The death of Kissinger’s Shuttle Diplomacy: the Jerusalem factor

December 07, 2017

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

No man has possibly served the American Empire as much as Henry Kissinger did, and with all the literature, including screenplays, that have been written about him and his “shuttle diplomacy”, none probably described his biggest ever performance than Patrick Seale in his book “Asad”. After all, even though Kissinger is always remembered as the diplomat who has negotiated terms of settlement with the Vietcong, the Vietnam war was a fait accompli long before the negotiations took off, and if anything, his role was that of damage-control and face-saving; no more, no less.

Kissinger’s true, and perhaps only, major success story was his shuttle diplomacy that paved the way for the historic, albeit infamous, Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Before Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, a term and modus operandi he initiated, all indirect contacts between Arabs and Israelis were done via the UN and its multitude of organizations, and any would-be peace talks, were done via the USA and the USSR. Even the post Yom Kippur War peace deal that Kissinger himself was meant to broker between the Arabs and Israel, was also meant to involve the Soviets as equal partners to America in the negotiation process. But Kissinger managed to convince Sadat that he can negotiate a better deal for him directly with Israel, and without having to involve Egypt’s war time partner, Syria.

The rest is history, and since then, and technically until the 28th of September 2015, the Soviet/Russian presence in the Levant was reduced to a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. This statement is not to undermine the huge effect of more recent Russian UNSC vetoes since the “War on Syria” started between 2011 and 2015, but effectively, the Russian presence took a turn when Russia engaged itself militarily in attacking terror organizations on Syrian soil on the 28th of September 2015.

In between Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy triumph and the 28th of September 2015, emboldened by the New World Order single super power status, America reigned in the Levant single-handedly as the only power on the ground.

According to Kissinger’s achievements, some of which were put into American foreign policy law, ensuring the security of Israel became an American undertaking and all of the so-called peace negotiations, including those of Oslo, were only intended to ensure the security of Israel and to maintain the power balance grossly in its favour.

Driven by arrogance and self-grandeur, America did not foresee that it should have used the time it had at the top in order to twist the arm of Israel to coerce it to accept a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. And every time the Palestinians were prepared to let go of more rights, Israel demanded more privileges. Not only did this inadvertently lead to the formation of Hamas, but even the very pliable and malleable PLO remained unable to reach a peace agreement, despite the large number of huge concessions it gave the Israeli side.

America has had a golden opportunity and ample time to negotiate an Arab/Israeli peace deal. No peace deal at all would keep all parties fully satisfied; especially the hardliners on both sides. That said, with the right intentions, America could have brokered an agreement that pleased a workable majority on both sides of the divide. However, in dealing with the crisis, America did not give Palestinian rights in specific, and Arab/Muslim rights in general, any consideration at all.

This is why all peace talks that followed the era of Kissinger all the way till the end of the days of John Kerry have failed; they were predestined to either fail, or to coerce Palestinians and the rest of Arabs to accept the unacceptable.

At the height of their arrogance, the Americans and Israelis never ever thought that a time will come during which they will lose the upper hand. They never even considered that a time will come during which the balance of power they thought they have set in stone was going to shift, let alone change.

Later on, as the “War on Syria” was waged, the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” with all of its diverse elements and members; including the USA and Israel, were certain of an easy and prompt victory and the capitulation of the axis of resistance.

The irony is that despite failures to topple Assad, occupy Lebanon or even subdue the besieged and overwhelmed Gaza Strip, the American/Israeli arrogance remained steadfast in its efforts of self-destruction. Self-destruction, because without victories, without being able to enforce political settlements, and without any hopes or enforceable plans to twist events around to its advantage, the American/Israeli axis, make that the American/Israeli/Saudi axis, seemed to be steering itself from the leading role to that of irrelevance.

Whether the fruit of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” was the love-child of the petro-dollar or the other way around, is a matter akin to what comes first, the chicken or the egg. The two went hand-in-hand, and unabated for a few decades; but the momentum has been lost and the Camp David Agreement zenith cannot be repeated; even on a smaller scale.

But the petro-dollar is also losing its breath. The rise of the joint Russian-Chinese might in particular, and BRICS more generally, is certainly putting the noose around the neck of the Greenback. The American trade deficits compounded with the massive physical gold reserves that the Russians and Chinese in particular are accumulating will soon make the petro-dollar look like “Monopoly” money. Even Saudi Arabia, America’s partner in the petro-dollar fiasco, has recently showed interest in trading with China with gold-backed Yuan.

It is as if the house of cards is tumbling down as what underpins its foundations, one by one, is crumbling.

From the Arab side, Saudi Arabia and its GCC remain within the American camp, and increasingly less covertly, on the Israeli side. GCC state officials have had several meetings with Israeli counterparts over the years, and of late, GCC officials have been making statements declaring that Israel is not an enemy. It is as if they are conditioning Arabs to listen to this rhetoric, clearly with the ultimate objective of normalizing relationships with Israel; something that the Arab street continues to refuse to accept, even in Egypt and Jordan despite their peace treaties with Israel and exchange of diplomatic representation.

In every step of the way however, the American Empire is losing not only its grip on reality, but also that of stature. And in every step of the way, America is putting its regional allies in the Middle East in more tenuous and even embarrassing situations.

Even Erdogan, the great enemy of secular Syria and one who has promised to go into Damascus, triumphant, to pray in the great Omayyad Mosque after the fall Assad, a supposed American ally who continues to be, thus far, a NATO member, finds himself and his national interests closer to Russia than to America. The Turkish-American schism started when the Obama administration did not listen to Erdogan’s ultimatum to choose between supporting Turkey or the Kurds.

Enter the Trump factor.

For better or for worse, and leaving the rest of the world aside if we can, Trump is hastening the process of making America irrelevant in the Middle East.

By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, many reactions have followed.

Condemnations came from right across the globe, not only from the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Even EU leaders like the French President and German FM have had their say voicing their shock and disappointment.

To “outsiders”, the reaction of Muslims and Palestinians may seem like an over-kill. Some cynics and critics are wondering about the significance of a tokenistic move by America vis-à-vis the bigger reality of occupation on the ground. Such voices are saying that Trump’s decision did not effectively change anything at all. Others may see the wave of rejection as an irrational Muslim upheaval that will eventually run out of steam. But the bottom line is that with Trump’s decision, America has moved itself further away from the few Arab and Muslim supporters it has left in the Middle East.

To say that this move has pushed America closer towards irrelevance would be an under-rated statement. By agreeing to relocate the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Donald Trump has sealed and dusted that deal that makes America totally irrelevant in the Middle East.

Even the Saudis, the staunch supporters of America and only vocal Arab supporters left, are too embarrassed to back Trump on his decision. So, in effect, with his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump has galvanized rivaling Muslim factions and groups into a united voice on the single issue of Jerusalem. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran will not openly disagree with each other on this issue. Erdogan pre-warned Trump and referred to Jerusalem as a “redline”. But so was supporting Kurds. How many breached redlines does Erdogan need before he re-evaluates Turkey’s strategic alliances and perhaps even leaves NATO?

Tokenistic as it may mean to some, Trump’s decision means that no Arab or Muslim leader can be seen supporting it without risking street riots and even revolutions.

On the bigger picture however, American irrelevance means that the few Arab states and organizations that remained in hope that one day, perhaps one day, America will be able to broker for them a proper and just peace deal with Israel, have lost hope; and most likely permanently.

This new phase means that the successes of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” are already a thing of the past; effectively as of now. Apart from the much smaller role Russia played in Georgia in 2008, with Russia actively on Syrian ground, having succeeded in her first real ever military venture outside its borders since the demise of the USSR, the wheel of fate has made a one hundred and eighty degree turn. To this effect, America has catapulted itself out of the position of sole power and dominance, and in doing so, it inadvertently invited Russia back in with open doors.

Kissinger is not turning in his grave yet. He is alive and “well” and watching the mess of what subsequent American shuttle diplomacy, which ironically tried to shape itself on his image, has created and what it has made out of his achievements; not only in as far as giving America the sole power in the Middle East region, but also in terms of what the reversal of his achievements is going to eventuate into when it comes to his obsession with ensuring the security of Israel.

Advertisements

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

ERIC ZUESSE | 30.11.2017 | WORLD / AMERICASMIDDLE EAST

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

The international financier George Soros is condemned by the Israeli regime because he opposes that apartheid state — he regards its two-tier system that privileges Jews and disadvantages non-Jews who are Muslims, “Palestinians,” as being the barbarism that it so obviously is (except to the governments of the United States and its allies, who support — and the US even outright donates $3.8 billion per year to — the apartheid Jewish regime there). Earlier, in 1979, Soros had similarly opposed the anti-Black apartheid regime of South Africa. So, his opposition to apartheid is clear, and it is consistent.

However, in regards to bigotry against Russians, Soros intensely champions and funds that particular form of racism, and he has even carried out a major campaign to get EU taxpayers to pick up $50 billion of the cost to impose that racism specifically against Russians and against supporters of Russians who live in Ukraine, and against Russians and pro-Russians who still survive in the parts of Ukraine that in 2014 broke away from Ukraine after US President Barack Obama’s bloody anti-Russian coup just months before, had overthrown the democratically elected President of Ukraine, who was seeking to have good relations with both the United States and Russia. (The Obama regime perpetrated a coup which replaced that Ukrainian President and his allies in the legislature, replaced them by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi Ukrainian regime that quickly began an ethnic-cleansing operation to kill or drive out the residents in the part of Ukraine that had voted more than 90% for the overthrown President and that refused to be ruled by the Obama-imposed anti-Russian nazis.)

In order to understand these self-contradictions (the anti-apartheid Soros, versus the rabidly bigoted-against-Russians Soros), one needs to understand their origins in Soros’s past, going all the way back to his childhood in an anti-Semitic secular-Jewish home (see page 22) with upper-class parents who had hoped that their having had Jewish ancestors wouldn’t be an insuperable barrier to their achieving personal financial success and personal fulfillment — they had hoped that they would be treated by their fellow-Hungarians as non-Jews because they didn’t believe in Judaism (the literal truthfulness of the Torah, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Christian Bible).

Hungary was strongly anti-Semitic, and it became conquered first by Nazi Germany’s intensely anti-Semitic Adolf Hitler, who was even-more anti-Semitic, and then by the Georgian former theological student, Joseph Stalin’s, leadership of the communist Soviet Union, from which communist regime Soros fled, after his having thrived under the Nazis by having helped the Nazis to find, and strip the assets from, other Hungarians whom Hitler’s regime labelled to be “Jews.” Soros’s father had been imprisoned by the Soviet Union during and after World War I, and hated Russians. Then, Soros himself, having lived well under the Nazis, moved in 1947 to England to study at the London School of Economics, from which he received an MS in Philosophy in 1952, and then became hired in 1954, entry-level, by the Jewish merchant-banking firm of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, which was the only financial company that would hire him. In 1956, he moved to NYC, working then for a succession of investment-firms, until setting up in 1969 his Soros Fund Management, which brought in other extremely wealthy people and grew exponentially.

Soros attributes his financial success to the ideas from his former philosophy Professor, Karl Popper, who actually had nothing to do with Soros’s success, but inside information had lots to do with his success, as normally is the case in the financial field.

Then, in 1979, “When I had more money than I needed”, he established his Open Society Foundation, which seemed to be at least vaguely adhering to his former philosophy professor’s philosophy, which was anti-dictatorial and pro-democratic, but increasingly after the 1991 end of communism in Russia, Soros’s Foundation has been functioning more and more clearly as a funder of Soros’s childhood hatred (even to the extent of ethnic cleansing or even genocide) of Russians, certainly not as any funder of democracy.

Therefore, Soros, who previously was understood in a naive fashion, as being simply anti-communist, is now much more clearly understandable as being anti-Russian.

Just as his father had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because he didn’t believe in Judaism, Russians had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because they don’t any longer believe in communism. However, George Herbert Walker Bush, and the US aristocracy which he represents, and of which Soros is actually a part, refuse to accept Russians as being just another group of human beings, with equal rights to all others, and insist upon crushing them, and crushing all who support their right to equal treatment along with the rest of humanity — including their national sovereignty (the rights of the residents in a land controlling that land), in peace.

If this sounds like it can’t be true, because it sounds like a portrayal of a psychopath, and because Soros has been so favorably described in the liberal press, then consider how else the portrayal of Soros has been slanted by ideological blinders: On 17 October 2017, a news-report in the liberal New York Times headlined “George Soros Transfers Billions to Open Society Foundations”, and indicated that:

In recent years Mr. Soros has moved about $18 billion of his own money into Open Society, making it the second largest foundation in the United States by assets, according to the National Philanthropic Trust. The only larger charity is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment worth some $40 billion and focuses on global health and development issues.

The benefits of such ‘charities’ were described, but the subtraction of those billions of dollars from the tax-rolls and the consequent increase in the tax-burden that non-billionaires must pay, went unmentioned, as did the increase in the billionaires’ control of public issues by privatizing these powers to such ‘charities’ and by their thereby diminishing democracy (i.e., diminishing control by the public — by the general electorate — moving these issues increasingly to control by the wills of billionaires). Beyond a certain point, the only usefulness to the owner that an added billion dollars has, is to increase his/her power — not to consume that added billion, in any case — and these ‘charities’ are thus intrinsically scams, against all non-billionaires.

An excellent description of the hypocrisy of the liberal Soros’s (and other such) ’charities’ was provided in an entirely accurate opinion-piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, on 23 November 2017, titled “George Soros’s $18 Billion Tax Shelter”. The facts presented there would disabuse any political progressive of the deceit that Soros is, at all, one of them. There are few, if any, progressive billionaires — and none of them will be ‘donating’ anything to any ‘charity’, except to the Government, in a democracy, via taxes. The aristocracy is intrinsically this way — vastly more taking from the public than giving to the public — but aristocrats are ideologically treated as ‘heros’ by whichever commentators happen to admire a particular aristocrat’s ‘ideology’, which in reality is none at all except endless greed (differing from one-another only in their respective business-plans, because that’s all they actually are).

So: Soros’s hypocrisy regarding racism is part of a broader picture, which includes not only the rest of himself, but also includes all extremely wealthy individuals and their intrinsically destructive relationships toward the society-at-large, and especially toward democracy itself, because endless greed for power is what drives all of them, even the “loafers” amongst them (such as typically are second-and-more generation wealth, the IIs, IIIs, IVs, etc. aristocrats, who don’t have to work for anything).

All those Balfour Declarations (video)

A brief history of nations plotting  to send the Jews away to Palestine well ahead of the 1917 Balfour Declaration…

Game of Nations From Sykes-Picot and Balfour to the Arab Spring لعبة الأمم | من سايكس بيكو وبلفور إلى الربيع العربي

Designed by: Nour Fakih

Balfour Declaration: The Promise of the Non-Owner to the Unworthy

Related Videos

Related Articles

هجوم إسرائيلي من كردستان والمقاومة تردّ في باب المندب

سبتمبر 30, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

قامت المجموعة الدولية لتحليل الأزمات بإجراء تقييم شامل لموضوع التمرّد الذي يقوده حرس الحدود «الإسرائيلي» مسعود البرزاني ضدّ الدولة العراقية المركزية في شمال العراق. وقد توصلت المجموعة الى النتائج التالية:

اولاً: إنّ تسمية تلك المنطقة بكردستان هو خطأ سياسي وتاريخي وجغرافي وسكاني بالأساس، أيّ يبطن في داخله تواطؤ ديموغرافي، وذلك لأنّ سكان تلك المحافظات العراقية الشمالية ليسوا من الكرد فقط، وإنما هناك الكثيرون من العرب والتركمان والأشوريين والأيزيديين والكلدانيين وغيرهم، والذين يقطنون هذه المناطق قبل بدء موجات الهجرة الكردية إليها. تلك الموجات التي قدمت إلى هذه المناطق من حوض الفولغا في جنوب روسيا.

ثانياً: إنّ هذه المناطق قد تعرّضت لحملات تطهير عرقي واسعة منذ لحظة بدء الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق في نيسان عام 2003، وقد تمّ الشروع في هذه الحملات المنظّمة بواسطة مجموعة كبيرة من ضباط الموساد تحت قيادة الجنرال داني ياتوم، بالإضافة إلى عشرات الضباط الإسرائيليين في الاحتياط، حيث تمّ تركيز الحملة في مناطق

الموصل وأربيل والحمدانية وتل أسقف وقراقوش وعقرا. وكان هدف تلك الحملات، التي تمّ تنفيذها بالتعاون مع «سي أي آي» ورجالات حزبي البرزاني والطالباني، إذ كان هدف تلك الحملات تهجير أهل تلك المناطق الأصليين عن ديارهم تمهيداً لإحلال مستوطنين صهاينة من أصول كردية مكانهم أو استيطانها من قبل جماعات البرزاني والطالباني خدمة لأهداف المحتلّ الصهيوأميركي.

ثالثاً: أيّ أنّ مخطط سلخ محافظات العراق الشمالية ليس بالمخطط الجديد، وإنما هو جزء من الخطط الاستعمارية والصهيونية الهادفة إلى تفتيت الدول العربية كلّها، حيث إنّ العنصر الجديد في ذلك هو التوقيت وجوهر المشروع الانفصالي الذي يقوده البرزاني وطبيعته.

فمن الملاحظ أنّ طرح موضوع الاستفتاء المؤامرة قد بدأ بعد سلسلة الانتصارات الهامة التي أحرزتها قوات حلف المقاومة خلال حلقات هجومها الاستراتيجي الذي لا تزال تنفذه حتى اليوم بهدف القضاء على العصابات المسلحة من داعش إلى النصرة إلى غيرهما، والتي هي صنو العصابات المسلحة الكردية التي يتزعّمها المتمرّد مسعود البرزاني.

أيّ أنّ الولايات المتحدة و«إسرائيل» قد قرّرتا استخدام الورقة الكردية في محاولة منها لشنّ هجوم مضادّ، رداً على الهجوم الاستراتيجي لقوات حلف المقاومة، وذلك في محاولة لاسترداد زمام المبادرة الميدانية، بخاصة في الشرق السوري الذي يخطط الحلف الصهيوأميركي لضمّه إلى محافظات شمال العراق التي تتعرّض للمؤامرة بهدف إقامة كيان كردي يكون قاعدة للتحرك المستقبلي ضدّ العمود الفقري لحلف المقاومة، أيّ الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية.

ولكننا نرى أنّ هذه المحاولة، لإقامة كيان كردي عميل واسترداد زمام المبادرة، سيكون مصيرها مصير المبادرة نفسها التي قامت بها القوات النازية في شهر شباط 1943 على جبهة خاركوف وقوس كورسك في أوكرانيا، بعد أن كانت تعرّضت لهزيمة كبرى في ستالينغراد قبل ذلك بأشهر. فقد فشل الهجوم النازي المضادّ واضطر هتلر لإصدار أوامره لقواته بوقف الهجوم. ومن ثمّ بادرت الجيوش السوفياتية ببدء هجوم شامل على جبهة طولها ألف كيلومتر، حيث تمكّن الجيش السوفياتي من الاندفاع غرباً داخل الخطوط الألمانية لمسافة تزيد عن 250 كيلومتراً.

رابعاً: نحن نعتقد بأنّ الحرب على الدولة الوطنية السورية قد حسمت لصالح الحكومة والجيش السوري بتاريخ 18 تموز 2012 عندما فشلت قوى العدوان في إسقاط الدولة السورية والسيطرة على العاصمة دمشق، من خلال قيام طائرة بريطانية من طراز تورنادو، أقلعت من القاعدة الجوية البريطانية في اكروتيري Akrotiri بقبرص وقامت بإطلاق صاروخ جو أرض على مقرّ قيادة الأمن القومي في دمشق. ولكن امتصاص الضربة وتماسك القيادة السورية ووحدات القيادة والسيطرة فيها قد أدّى الى حسم نتيجة العدوان تماماً، كما كان صمود العاصمة السوفياتية موسكو سنة 1941 هو عنوان النصر المبكّر على النازية في الحرب العالمية الثانية.

كما أنّ آخر المحاولات اليائسة لقوى العدوان، باستعادة زمام المبادرة وإحداث صدمة بين وحدات الجيش السوري والقوى الحليفة، والتي تمّ تنفيذها مؤخراً بواسطة طائرة أميركية بدون طيار من طراز MQ 9 A Reaper، أقلعت من القاعدة الأميركية في الشدادي، حيث تمّ إطلاق صاروخ جو أرض موجه بالليزر من طراز AGM -176 Griffen باتجاه موقع كبير المستشارين الروس في جنوب مدينة دير الزور يوم 18 أيلول 2017، الجنرال فاليري اسابوف.

وكما توضح وقائع الميدان، فإنّ هذه العملية، التي نفذت قبل أسبوع واحد من بدء تنفيذ مؤامرة البرزاني في تقسيم العراق، قد فشلت أيضاً في إحداث أيّ متغيّرات على موازين القوى في الميدان السوري أو العراقي.

خامساً: كذلك فإننا نرى أنّ الخطط الأميركية «الإسرائيلية»، بالتعاون مع الأردن، والتي يجري وضع تفاصيلها العملياتية منذ أوائل شهر أيلول 2017، والرامية إلى إقامة جسر جوي أميركي، تشارك فيه الدول الأعضاء في التحالف الأميركي، ومنها الأردن، عبر قاعدتي الأزرق في الأردن وعين الأسد في العراق، نقول إنّ هذا الجسر الجوي لتزويد المحافظات العراقية الشمالية ذات الأغلبية الكردية، لن يكون بمقدوره المحافظة على أداة الاستعمار، لمسعود البرزاني من السقوط المحتوم والذي سينفذه المواطنون العراقيون الشرفاء في تلك المناطق بهدف التخلص من طاغوت مسعود البرزاني والعودة بأكراد العراق الى جذورهم الممتدّة إلى تاريخ تحرير القدس من الصليبيين، وقطع عرى الخيانة التى حاكها البرزاني مع الولايات المتحده و«إسرائيل».

سادساً: خلافاً لما كان الوضع عليه في برلين الغربية في سنتي 1948 و 1949، عندما فرض الاتحاد السوفياتي حصاراً برياً على برلين الغربية، بسبب النشاطات التخريبية التي كانت تطلقها بريطانيا وفرنسا والولايات المتحدة ضدّ الوجود السوفياتي في شرق برلين وبقية أجزاء شرق ألمانيا التي كانت خاضعة للإدارة السوفياتية ، حيث لم يكن بإمكان الاتحاد السوفياتي منع الرحلات الجوية الأميركية بين برلين الغربية وبقية أنحاء ألمانيا الغربية بموجب اتفاقات تقسيم برلين بعد استسلام ألمانيا سنة 1945، فإنّ العراق قادر أولاً أن يطلب إخلاء القواعد الأميركية في العراق أو منع استخدام مطار أربيل، حيث القاعدة الأميركية هناك، لغير مهمات الطيران الخاصة بالقوات الأميركية العاملة في شمال العراق، على أن يتمّ نشر مراقبين عراقيين داخل القاعدة الأميركية في مطار أربيل، تماماً كما هي الحال في قاعدة «انجرليك» الأميركية في تركيا.

سابعاً: ضرورة التحرك السريع، وتحت كلّ الظروف لاستكمال تحرير أرياف دير الزور الشرقية إلى جانب قاطع الحدود في البوكمال الميادين، وذلك لأنّ الطرف الأميركي يسعى الى السيطرة على آبار النفط والغاز في منطقة دير الزور بهدف دمج ما يتمّ السيطرة عليه من المحافظة إلى الكيان المزمع تشكيله في شمال العراق بانتظار تشكيل ظروف تسمح لهم بتصدير نفط تلك المناطق إلى الخارج، سواء عبر تركيا أو غيرها من الوسائل. علماً أنّ تمويل عمليات النقل الجوي كافة إلى جانب تكاليف تأمين البضائع والأسلحة المنوي نقلها جواً الى شمال العراق سيتمّ من خلال السعودية والإمارات العربية المتحدة. وقد تمّ إبلاغهما من قبل الأميركيين بأنه سيتمّ اقتطاع المبالغ المطلوبة من أرصدة الدولتين السيادية المودعة في الولايات المتحدة. كما سيتمّ اعتبار السلع المدنية كافة مساعدات مقدّمة من هيئة الإغاثة الأميركية Usaid.

في المقابل، فإنّ الأنباء الواردة من اليمن تقول «أتى أمر الله فلا تستعجلوه، ثمّة ما يثلج الصدر من رائحة الإمام سيأتيكم من سبأ أو جوارها، ما يعني أنّ اليد العليا ستبقى للمقاومة.

رغم هذا الهجوم المضادّ…

إنها معركة ربع الساعة الأخير من هجوم الربيع الاستراتيجي.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

September 18, 2017

by Israel Shamir for the Unz Review

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

Can the Putin Fans League win municipal elections in New York City? Not bloody likely, you’ll murmur, and probably justifiably so. However, in the municipal elections last week, pro-American forces captured one third of the seats in Moscow. A great shock, slightly mitigated by the media silence that accompanied both the election and its results.

As a rule, I do not dwell much on internal Russian politics (as opposed to foreign relations). They are parochial, obscure and not democratic. That is true for internal politics in every country I am aware of, but in Russia, they aren’t even competitive. Kremlin wiseguys try and fix the results with all the subtleness of Democratic primaries under Ms Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This time they had a seemingly brilliant idea: wouldn’t it be nice if few people would turn up at the election booths? Only those requested to vote? So they had zero publicity, zero announcements, zero TV coverage. People were vaguely aware of the municipal elections but the affair was so low profile that very few cared to attend: slightly over ten per cent of the electorate. The cynical subterfuge flopped badly.

In Moscow (which is the only place in Russia that counts) the three main opposition parties, the Communists and the Nationalists, as well as Kremlin-friendly Socialists, were been decimated. Their votes had been snatched by pro-Western liberals, self-described as “those of good genes”, “the fair-faced ones”, “handshake-worthy”; all these epithets vaguely connected in Russian mind with prosperous Jewishness, of sorts, or with Jewified Soviet nomenclature. The best-known names include Ms Lucy Stein, a young Jewish journalist of some notoriety – she installed plaster copies of her breasts and filmed a staged act of a little boy being roughly treated by Putin’s police. Another one is Mr Maxim Katz, a young Jewish activist – he organized the delivery of flowers to the place of the opposition leader Mr Nemtsov’s assassination, allegedly with some profit for himself.

These youngsters (in their early twenties) have been led by Mr Dmitry Gudkov, a Russian Parliament Member and a son of a Russian Parliament Member. This sounds like the House of Lords, but Gudkov the Senior is an ex-KGB colonel, an oligarch and the owner of a bailiff business, rather than a hereditary peer. Gudkov’s people made a loose coalition with Yabloko (Apple, in Russian), a liberal party of some prominence in the Yeltsin years. They are against Putin’s policies, for the restoration of the Crimea to the Ukraine and for an alliance with the liberal West.

While other parties didn’t give a hoot, the liberals cared to come to the neglected elections, and they delivered their voters to the booths. For that purpose, they imported American technology, and one of Sanders’ operatives, a Russian-born Mr Vitali Shklyarov, who had come to set up what they called “a political Uber”, a web app for fielding candidates and getting voters. In addition, they vastly overspent their competitors.

Democracy in action? Forsooth! This was a clear-cut example of real (as opposed to imaginary) interference in foreign elections. While endless FBI probes have never produced any tangible proof of Russian interference in the US elections, and the Facebook investigation “revealed that it had sold as much as $150,000 in political ads to pro-Kremlin entities between 2015 and 2017”, the US interference in recent Moscow elections had been vast, powerful and effective. The pro-American forces spent over sixty million dollar in Moscow alone by very conservative estimates, and probably much more. And the funds came from abroad.

The very idea of Russian interference in the US elections had been flattering but silly. The Russians are not in the same league, in speaking of political technologies. The Americans are much more masterful, being trained in a competitive environment. The Russians’ only chance to have fair elections is adopting another American technology, namely the active fight against foreign interference. The Kremlin could and should investigate the path of every US buck to the Stein-Katz Gang, and deal with it as harshly as Americans are dealing with imaginary Russian interference. But would they? I doubt it. The wiseguys who mismanaged elections for Kremlin will do all they can to kill the story. No important Russian media carried it, by direct orders from Kremlin.

We have proof to back up our claims of the US interference in the Russian elections: a confession made by the coordinator for Open Russia, a political body created by Mr Michael Khodorkovsky. This oligarch, once the richest man in Russia, did nine years in a Russian jail for massive tax evasion, white-collar crimes, organized crime and conspiracy for murder, as brutal and ruthless a shark as ever swam murky waters of Russian business and politics.

Mr Khodorkovsky had been an American agent of influence for many years. Since being pardoned by President Putin, he moved abroad and became the focal point for the US-led clandestine campaign for regime change in Russia. Together with other exiled (and wanted) oligarchs, Tel Aviv-based Mr Nevzlinand London-based Mr Chichvarkin, Mr Khodorkovsky funnels money to Russia’s pro-Western opposition.

His coordinator Ms Maria Baronova had been quite close to Mr Khodorkovsky but parted with him some time ago. In her Facebook blog she admits that “Gudkov and Katz are a secret project of M. B. Khodorkovsky” while other elements of the opposition are a public project of Mr Khodorkovsky. In other words, the whole campaign has been organized from Washington, or perhaps from Langley.

As we learned from Wikileaks-published State Department cables, this is the current trend of CIA for orchestrating regime change: instead of sending money directly to the opposition with a courier, they employ oligarchs as go-between. This mode has been used in Syria since 2006, as well as in Lebanon, and now is being applied in Moscow.

The winners of the recent municipal elections in Moscow weren’t just the “fair-faced” children of nomenclature, but appointees of the US deep state. They did it using American know-how and American money. This is the real and very successful interference, and the organisers got away with it.

The Russian post-Soviet political system as organized by Putin’s wiseguys should share the blame. The Communists, Nationalists of Mr Zhirinovsky and Socialists of Mr Mironov have been tamed and house-broken so efficiently that they lost their balls, their will power, their desire for victory – and their voters, as well. People stopped to care about them. The ruling party United Russia isn’t better; it is a toothless clone of the toothless CPSU, the late Soviet Union Communist Party that was dismantled by Gorbachev and Yeltsin without a single objection from millions of card-carrying members. It is a party of people who want to have power and its privileges.

The Ukraine had been ruled by a similar Party of the Regions. Led by Mr Victor Yanukovych, the party fell to pieces after the coup, its members deserting the sinking ship as fast as they could. United Russia will also run away in a case of trouble; they will helplessly watch Mr Khodorkovsky enter the gates of the Kremlin and probably applaud him. The United Russia’s 70% of vote is no guarantee of support for Mr Putin’s independent course. It would be better for Putin to rely upon smaller but more reliable and devoted cadres. Lenin used to say, ‘a small anchovy is better than a big cockroach’.

(This is true for other countries, too, as Mr Trump and Mr Corbyn discovered: their big parties just aren’t reliable. A small and reliable party of their dedicated supporters would be a better bet.)

The Kremlin spokesmen comfort themselves and others by stressing very limited powers of the elected deputies. By law, they may deal with municipal questions only. However, it is not unusual for such bodies to reach for more power in a revolutionary situation. In France, in 1789, the elected parliament was intended to be an advisory to the monarch, but very soon it assumed all the powers and chopped off the king’s head. In the USSR, in 1991, the Russian Federation parliament had very few rights being subservient to the Soviet parliament, but it assumed rights and broke up the USSR.

Forget about Mr Navalny. Perhaps we should get used to the idea that the next president of Russia will be called Maxim Katz, and Lucy Stern his Foreign Minister. That is, unless Mr Putin will do a better job at the forthcoming Presidential elections.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Related Videos

Letter to my American friends

Letter to my American friends

The Saker

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.

——-

Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

  1. The USA needs a military
  2. One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
  3. The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
  4. During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
  5. The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
  6. The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
  7. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.

By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico!

Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war?

Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.

Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByibNV3SiUooWExTNGhMTGF5azQ

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

  1. The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
  2. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
  3. The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945

Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation DropshotPlan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?

Really?

And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.

Mistakes?!

I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.

How would you define “success”?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?

  • The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia
  • The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and
  • The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel

Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!

And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?

Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: