Crimea: Time for the US Administration to Read the Truth

Crimea: Time for the US Administration to Read the Truth

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey,

crimea

The approach towards the Crimea by the United States of America is as unfounded, unjust and illegal as the transfer of the Crimea by  Khrushchev from the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic to the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954, meaning that calls for the return of this part of Russian territory are based on ignorance.

There appears to be a great deal of confusion among the new US Administration headed by President Trump as to the Crimea question. Let us once and for all address the history and the legality of the issue and we shall conclude that Crimea is Russia, Crimea belongs to Russia and should according to international law remain so.

The decision by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics decided on February 19, 1954 to transfer the Province of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, in secret, without informing the population. The decree appeared only a week later on February 27 on the front page of Pravda newspaper, as follows:

“Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.

Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.”

The decision was illegal

The decision was illegal, firstly because the Presidium of the Supreme Council did not have the quorum necessary, seating only 13 of 27 members, so fewer that 50 per cent. Secondly, the decision violated the Constitution of the Russian SFSR and the Constitution of the USSR. According to the text signed on June 27 2015, Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Sabir Kehlerova Mironov of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation 

“Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution … provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR and for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet Union on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukraine SSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR.”

The decision was made before a constitutional change granted the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Advisory) Council under Articles 22 and 23 to carry out transfers of territories.

The legality of the current question

Let us imagine for a moment that the 1954 decision had been legal (which is was not). What happened in 2013 was that an illegal coup d’état removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovich). In the absence of the supreme representative of justice, according to the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, its Legislative Assembly now passed to be the body exercising legal force. It was this body which decided to hold a free and fair referendum, internationally observed and approved, on the status of the population of Crimea, which voted overwhelmingly to return to its rightful place, inside the Russian Federation.

There is no possible doubt on the issue, which is crystal clear. Crimea is Russia, end of story. Move on and move forward, or keep pressing the same key and cause a damaging stalemate in international relations.

And more: isn’t it about time the United States of America ceased sticking its nose into everyone’s business? There are better claims for Lakota and Aztlan to change their status than the Crimea. Suppose someone decided to start stirring up trouble over there and see how Washington likes it?
 

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor,  in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. 

He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru.

 

Better relations with Russia was the only positive about Trump’s campaign but that too seems to be a lost cause

Trump White House Under Mounting Pressure from Anti-Russia Campaign

By Patrick Martin,

Trump 3

The Trump White House is under increasing pressure from the anti-Russian campaign instigated by the intelligence agencies and spearheaded by the bulk of the corporate-controlled media, the Democratic Party and a section of the Republicans. Over the past several days, the first official action has been carried out by a congressional committee investigating claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 election campaign.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has sent letters to more than a dozen government agencies, organizations and individuals asking them to preserve all materials that may be relevant to the committee’s investigation. The letters were authorized by committee Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican, and the ranking Democrat, Mark Warner of Virginia.

The letters were sent after a two-hour classified briefing by FBI Director James Comey on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Senators left the hearing without divulging anything of what took place, but hours later, the request was dispatched for the preservation of documents on alleged Russian interference in the campaign and “related issues.”

The “related issues” reportedly include the allegations of “constant contact” during the campaign between Trump advisers and aides and Russian intelligence agents, first made in the New York Times last week and later in a broadcast by CNN. Neither report presented any actual evidence, citing only the claims of unnamed intelligence officials, who said they had monitored phone calls or reviewed telephone transcripts.

The letters from the Intelligence Committee came one day after Senate Democrats sent similar appeals to the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department and other federal agencies asking them to preserve any relevant materials. This letter, signed by all the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was sent to White House Counsel Donald McGahn, asking the administration to preserve “all materials related to contacts between the Trump organization, Trump campaign, Trump transition team, or Trump administration, or others acting on their behalf, and Russian government officials or associates.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, speaking on the floor of the Senate last week, warned, “There is real concern that some in the administration may try to cover up its ties to Russia by deleting emails, texts and other records that could shine a light on those connections.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chimed in: “I’m afraid they’re going to destroy the documents. But the fact that I would even say that, that level of trust has gone so far low in all of this.”

Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, sent their own letter to acting Director of National Intelligence Michael Dempsey requesting “a comprehensive intelligence briefing on Russia by February 28, 2017… This briefing should include information about former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials, and should also provide unredacted transcripts of any intercepted conversations or communications he had with Russian officials.”

Some congressional Democrats are raising the specter of treason charges against Trump or his aides. Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman and Iraq war veteran, said on CNN, “If members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia…that’s the definition of treason. This is a very, very serious affair.”

At the same time, Trump’s congressional defenders are pushing back against his opponents within the intelligence apparatus. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter Friday to the FBI asking it to investigate leaks of classified information to the media. He suggested that the leaks came from either career officials who oppose Trump’s policies or holdovers from the Obama administration. According to one press report, Nunes “believes that Trump is being targeted by the intelligence community. It’s an abuse of authority.”

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared on three Sunday television interview programs to denounce the media reports of “constant contact” between the Trump campaign and Russia as false and deliberately aimed at undermining the Trump administration.

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Priebus acknowledged receipt of the Senate Intelligence Committee letter and said the White House would cooperate with the request. “I know what they were told by the FBI,” he said, “because I’ve talked to the FBI. I know what they’re saying. I wouldn’t be on your show right now telling you that we’ve been assured that there’s nothing to the New York Times story if I actually wasn’t assured.”

He also said that no one at the White House except the now-fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI. Bureau agents interrogated Flynn about his telephone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration.

Significantly, all three television hosts who interviewed Priebus avoided raising the issue of the political motivation behind the intelligence agency leaks to the media that have fueled the anti-Russian campaign. Nor did Priebus raise the issue himself, even though Trump touched on it in his press conference Thursday, when he suggested that his opponents would praise him if he ordered a Russian spy ship blown up or otherwise took a more belligerent position towards Moscow.

The real driving force of the factional struggle within the US ruling elite is a conflict over foreign policy towards Russia. Dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus want to continue and intensify the campaign of sanctions, provocations and military buildup undertaken under the Obama administration, whose logical outcome would be a directly military confrontation between the United States and Russia, the possessors of the vast bulk of the world’s nuclear weapons. They view Trump’s foreign policy—if anything, even more militaristic than Obama’s, but targeting Iran and China first, rather than Russia—as undermining this war buildup.

The most strident voice on this issue is that of Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain gave an address Friday to the Munich Security Conference in Germany, where he warned that the solidarity of the Western imperialist powers against Russia faced its greatest challenge in half a century.

In an interview taped Saturday for broadcast on “Meet the Press,” McCain denounced Trump’s tweet Friday that branded the press as “the enemy of the American people.” A free press was needed to “preserve democracy as we know it,” McCain said. “And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.” While he added that he was not calling Trump a dictator, the implication was nonetheless clear.

In an interview and cover story in New York magazine, published this weekend, McCain elaborated on the anti-Russian campaign in the media. He claimed that the alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election was a grave threat to democracy. “I view it with the utmost seriousness,” he said. “I view it more seriously than a physical attack. I view it more seriously than Orlando or San Bernardino… As tragic as that was, the far-reaching consequences of an election hack are certainly far in excess of a single terrorist attack.”

The logical conclusion of such an analysis is that US imperialism should be even more aggressive in relation to Russia than it has been in relation to ISIS—a formula for military escalation against a nuclear-armed country with catastrophic consequences.

Putin’s “Straight Talk” on Disastrous US Unipolarity

Putin’s “Straight Talk” on Disastrous US Unipolarity

By Stephen Lendman,

Putin_with_flag_of_Russia

Annual Munich security conferences have been held since 1963. It’s the most important world forum on current and future security issues and challenges.

Numerous heads of state, other senior government officials, high-ranking military ones, along with business, media and other private sectors figures attend.

This year’s conference began Friday, continuing on Saturday. Sergey Lavrov will speak later today, presenting Russia’s views on international security, followed by a Q & A session.

Foreign ministers from Normandy contact group members Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine will discuss renewed conflict in Donbass on the sidelines of the conference.

Lavrov will also hold several bilateral meetings. On Friday, he met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. The US dominated alliance maintains adversarial relations with Russia.

Bilateral cooperation was suspended over Ukraine. Hostile policy toward Russia remains in place. Trump so far hasn’t changed things – other than express lip service intentions.

In February 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered a memorable straight talk address at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy.

“(S)ecurity for one is security for all,” he said, quoting Franklin Roosevelt at the onset of WW II, saying “(w)hen peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

Cold War thinking remains, he explained – at the same time denouncing unipolarity, saying “it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

…Russia – we – are are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.

He said Washington turned the OSCE “into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country.”

Powerful words not going down well in Washington or other Western capitals. Putin called unipolarity flawed, unacceptable in today’s world, creating global human tragedies and tensions.

Endless wars rage. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of (military) force,” a world of permanent conflicts, making political settlements difficult to impossible.

Fundamental principles of international law are violated, Putin explained, naming America as the world’s leading offender, leaving humanity unsafe.

Putin stressed the urgency to step back from the brink, reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, wage peace, not war.

He stressed the importance of multi-world polarity, warned against the militarization of space. He called NATO expansion “a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”

“(A)gainst whom is this expansion intended,” he asked? Russia seeks cooperative relations with all other countries, “a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all,” he concluded.

Since he spoke, Washington raped and destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen. It continued endless aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, along with partnering with three Israeli wars on Gaza and aiding Kiev putschists wage war on Donbass.

The world is less safe today than when he spoke. His warnings went unheeded. Bilateral relations with America are as fraught with dangers as at any time during the Cold War era.

The risk of nuclear war by design or accident remains real.

Syria’s “White Helmets” myths goes to Hollywood

Syria’s “White Helmets” Go to Hollywood

By Rick Sterling,

The netflix movie “The White Helmets” may win an Oscar in the “short documentary” category at the Academy Awards on Sunday February 26.  It will not be a surprise, despite the fact that the group is a fraud and the movie is an contrived infomercial.

The White Helmets are a “feel good” story like a Disney hero movie: 90% myth and fabrication. Most of what is claimed about the Syrian rescue group is untrue. They are not primarily Syrian; the group was initiated by British military contractor James LeMesurier and has been heavily funded by the USA, UK and other governments.

They are not volunteers; they are paid. This is confirmed in the Al Jazeera video which shows some White Helmet “volunteers’ talking about going on strike if they don’t get paid soon. Most of the heavy funding goes to the marketing which is run by “The Syria Campaign” based in New York. The manager is an Irish America woman Anna Nolan who has never been to Syria. As an example of its deception, “The Syria Campaign” website features video showing children dancing and playing soccer implying they are part of the opposition demand for a “free and peaceful” Syria . But the video images are taken from a 2010 BBC documentary about education in Syria under the Baath government.

When eastern Aleppo was finally freed from the armed militants, it was discovered that the White Helmets headquarters were alongside the headquarters of the Al Qaeda Syrian militant group. Civilians from east Aleppo reported that the White Helmets primarily responded when the militants were attacked. Soon after departing Aleppo in government supplied buses (!) the White Helmets showed up in the mountains above Damascus where they allied with terrorist groups in poisoning then shutting off the water source for five million people in Damascus.

The White Helmets’ claim to be neutral and independent is another lie. They only work in areas controlled by the rebel groups, primarily Nusra/ Al Qaeda.  Their leaders actively call for US and NATO intervention in Syria. Video shows White Helmet workers picking up the corpse of a civilian after execution and celebrating Nusra / Al Qaeda terrorist battle wins.

The movie is as fraudulent as the group it tries to heroize.

The film-makers never set foot in Syria. Their video footage takes place in southern Turkey where they show White Helmet trainees in a hotel and talking on cell phones. Thrilling. There is some footage from inside Syria but it looks contrived.  The opening scene depicts a White Helmet “volunteer” going to work and beseeching his son not to give mommy a hard time. Real or scripted?

The message is simple: here are people we can support; they are under attack by the brutal “regime”…shouldn’t we “do something” to stop it??!

Khaled Khatib is said to be the person who filmed the footage from inside Syria. He has reportedly received a US visa and will attend the Oscars. This will likely garner special media attention. Ironically, some of those who have exploited the refugee issue for their own fund-raising campaigns, like Human Rights Watch, are groups which promote the war which created the refugee crisis.

Khatib has tweeted the first video he took showing the White Helmets. It looks remarkably unrealistic, with a girl who was totally buried being removed without injuries or wounds or even much dirt. Is it really possible to rescue people that quickly? In the real world, rescue workers are told to work slowly so as to not damage or exacerbate body injuries. The original video has the logo of Aleppo Media Center (AMC) which was created by the Syrian Expatriates Organization.  Their address on K Street in Washington DC suggests this is yet another Western funded media campaign driven by political objectives.

In the past few days, with perfect timing for the upcoming Oscars, there is yet another “miracle” rescue …. another girl totally buried but then removed and whisked away in record breaking time – perfect for social media.  Is it real or is it contrived?

This raises a question regarding the integrity of the Oscar Academy Awards. Are awards given for actual quality, authenticity, skill and passion?  Or are Oscar awards sometimes given under political and financial influence?  There is political motivation to promote the White Helmets as part of the effort to prevent the collapse of the Western/Israeli/Gulf campaign to overthrow the Syrian government.

These same governments have given boatloads of money to fuel the propaganda campaign. Last week Syria Solidarity Movement reached out to three marketing firms in the LA area to request help challenging the White Helmets nomination.  Two of the firms declined and the third said they were already being paid to promote the nomination!

The true source and purpose of the White Helmets was exposed almost two years ago. More recently Vanessa Beeley has documented the fact there is a REAL Syrian Civil Defence which was begun in the 1950’s and is a member of the International Civil Defense Organizations. This organization is opposite to the group created in Turkey in 2013. According to on-the-ground interviews in Aleppo, terrorists began by killing real Syrian rescue workers and stealing their equipment.  Since then the White Helmets have been supplied, by the West through Turkey, with brand new ambulances and related rescue equipment.

Max Blumenthal has written a two part detailed examination of the “shadowy PR firm” behind the “White Helmets”. And Jan Oberg has written an overview survey of the “pro” and “con” examinations in his work “Just How Gray are the White Helmets”.

Yet mainstream media, and some ‘alternative’ media, continue to uncritically promote the myth of the “White Helmets”. The promoters of the group absolutely deserve an award for marketing and advertising.  This is a field where truth and reality is irrelevant; it’s all about sales and manipulation. On that basis, the “White Helmets” has been an incredible success. The group was started as “Syria Civil Defense”  in Turkey in 2013.

It was re-branded as the “White Helmets” in 2014. It was heavily used in 2014 and 2015 by Nicholas Krisof, Avaaz and others to campaign for all out aggression against Syria.  In 2016 the group received the Rights Livelihood Award and was seriously considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.  These facts show how corrupt and politically and financially influenced the Rights Livelihood Award and Nobel Peace Prize can be.

The White Helmets movie is a tactic in the ongoing campaign of distortion and deception around Syria.  It’s a fraud, just like the fake kidnapping of NBC reporter Richard Engel. The Oscars will be a demonstration of the integrity of the Academy Awards.  The reporting on the story will be a test of the integrity and accuracy of media outlets. Ironically, the Israeli mainstream TV program I24 presented both sides and titled the segment “White Helmets: Heroes or Hoax?”.  In contrast, the highly popular and widely respected DemocracyNow has  only broadcast a puff piece promoting the “White Helmet” disinformation.  The coming days will reveal more about the ongoing information war against Syria.  Meanwhile on online petition continues to gather signatures to NOT give the Oscar to the White Helmets deception.

 

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at rsterling1@gmail.com

 

Nikki Haley Calls Apartheid Israel ‘the one true democracy in the Middle East’

Out of all of Trump’s appointees, Nikkie Haley is probably one of the worst. Formerly a governor of South Carolina, Haley is the current US ambassador to the United Nations. That’s her in the video above giving a presentation at the UN last Thursday.

I’m not sure how much Haley knows about international law. According to Wikipedia, she graduated from Clemson University with a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting. How she ended up as UN ambassador, after criticizing Trump in the general election, is unclear. *

At any rate, Haley seems fully unaware that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Nor does she seem to comprehend why other UN-member states might press for resolutions seeking to call Israel to account, both for its settlements as well as its 50-year occupation of the West Bank–land universally recognized as necessary for a Palestinian state. So perhaps she is simply uninformed and does not understand the nature of Israel’s occupation or its devastating impact upon the lives of those forced to live under it. Or at least that’s one possibility.

The other possibility, of course, is that Haley does understand these things…and that she simply believes Israel is exceptional and should not have to follow the same laws and international standards that apply to other states. If so, apparently in Israel are those who would agree with her. Less than a week after her talk at the UN–in which she accused the body of a “prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues”–an Israeli military court handed down an 18-month sentence to an Israeli soldier who carried out an execution-style slaying of a wounded Palestinian in March of last year. There was no doubt the soldier was the one who pulled the trigger. The shooting was captured live on video. The sentence of 18 months he received for killing a Palestinian is lighter than what Palestinian children are often given for throwing stones.

* Incredibly, Haley also voiced criticism of Trump–over his stance on Russia–during her congressional confirmation hearings back in January. At that time she accused Russia of “war crimes,” and said, “They (the Russians) have done some terrible atrocities.”

National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex’ Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, “Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser,” would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will – verbatim – repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise – and have devised for decades – US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies – funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel – General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS’ YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of “invading Ukraine” and China of  “challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power.” When describing China’s “challenging” of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea – quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to “US interest” abroad – not US national security itself – by challenging the post World War 2 international order – an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.

He predictably lists North Korea and Iran as threats to the US as well, despite neither nation attacking the US nor possessing a desire or capability to do so. He accuses Iran in particular of “fighting a proxy war against us since 1979,” referring to when Iranians finally, successfully overthrew the US-installed and buttressed brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.

General McMaster accuses Iran of “building militias” beyond the control of Middle Eastern governments to both support them but also to use as leverage against them – not unlike what the US has done both through occupation forces deployed across the region and state sponsored terror groups armed, funded, trained, and directed by the US and its Persian Gulf allies everywhere from North Africa to the Middle Eastern nations of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

During his 2016, McMaster then moved on to address the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS). He presents a slide of ISIS’ territorial holdings clearly depicting supply lines running directly out of NATO-member Turkey, leading deep into Syria and Iraq, with a lesser line emanating out of US-ally Jordan. He makes no mention of the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity, depicting the conflict in the similarly cartoonish manner US-European media presents it to the general public.

General McMaster presents to his audience a defense strategy based on “deterrence by denial, and deterrence at the frontier to ratchet up the cost [for] potential adversaries at the frontier,” referring to regions of the planet thousands of miles from US shores where the US seeks to either maintain or reassert it power and influence, or to project its power into regions hitherto independent of Wall Street and Washington’s influence.

Seamless Continuity of Agenda 

President Trump’s pick of General McMaster as National Security Adviser ensures that national security remains dominated by the corporate-financier funded think tanks that have devised, determined, and dominated US foreign policy for decades. Policy papers General McMaster repeatedly cites in every talk he gives, at one corporate-financier funded think tank after another, are the products of these very think tanks.

That General McMaster identifies Russia, China, and Iran as “threats” to the United States, not because they seek to harm the US within its territory or within any logical proximal sphere of influence, but simply for attempting to secure their own respective proximal spheres of influence from systematic and overt US subversion, influence, and encirclement, means a continuation of the destructive global spanning warfare seen under the administrations of numerous other presidents, including Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and even Carter.

While the United States poses as a “democratic” nation, driven by the interests of its people, it is apparent that special interests on Wall Street and in Washington have a singular agenda that transcends both the presidents the people “elect,” and the policies they believe they elected these presidents to carry out. That President Trump’s supporters labor under the delusion that he will roll back US aggression and regime change worldwide, only to put in place General McMaster as his National Security Adviser – a man who openly and repeatedly supports the pursuit of American global hegemony – indicates that yet again the people have been deceived and that this singular agenda will move forward unabated.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

USA “democracy”. The people choose President & then the DeepState moves in to dictate policy. Same thing happened with Obama

The War Hawks Rolled Donald Trump

SEE ALSO Behind the Headlines: Illusion of democracy: Trump powerless against the Deep State?

President Trump’s first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn got kicked out of office for talking with Russian officials. Such talks were completely inline with Trump’s declared policies of détente with Russia. (I agree that Flynn should have never gotten the NSA job. But the reasons for that have nothing to do with his Russian connections.)

Allegedly Flynn did not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason. The talks were rather informal, they were not transcribed. The first call is said to have reached Flynn on vacation in the Dominican Republic. Why would a Vice-President need to know each and every word of it?

With Flynn out, the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the “serious people” in Washington DC, had the second most important person out of the way that would probably hinder their plans.

They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk:

In a 2016 speech to the Virginia Military Institute, McMaster stressed the need for the US to have “strategic vision” in its fight against “hostile revisionist powers” — such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran — that “annex territory, intimidate our allies, develop nuclear weapons, and use proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.”

General McMaster, the new National Security Advisor, gets sold as a somewhat rebellious, scholar-warrior wunderkind. When the now disgraced former General Petraeus came into sight he was sold with the same marketing profile.

Petraeus was McMaster’s boss. McMaster is partially his creature:

He was passed over for brigadier general twice, until then-Gen. David Petraeus personally flew back to Washington, D.C., from Iraq to chair the Army’s promotion board in 2008.

When Petraeus took over in the war on Afghanistan he selected McMaster as his staff leader for strategy,

McMaster was peddled to the White House by Senator Tom Cotton, one of the most outlandish Republican neocon war hawks.

McMaster’s best known book is “Dereliction of Duty” about the way the U.S. involved itself into the Vietnam War. McMaster criticizes the Generals of that time for not having resisted then President Johnson’s policies.

He is the main author of an Army study on how to militarily counter Russia. McMaster is likely to “resist” when President Trump orders him to pursue better relations with Moscow.

Trump has now been boxed in by hawkish, anti-Russian military in his cabinet and by a hawkish Vice-President. The only ally he still may have in the White House is his consigliere Steve Bannon. The next onslaught of the “serious people” is against Bennon and especially against his role in the NSC. It will only recede when he is fired.

It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic development and have a strategy against it.

 

%d bloggers like this: