Life in America: Baltimore campaigners call for 72 hour ‘ceasefire’

USA: ‘This is a war-torn city’ – Baltimore campaigners call for 72 hour ceasefire

Baltimore-based anti-violence campaigners announced a 72 hour civilian ceasefire in Baltimore, Friday, dubbed “Nobody Kill Anybody”. The ceasefire is to begin on August 4 and will run until August 6.

Professional conflict mediator Erricka Bridgeford together with local activist Ogun Gordy launched the initiative asking citizens to refrain from using guns. Ogun stressed, “Baltimore currently is a warzone, and it’s daily, and we are tired of it.” They hope that their movement will spread and spark a conversation on gun violence in the city.

Residents hailed the initiative including activist Davon Neverdon, also known as PFK Boom, who formed the group “300 Gangstas” that attempts to reach out to the most dangerous people in the city. He stated, “This is a war torn city. Most people between the age of one and seven definitely have PTSD,” he stated.

Offering hope for Bridgeford’s campaign, PFK Boom said, “If I dont shoot my gun, that’s one person Erika got to believe in it.”

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

CIA Director Pompeo Admits Convincing Trump Over Disproven Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Global Research, July 16, 2017
Activist Post 15 July 2017

Ever since the tragic and stupid launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria by the United States took place in April, the entire incident has been represented as a one-man show by the corporate and even by the alternative media. The corporate press, which virtually never gives Trump a break on any issue real or imagined, was strangely approving of The Donald after his war crime while his detractors in the alternative media were presenting the act as that of a madman who is frighteningly close to the red button.

On June 25, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh released a bombshell article revealing a number of facets regarding the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria and the resulting volley of Tomahawk missiles fired by the United States at the al-Sha’aryat airbase in response. Hersh’s article provides the reader with what many of us already knew and wrote about at the time; i.e. that the Syrian military did not conduct a chemical weapons attack and that the United States was fully aware of that fact. Still, the U.S. government opted to use the attack as a justification for launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase that resulted in the deaths of Syrian soldiers, civilians, and children from the nearby village.

Hersh’s article shows that not all key personnel were on board with the decision to launch Tomahawk missiles at al-Sha’aryat or even of the whole Syria/Iraq mission. The article reveals real concerns amongst knowledgeable personnel that the Russians will not continue to act as the cooler heads and that Russia has long wanted peace in the region. Most notably, it reveals the fact that there is a “secret agenda” moving forward in regards to Syria, Iraq, and Russia. Hersh’s article also points to the President as the individual who made the decision to launch attacks in Syria, against the advice of the military and intelligence community. In fact, Hersh’s article makes the entire incident appear as if it were the Trump show from beginning to end.

While Hersh’s article provides valuable information, it is becoming more and more evident that what Hersh came across was either an intentional leak or, perhaps even more accurate, only part of the story.

I wrote at the time that what is most likely here is not the situation that Hersh presents. It is more likely that the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus colluded with their corporate media department and capitalized on this incident and Trump’s narcissism and perceived political necessity. It is more likely that “advisors” like Trump’s rabid Zionist son-in-law who has been given frightening levels of access to the President and the government in an official capacity as Trump’s senior advisor, simply told the President that launching missiles was what he was expected to do by the Deep State and Trump complied. Trump could also have been told by advisors that the story was already out and the narrative already accepted and therefore he had to do something to appease the pro-war leftists, Democrats, and Republicans.

In this regard, Hersh’s article is possibly a limited hangout operation, not on the part of Hersh, but on the part of the intelligence community who wish to do more damage to the President’s public support and his ability to act independently of the “deep state.” It is their ability to announce the tragic massive fraud of Khan Sheikhoun while looking like the level heads and the good guys of the situation. Trump, of course, comes off looking like the lone assassin, the lone madman so eaten up with narcissism that he is putting the country at risk. But while Trump is undeniably a narcissist and he is undeniably putting the country at risk, it is the fact that he is listening to and obeying the deep state apparatus that is the danger, not that he is ignoring them.

While most of the above is informed speculation, it is also put into proper historical context, not only in the Trump administration but also in the history of other administrations over the past several decades, most notably that of Kennedy and Nixon, neither of which point to a promising end for Trump.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo

Backing up my own suspicions is the current Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo. In a recent speech to the INSA Leadership Dinner on July 11, Pompeo was giving a typical dinner speech about the harrowing world of the intelligence community, how tough it is to have his position, the importance of it, etc. During the course of the speech, however, Pompeo let a very interesting tidbit slip. Pompeo said:

I got a call from the President one afternoon back in April. He wanted to talk about some disturbing images that were coming in from Syria. I’m sure you saw many of them yourselves—scenes of innocent civilians writhing in agony, the apparent victims of a chemical weapons attack.

The President had a very direct message for me: Find out what happened. So we immediately assembled a crack team of Agency experts. They began piecing together the evidence, working closely with some outstanding partners from across the Intelligence Community.

The next day the President called his cabinet together. As we sat down, he turned to me and asked what we had learned. I told him that the IC had concluded that a chemical weapon had indeed been used in the attack, and that it had been launched by the Syrian regime.

The President paused a moment and said: Pompeo, are you sure? I’ll admit that the question took my breath away. But I knew how solid the evidence was, and I was able to look him in the eye and say, Mr. President, we have high confidence in our assessment.

The President never looked back. Based on the Intelligence Community’s judgment, he made one of the most consequential decisions of his young administration, launching a strike against the very airfield where the attack originated.

So I can assure you that when it comes to having the confidence of the Commander in Chief, CIA and the Intelligence Community are in great shape.

In other words, Pompeo is directly contradicting Hersh’s sources, saying it was not Trump who led the show but the intelligence community. Of course, Trump, being President is ultimately responsible for making the wrong decision but notice that, according to Pompeo himself, Trump demanded answers as to whom committed the attack. It was the intelligence community that came back to the President with assurances Assad was responsible.

Obviously, given all of the evidence surrounding Khan Sheikhoun, the idea that Assad committed a chemical weapons attack is ludicrous. It simply did not happen. The United States has no evidence that the incident was what it claims and all of the evidence produced by the Syrians, Russians, and independent researchers points to the contrary, even toward the fact that the entire incident may have been planned to set up the Syrian government so as to provide justification for an attack on Syria by the United States.

So what Pompeo is admitting to is, at best, providing the President with faulty intelligence. However, we know from the Hersh leaks that the intelligence community was already well aware of the fact that the Syrian government did not commit a chemical weapons attack. With that in mind, it appears that Pompeo has admitted to lying to Trump regarding the guilty party in Khan Sheikhoun and the existence of chemical weapons. At the very least, he managed to create a paper trail that leads right to the door of the CIA.

Is anyone surprised?

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The OutcomeTurbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Featured image from Activist Post

بوتين ترامب: الحلول قبل نهاية العام؟

بوتين ترامب: الحلول قبل نهاية العام؟

يوليو 13, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– يقول المبعوث الأممي في سورية ستيفان دي ميستورا إنه متفائل بعد التفاهم الروسي الأميركي بالتوصل إلى تفاهم سياسي بين الحكومة والمعارضة في سورية قبل نهاية العام، ومضمون التفاهم كما نشرت جريدة «الحياة» التي تموّلها وتشغّلها السعودية، يقوم على تسليم أميركي ببقاء الرئيس السوري. ووزير الخارجية الأميركي متفائل بخطوات متدرّجة لإنهاء الأزمة الخليجية قبل نهاية العام، والمبعوث الأممي لليمن ومثله لليبيا متفائلان بالتوصل لتفاهمات قبل نهاية العام ووزير خارجية اليابان يتوقّع التوصل لتفاهم ينهي التصعيد حول الأزمة الكورية قبل نهاية العام ومثله وزير الخارجية الألماني يتوقع نهاية الإجراءات التنفيذية للأزمة في أوكرانيا مع نهاية العام.

– المسار العسكري في سورية والعراق يقول إنّ داعش يستحيل أن يصمد في الرقة ودير الزور والأنبار حتى نهاية العام. فبعد تحرير الموصل ظهر حجم قدرة التنظيم على الصمود، ووفقاً لتسارع تساقط مواقع داعش في سورية بيد الجيش السوري تبدو نهاية العام موعداً للأبعد مدى في عمر داعش. وهذا ما يعرفه مستشارو الرئيسين دونالد ترامب وفلاديمير بوتين قبل أن تتحرّر الموصل وقبل أن يجتمع الرئيسان، ليصير البحث بين الرئيسين مخصصاً لما بعد داعش وليس لكيفية القضاء على التنظيم، وكيف لا يتسبّب ما بعد داعش بتضارب المصالح. وفي الحسابات الأميركية لتضارب المصالح أولوية اسمها أمن «إسرائيل» تسبق أولوية البعض في أميركا حول حملة التصعيد لاتهام روسيا بالتدخل في الانتخابات وفوق الحسابات الأصغر التي تتمثل بالسعي لتقييد سلطات ترامب أو السعي لإسقاطه بهذه التهمة.

– حمل الرئيس بوتين الوصفة السحرية لترامب وقوامها، حيث يدخل الجيش السوري فاتحاً ومحرراً سيدخل معه حزب الله، وحيث تريدون ألا يكون حزب الله سلّموا طوعاً للجيش السوري، فحيث يدخل حزب الله لا يخرج ولا يمكن إخراجه، فإن كانت الحدود الجنوبية لسورية تعنيكم فسارعوا لتسليمها طوعاً للجيش السوري وإلا سيدخلها مقاتلاً ومعه حزب الله، وعندها لن يكون ممكناً الاشتراط لأيّ حلّ أن يخرج حزب الله، وهكذا بعبارات بوتين حقّق حزب الله ما يريد، أن يقبل الأميركيون بمشروعه الذي دخل الحرب السورية لفرضه، وهو سورية برئيسها وجيشها إطار لأيّ حلّ، وإلا فالحربُ بيننا.

– سائر الملفات عند الأميركيين تلتزم بالروزنامة التي يحرّكها ردّ الخطر الأكبر عن «إسرائيل» بالخطر الأصغر، كوريا وأوكرانيا عهدة روسية وسوق الغاز الروسية وعنوانها أزمة قطر وتسليم المعارضة السورية بحلّ في ظلّ الرئيس بشار الأسد. كلها ملفات يمكن تطويعها للروزنامة المتصلة بتخفيض حجم الخطر عن «إسرائيل»، فيصير موعد نهاية العام موعداً صنعته الحرب في سورية، حيث حزب الله سند للجيش السوري يتقدّمان معاً على حساب داعش ويقتربان من إنهائه في دير الزور قبل نهاية العام، وروسيا تدرك ما تستطيع وما تريد، وتدرك أنّ نهاية العام موعد مناسب لنهاية الأزمات إذا خَلُصت النيات، وتوفّرت الإرادات.

– تثبيت درع الحلول لحساب الرئيس السوري علامة على نصره، لأنه الصامد والمنتصر والبطل الذي لا نظير له، رسم لحلفائه خريطة الطريق، ولشعبه طرق النصر، وحسم بإرادته نهاية الحروب، فصار عنواناً لكلّ الحلول، كما كان العنوان لكلّ الحروب.

(Visited 703 times, 703 visits today)

Mosul Families Complain Overuse of Airstrikes Killed Thousands

Mosul Families Complain Overuse of Airstrikes Killed Thousands
Many bodies are still buried in the rubble with parts of the city inaccessible thanks to streets choked with debris, writes Patrick Cockburn in the latest of his series from Iraq

“There were very few Daesh [Isis fighters] in our neighbourhood, but they dropped a lot of bombs on them,” says Qais, 47, a resident of the al-Jadida district of Mosul. “We reckon that the airstrikes here killed between 600 and 1,000 people.”

He shows pictures on his phone of a house that had stood beside his own before it was hit by a bomb or missile that had reduced it to a heap of smashed-up bricks. “There were no Daesh in the house,” says Qais. But there were seven members of the Abu Imad family living there, of whom five were killed along with two passers-by.

People in west Mosul say that the intensity of the bombardment from the air was out of all proportion to the number of Isis fighters on the ground. Saad Amr, a volunteer medic, worked in both east and west Mosul during the nine-month siege. He says that “the airstrikes on east Mosul were fewer but more accurate, while on the west there were far more of them, but they were haphazard.”

Nobody knows how many civilians died in Mosul because many of the bodies are still buried under the rubble in 47 degrees heat. Asked to estimate how many people had been killed in his home district of al-Thawra, Saad Amr said: “we don’t know because houses were often full of an unknown number of displaced people from other parts of the city.”

Some districts are so badly damaged that it is impossible to reach them. We heard that there had been heavy airstrikes on the districts of Zanjily and Sahba and, from a distance, we could see broken roofs with floors hanging down like concrete flaps. But we could not get there in a car because the streets leading to them were choked with broke masonry and burned out cars.

Local people accuse the US-led coalition of massive overuse of force, though they agree that Isis forced people into houses in combat zones and murdered them if they tried to flee. The sighting of a single sniper on a roof, would lead to a whole building being destroyed along with the families inside them. A sign that Isis was not present in any numbers is that, while there are bombed out buildings in every street, there are surprisingly few bullet holes in the walls from automatic rifles or machine guns. In cities like Homs in Syria today or Beirut during the civil war, wherever there had been street fighting of any intensity, walls were always pock-marked with bullet holes.

The accusations of Mosul residents interviewed by The Independent are backed-up by an Amnesty International report called At Any Price: The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul. It says that civilians were subjected “to a terrifying barrage of fire from weapons that should never be used in densely populated civilian areas.” AI researchers interviewed 151 west Mosul residents, experts and analysts, and documented 45 attacks in total, which killed at least 426 civilians and injured more than 100. This was only a sample of thousands of air attacks on the city, some of which are still going on. Throughout the day in Mosul there has been the periodic thump of more bombs landing in the corner of the Old City still held by Isis.

Even where bombs hit their targets, they were often more likely to kill civilians than Isis fighters. For example, AI says that “on 17 March 2017 a US airstrike on the Mosul al-Jadida neighbourhood killed at least 105 civilians in order to neutralise two Isis snipers. Regardless of whether – as the US Department of Defense has maintained — secondary explosions occurred, it should have been clear to those responsible that the risk posed to civilians by using a 500lb bomb was clearly excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage.” This is the only such incident Mosul to be investigated by the US military, although the US say they always take precautions to reduce civilian casualties.

The Isis defended Mosul for nine months instead of the two months expected by the US military by adopting special tactics. Isis commanders relied heavily on snipers who would move swiftly from house to house. The three Iraqi government elite combat units, the Counter-Terrorism Service, Emergency Response Division and the Federal Police, that bore the brunt of the battle, had too few troops to fight house to house. When faced with resistance, they invariable called in air attacks.

The consequence of this was explained to AIby Mohamed from al-Tenak neighbourhood in west Mosul: “The strikes targeted the Isis snipers. A strike would destroy an entire house of two storeys.”

Civilian loss of life was so horrific in west Mosul because Isis was merciless in using civilians as human shields. Thousands were herded from their villages in the outskirts into the combat zones and shot or hanged if they tried to escape. Metal doors were welded shut and other exits booby trapped. Those who were caught escaping were hanged from electricity pylons. As Iraqi government forces advanced and Isis retreated, the civilians were squeezed into a smaller area where a single bomb would kill the large numbers of people crammed together.

Isis will be even further weakened after the loss of Mosul if fresh reports turn out to be true that its leader Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi was killed earlier in the year. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says that it has “confirmed information” that he is dead as the Russia’s Defence Ministry had claimed in June. It said that it might have killed him when one of its airstrikes hit a gathering of Isis commanders on the outskirts of the Syrian city of Raqqa.

“We have confirmed information from leaders, including one of the first rank who is Syrian, in the Islamic State in the eastern countryside of Deir al-Zor,” said Rami Abdulrahman, the director of the British-based group. The source did not say when or how Baghdadi had died.

This article was first published by The Independent –        

Pentagon secretly tested chemical weapons on US troops. Vets demand to know the cost

Pentagon Secretly Tested Chemical Weapons on US Troops. Vets Demand to Know the Cost

 

Russia Baiters and Putin Haters

Russia Baiters and Putin Haters

 by Patrick J. Buchanan

“Is Russia an enemy of the United States?” NBC’s Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, “Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug.”

To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered “treason.”

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.

Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?

“Why Russia is a Hostile Power” is the title of today’s editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city:

“Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy.”

Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet Union.

When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S. president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in 1945.

Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of “suicidal nationalism” for contemplating independence from Russia.

When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?

As for supporting “corruption over transparency,” ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.

As for favoring “repression over democracy,” would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?

The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia’s elites.

Yet China’s lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room. Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the dying man go.

Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don’t bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally — kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia.

What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst called “as bad as Hitler”?

During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most blood-soaked regime of the century.

When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.

Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War.

Putin’s Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.

Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.

Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med?

Russia has meddled in our election. And we have meddled in the affairs of half a dozen nations with “color-coded revolutions.” The cry of “regime change!” may daily be heard in the U.S. Capitol.

Putin is not Pope Francis. But he is not Stalin; he is not Hitler; he is not Mao; and Russia today is not the USSR. Putin is an autocrat cut from the same bolt of cloth as the Romanov czars.

His cooperation is crucial to the peace of the world, the freedom of the Baltic States, an end to the Syrian civil war, tranquility in the Persian Gulf, and solving the North Korean crisis.

While our tectonic plates may rub against one another, we are natural allies. The Russia of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and the Orthodox Church belongs with the West.

If America stumbles into a war with Russia that all our Cold War presidents avoided, the Russia baiters and Putin haters will be put in same circle of hell by history as the idiot war hawks of 1914 and the three blind men of Versailles in 1919.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

%d bloggers like this: