syria are not civilians, but rather active combatants. This is worth bearing in mind when U.S. senators repeat the inaccurate statement that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has “massacred” 200,000 of his own people.
It’s too late for Ukraine to take this advice, but not too late for Russia. Maybe it’s not too late for Americans and Europeans to wise up?
Head of Stratfor, ‘Private CIA,’ Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was ‘The Most Blatant Coup in History’
George Friedman, who is the Founder and CEO of Stratfor, the ‘Shadow CIA’ firm, says of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych that occurred on February 22nd of 2014: “It really was the most blatant coup in history.” Friedman further says that “The Russian authorities can not tolerate a situation in which western armed forces will be [in Ukraine] a hundred kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh [in Russia]”, and that the goal of the U.S. is to “maintain the balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party,” which he says is Europe. He furthermore says, “The United States considers the most dangerous potential alliance to be between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.”
Stratfor – Ukraine Coup Plotted by US Over Russian Stance on Syria:
The head of Stratfor… insisted that Russia’s involvement in Syria was not the only reason for the Ukrainian crisis. However, many in Washington started to perceive Russia as a problem, the expert told the newspaper, adding that at that time the US decided to divert Russia’s attention away from the Middle East.
For those among us who are still confused about recent events in Ukraine, it is absolutely essential to read up on Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997
Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.” The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be “unapologetic” in perpetuating “America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.” Brzezinski delved into the importance of little known Ukraine by explaining in his 1997 book, “Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.” “Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination.
Brzezinski Clan Color Revolution vs Diebold Vote Fraud In New Hampshire, by Webster G. Tarpley:
It is widely recognized that Zbig has provided the playbook for Obama. David Ignatius made this relationship clear enough in his review of Second Chance in the Washington Post when he wrote: “The most intriguing part of Brzezinski’s book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (He doesn’t call it that, but I don’t think he would quarrel with that characterization, either.) Brzezinski argues that the world is undergoing a “global political awakening,” which is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet. Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It’s about dignity.” (March 14, 2007) Zbig’s brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanization, and the creation of a weak petty state for each ethnic minority starting with Kosovo and Chechenia. This is the mine of neo-Wilsonian demagogy that an Obama administration will exploit in the service not of peace but of US world domination and encirclement of Russia.
What would the United States do if a hypothetical Russian Empire were to incorporate Mexico or Canada into a military alliance? To ask the question is to answer it. Why is it so difficult to understand that the best way to start a war is to threaten a country’s vital interests?
The endgame is to weaken the Russian Federation, undermine its institutions, impoverish its population. Meanwhile, the US Congress has passed enabling legislation which provides a de facto green light to president Obama to declare war on Russia. Reports have also confirmed that Washington is contemplating “regime change” in the Russian Federation with a view to installing a more compliant government in the Kremlin.
According to President Vladimir Putin: “We see the tragic consequences of the so-called color revolutions and ordeals survived by the peoples of the states that faced these irresponsible experiments of covert and sometimes even… overt interference into their lives… This is a lesson and warning for us and we will do everything possible to prevent this from happening in Russia.”
The whole thing is quite clear: the deployment of NATO’s forces around Russia was a preventive measure. If Russia’s reaction is to be defensive, it means that it is planning to restore its empire and totalitarianism.
Ukraine And Its Position on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard:
The choices provided to Russia by Brzezinski’s philosophy are between total fealty to the European Soviet and total irrelevance. No self-respecting nation would choose either of these two options for its future and this is a fact that Brzezinski is undoubtedly aware of. Thus, it is clear that the Russians are being faced with the non-choice that is the Brzezinski doctrine, a philosophy that, when put into practice, makes conflict virtually inevitable.
Could we even see a Siberian Spring in the next year or two? That would fit in very well with the Brzezinski Plan, so don’t be surprised.
US Attempted Color Revolution in Russia?:
Russia is mindful of America’s intentions. Putin blamed illegal sanctions and manipulated oil prices for Russia’s economic woes. “They will always try to chain the bear,” he said. “And once it’s chained, they’ll rip out its teeth and claws.” “They’ll stuff it. And start to put their hands on its Taiga (Siberian forest belt). We’ve heard statements from Western officials that Russia owning Siberia (isn’t) fair.”
Color Revolution – coming soon to a theater near you in Moscow?
How will the color revolution come to Moscow? It’s probably already underway in the form of Alexei Navalny’s Tea Party-style anti-corruption campaign, targeting yuppies, hipsters, neo-libs, techies, and “office plankton”:
Kremlin critic Navalny: To Moscow via Yale
The 37-year old blogger is the first Russian opposition figure who was partly educated in the US. Running for mayor is the high point of his political career thus far. “The Yale World Fellows Program is extremely proud” to have Navalny as one of their alumni, Cappello told DW. The US university supports Navalny’s hopes to foster democracy in Russia.
Incubator for future leaders
In August 2010, Navalny went for four months from Moscow to New Haven, Connecticut. At that time, he already was a famous Internet activist. The scholarship for Yale was a stroke of luck, he wrote in his blog. “There are said to have been around 1000 applicants for 15 places.” But it’s not only luck – his Yale grant also came thanks to recommendations from former chess world champion and turned opposition activist Gari Kasparov.
The Yale World Fellows Program has existed since 2001 and offers courses in philosophy, world politics and economy. It sees itself as an incubator for global leaders. The candidates are selected from a pool of successful politicians, businessmen and journalists around the world – people “whose biggest achievements are yet to come,” explains Cappello. Former Yale graduates like Berlin politician Sergei Lagodinsky confirm that Navalny fits that description. “You had the immediate feeling that he could become a leader of the opposition,” Lagodinsky told DW.
While others would try to brag about their stint at an Ivy League university, Navalny doesn’t make much of a fuss about it. In the CV he’s handing out as part of the Moscow campaign, the time in the US isn’t even mentioned. Navalny wants to avoid being branded as a pro-Western candidate.
Alexei Navalny – the next hero of democracy? “He’d make an excellent Fox News pundit if he added flamboyancy to his abrasiveness.”
Exploring the possibility of a ‘Russian Maidan’
The political front that will take to Russia’s streets has already long been identified. It includes the same brand of extreme “nationalists” and ultra-right groups seen overrunning Ukraine’s political order. This includes literal Neo-Nazis. One of the prevailing figures among Russia’s ultra-right is US-backed Alexey Navalny – billed by the West as an “anti-corruption activist,” who is in all reality a neo-fascist operating openly in the service of Wall Street.
Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states: Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders… Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement…
The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is a US State Department National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fund recipient, implicating Alexey Navalny as an agent of US-funded sedition. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list DA! among many of the “youth movements” they support operating in Russia…
That this funding is nowhere on NED’s official website indicates that full disclosures are not being made and that NED is engaged in clandestine funding.
Navalny is a right-wing populist. No doubt. But I would submit he’s more of an American variety than a European facsimile. His xenophobia comes with an anti-elitist élan tinged with a libertarian distrust of big government. If Navalny ran in a US election, he’d find common cause with the Tea Party. He’d make an excellent Fox News pundit if he added flamboyancy to his abrasiveness.
Ukrainian ‘Protesters’ Backed by KONY 2012-style Scam:
The video, entitled I am a Ukrainian, already has over 3 million views. It features an attractive woman insistently claiming that the Ukrainian uprising is solely about freedom and democracy.
The origins of the video are not quite as ‘grass roots’ as is portrayed. The clip was produced by the team behind A Whisper to a Roar, a documentary about the “fight for democracy” all over the world, which was funded by Prince Moulay Hicham of Morocco. The “inspiration” behind the documentary was none other than Larry Diamond, a Council on Foreign Relations member. The Council on Foreign Relations is considered to be America’s “most influential foreign-policy think tank” and has deep connections with the U.S. State Department. Diamond has also worked closely with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The National Endowment for Democracy is considered to be the CIA’s “civilian arm” and has been deeply embroiled in innumerable instigated uprisings, attempted coups and acts of neo-colonial regime change since its creation in 1983, including the contrived 2004 “Orange Revolution” that brought US puppet Viktor Yushchenko to power in Ukraine. Larry Diamond also played an instrumental role in the Arab Spring under the auspices of the NED, a series of supposedly grass roots revolts that were in fact organized and managed by some of the most powerful western institutions on the planet.
Lavrov says he has reasons to believe US sanctions aim at Russia regime change:
December 16, 2014 – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday he has serious reasons to believe that the United States is attempting to change the regime and destabilize the situation in Russia with the help of sanctions. “Some politicians don’t even hide it,” Lavrov said. “Of course sanctions hurt, but I don’t believe the sanctions will help the European Union. The United States ordered the EU to impose sanctions and frankly we have overestimated the independence of the European Union (from the US),” the minister said. Lavrov said sanctions could not be considered an “instrument of serious policies.” “Sanctions are a sign of irritation,” he said. Russia will overcome the West’s sanctions, which will only make the country stronger, Lavrov said on Tuesday. “Russia will not only survive but will come out much stronger,” Lavrov said in an interview with France 24 TV channel. “We have been in much worse situations in our history and every time we have got out of our fix much stronger,” he said.
Sergey Lavrov interview with France 24:
Regime Change: NPR is National Public Radio, or National Pentagon Radio?
NPR Propagandizes Against Putin, for Regime-Change in Russia:
Open Russia was launched by Mikhail Khodorkovsky during an online conference held on September 20, 2014.
Open Russia today is about bringing together citizens living both inside and outside of Russia, who share the European values of a strong, dynamic, and forward-looking state founded upon effective democratic institutions and the rule of law. Open Russia will enable these citizens to communicate and work together, to make their voices heard, and to mobilise effectively in the cause of common interests and goals.
Citizens “who share European values”? That sounds a little like Euromaidan – they talk about change, democracy, European values, working together and making your voice heard, and fighting corruption, but have no real program for economic prosperity.
But Open Russia also sounds like something else: the Open Society of George Soros!
George Soros is the founder and chairman of Open Society—a network of foundations, partners, and projects in more than 100 countries.
With his new billions in effect stolen from the Russian people, he made some powerful friends. He set up a foundation modeled on US billionaire George Soros’ Open Society, calling it the Open Russia Foundation. He invited two powerful Westerners to its board—Henry Kissinger and Jacob Lord Rothschild.
Here’s Conchita Wurst, another would-be color revolution operative, who has asked to meet with Vladimir Putin. It probably won’t help that she’s holding up a “Euro-Manezhka” sign! Manege Square is adjacent to Red Square in Moscow.
But notice the location of the Euro-Manezhka Twitter account! Hint: it’s not in Russia:
Ukrainians could get visa-free regime for EU Schengen zone by May 2015:
Success at last! That’s all the Maidan kids wanted anyway, right? To flush Ukraine down the IMF toilet, get the hell out and never come back? Sorry about your pension, grandma, but I’ve got a job interview at Starbucks in Berlin!
The Ruble Crisis of December 2014 and Gloating Hyenas:
As the ruble slides, many pundits point to Western sanctions as the cause. This is pure fantasy! The main reason is the falling price of oil. And where should we look for the cause of this? Let’s go back to last year and look at Putin’s support of Assad in the face of Western plans for invasion of Syria on the ridiculous pretext that Assad gassed his own people in a chemical weapon attack. Many Western leaders, especially in London and in the US State Department, were annoyed with Putin and his support of Assad, but only one person actually visited Moscow to threaten Putin in person if he wouldn’t back down: Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar! At the time, he issued thinly veiled threats of terrorist attacks at the upcoming Sochi Olympics, but are we now seeing Prince Bandar’s threats manifesting themselves in the form of plunging oil prices?
See World Crisis Radio for a discussion of this issue among others:
McCain – Saudis troubled Russia not Obama:
“It has nothing to do with any action taken by the President of the United States,” [the] Arizona senator said…
Prince Bandar threatens Putin with Chechen terror attacks:
According to a diplomatic leak detailing the Bandar-Putin meeting in Moscow on July 31, Bandar suggested that Putin’s agreement to abandon the government of Bashar al-Assad would lead Saudi Arabia to restrain its Chechen terrorist clients who have been attacking Russia targets for years. Putin reportedly grew furious, interpreting Bandar’s offer as a warning that the Sochi games would be threatened by terrorism if Putin didn’t comply, according to opednews.com website.
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria:
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. “We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
Keep in mind – so far, actual prices within Russia haven’t gone up so much (certainly not matching the plunge in the ruble-dollar rate) which reminds me of the obviously manipulated price of silver and gold right now. $17 for an ounce of silver? Sure! Too bad nobody’s dumb enough to sell at that price. The other thing – the ruble has already stabilized somewhat. Now if Russia can put a stop to any new hot money attacks from abroad (ahem, George “I didn’t even know what a credit-default swap was” Soros) then I think this will pass and the big Washington Post “gloat-over-Russian-misery” party will have to be postponed.
Washington Post: Russians are doomed this time, don’t you think, Lee Corso?
Panchi Belaunde: It looks like a massacre. If you listen to conventional financial news, they’ll all tell you that you’d have to be insane to own anything in Russia right now—stocks, bonds, currency, etc. They’ll tell you that the ruble is in freefall, and that the dollar is the place to be. Appearances are deceiving but the numbers [are] not. As with any bank, one of the most important metrics in determining a central bank’s financial health is its level of solvency. Specifically we look at the bank’s capital (i.e. net assets) as a percentage of its total balance sheet. The US Federal Reserve only has a basic capital ratio of 1.26%. Talk about razor thin. (This is down from 4.5% just a few years ago). That means if the value of the Fed’s assets declines by only 1.26%, the issuer of the world’s dominant reserve currency becomes insolvent. On the other hand, the Russian central bank’s ratio is 12.5%—literally almost ten times greater than the Fed. Capital cushion is crucial because when the unsuspected happens, this is what can help keep you afloat. Another important metric is gold. It’s important to see the amount of REAL ASSETS that a central bank holds in reserve. We look at a central bank’s GOLD reserves as a percentage of the money supply, i.e. how much gold backs the money supply. In Russia, it’s 6.2%. And rising. Last year it was 5.5%, and the central bank is continuing to heavily stockpile more. How much gold backs the dollar? Precisely zero point zero percent: Nothing. With no gold and pitifully razor thin solvency levels, it really wouldn’t take much of a shock to topple the dollar. By comparison, the ruble is much better capitalized and actually has something backing it.
Russia is not “losing their savings”, as Western corporate media gloats. Russia can always require foreign companies to relocate to Russia. Apple, for instance, may open a manufacturing plant in Russia. The recent Russia-China deals include the Chinese building factories in Russia. With a depreciated ruble, Russia is able to force manufacturing that might have been located in the EU to be located in Russia; otherwise these companies lose the market. Putin somewhat admitted that Russia should have been demanding this much earlier. The – positive – process is now inevitable. And then there’s a “nuclear” option – which Putin didn’t even have to mention. If Russia decides to impose capital controls and/or imposes a “holiday” on repayment of larger debt tranches coming due in early 2015, the European financial system will be bombed – Shock and Awe-style; after all, much of the Russian bank and corporate funding was underwritten in Europe.
Russian Roulette – Taxpayers Could Be on the Hook for Trillions in Oil Derivatives:
The sudden dramatic collapse in the price of oil appears to be an act of geopolitical warfare against Russia. The result could be trillions of dollars in oil derivative losses; and the FDIC could be liable, following repeal of key portions of the Dodd-Frank Act last weekend.
Whatever happened behind closed doors, we the people could again be stuck with the tab.
We Are Headed For A Major Dis-location And It Revolves Around The Dollar:
“How should the U.S. deal with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine? We should do to Russia what Ronald Reagan did to its predecessor, the old Soviet Union. We should drive them into bankruptcy by stabilizing the U.S. dollar.”
Forget ‘evil’ Putin – we are the bloodthirsty warmongers:
Stupid, ill-informed people nowadays like to compare Mr Putin with Hitler. I warn them and you that, if we succeed in overthrowing Mr Putin by unleashing hyper-inflation in Russia, we may find out what a Russian Hitler is really like. And that a war in Europe is anything but fun. So, as it’s almost Christmas, let us sing with some attention that bleakest and yet loveliest of carols, It Came Upon The Midnight Clear, stressing the lines that run ‘Man at war with man hears not the love song which they bring. Oh, hush the noise, ye men of strife, and hear the angels sing’.
Or gloat at your peril over the scenes of panic in Moscow.