70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Source

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Source

July 06, 2020

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Submitted by Pepe Escobar – source Asia Times

The no holds barred US-China strategic competition may be leading us to the complete fragmentation of the current “world-system” – as Wallerstein defined it.

Yet compared to the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits, India-China’s Himalayan border, and selected latitudes of the Greater Middle East, Central Asia shines as a portrait of stability.

That’s quite intriguing, when we consider that the chessboard reveals the interests of top global players intersecting right in the heart of Eurasia.

And that brings us to a key question: How could Kazakhstan, the 9th largest country in the world, manage to remain neutral in the current, incandescent geopolitical juncture? What are the lineaments of what could be described as the Kazakh paradox?

These questions were somewhat answered by the office of First President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I had discussed some of them with analysts when I was in Kazakhstan late last year. Nazarbayev could not answer them directly because he has just recently recovered from Covid-19 and is currently in self-isolation.

It all harks back to what was Kazakhstan really like when the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Kazakhs inherited a quite complex ethno-demographic structure, with the Russian-speaking population concentrated in the north; unresolved territorial issues with China; and geographical proximity to extremely unstable Afghanistan, then in a lull before the all-out warlord conflagration of the early 1990s which created the conditions for the emergence of the Taliban.

To make it even harder, Kazakhstan was landlocked.

All of the above might have led to Kazakhstan either dispatched to political limbo or mired in a perpetual Balkan scenario.

Have soft power, will travel

Enter Nazarbayev as a fine political strategist. From the beginning, he saw Kazakhstan as a key player, not a pawn, in the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia.

A good example was setting up the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building measures in Asia (CICA) in 1992, based on the principle of “indivisibility of Asian security”, later proposed to the whole of Eurasia.

Nazarbayev also made the crucial decision to abandon what was at the time the fourth nuclear missile potential on the planet – and a major trump card in international relations. Every major player in the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia knew that selected Islamic nations were extremely interested in Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal.

Nazarbayev bet on soft power instead of nuclear power. Unlike the DPRK, for instance, he privileged Kazakhstan’s integration in the global economy in favorable terms instead of relying on nuclear power to establish national security. He was certainly paving the way for Kazakhstan to be regarded as a trustworthy, get down to business neutral player and a mediator in international relations.

The trust and goodwill towards Kazakhstan is something I have seen for myself in my pan-Eurasia travels and in conversations with analysts from Turkey and Lebanon to Russia and India.

The best current example is Astana, currently Nur-sultan, becoming the HQ of that complex work in progress: the Syrian peace process, coordinated by Iran, Turkey and Russia – following the crucial, successful Kazakh mediation to solve the Moscow-Ankara standoff after the downing of a Sukhoi Su-24M near the Syria-Turkish border in November 2015.

And on the turbulent matter of Ukraine post-Maidan in 2014, Kazakhstan simultaneously kept good relations with Kiev and the West and its strategic partnership with Russia.

As I discussed late last year, Nur-sultan is now actively taking the role of the new Geneva: the capital of diplomacy for the 21st century.

The secret of this Kazakh paradox is the capacity of delicately balancing relations with the three main players – Russia, China and the US – as well as leading regional powers. Nazarbayev’s office boldly argues that can be even translated to Nur-sultan placed as the ideal venue for US-China negotiations: “We are tightly embedded in the US-China-Russia triangle and have built trusting relationships with each of them.”

In the heart of Eurasia

And that brings us to why Kazakhstan – and Nazarbayev personally – are so much involved in promoting their special concept of Greater Eurasia – which overlaps with the Russian vision, discussed in extensive detail at the Valdai Club.

Nazarbayev managed to set a paradigm in which none of the big players feel compelled to exercize a monopoly on Kazak maneuvering. That inevitably led Kazakhstan to expand its foreign policy reach.

Strategically, Kazakhstan is smack in the geographical heart of Eurasia, with huge borders with Russia and China, as well as Iran in the Caspian Sea. Its territory is no less than a top strategic bridge uniting the whole of Eurasia.

The Kazakh approach goes way beyond connectivity (trade and transport), two key planks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get closer to the converging vision of BRI and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU): a single, integrated Eurasian space.

Nazarbayev sees the integration of the Central Asian “stans” with Russia and with Turkic-speaking countries, including of course Turkey, as the foundation for his concept of Greater Eurasia.

The inevitable corollary is that the Atlanticist order – as well as the Anglo-American predominance in international relations – is waning, and certainly does not suit Asia and Eurasia. A consensus is forming across many key latitudes that the driving force for the reboot of the global economy post-Covid-19 – and even a new paradigm – will come from Asia.

In parallel, Nazarbayev’s office make a crucial point: “A purely Asian or Eastern answer is unlikely to suit the collective West, which is also in search of optimal models of the world’s structure. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative clearly showed that Western countries are not psychologically ready to see China as a leader.”

Nur-sultan nonetheless remains convinced that the only possible solution would be exactly a new paradigm in international relations. Nazarbayev argues that the keys to solve the current turmoil are not located in Moscow, Beijing or Washington, but in a strategic transit node, like Kazakhstan, where the interests of all global players intersect.

Thus the push for Kazakhstan – one of the key crossroads between Europe and Asia, alongside Turkey and Iran – to become the optimal mediator allowing Greater Eurasia to flourish in practice. That is the uplifting option: otherwise, we seem condemned to live through another Cold War.

Central Downtown Nur-Sultan: in center Bayterek tower

Ukraine’s Toe-hold in Europe

June 26, 2020

Ukraine’s Toe-hold in Europe

by Francis Lee for The Saker Blog

The open support given by the entire western media and political establishments to the regime now ensconced in Kiev should give cause for concern, but of course it doesn’t. After all it would not do to profess open backing for a staged coup by neo-nazi militants orchestrated and paid for by EU and US through non-government channels. Of course the CIA was involved but only in one of its various front organizations, to wit, the National Endowment for Democracy. This was the prototype ‘colour revolution.’ This process has been exhaustively delineated as follows:

In Ukraine, the demonically violent riots of 2014 were orchestrated by the US; that American agents in both private and public sectors were involved in organizing the “grassroots” campaign designed to destroy what was left of the country are now well known. The same exact script has been played out in Serbia, Georgia, Syria, Iran, Libya, the Gulf states, Turkey (briefly), China, parts of Central Asia and even Armenia. Not all were successful.

In Ukraine, State Department hack Geoffrey Pyatt brought US cash to begin the campaign against the democratically elected President, Yanukovic. Radio Free Europe and the western-controlled Ukrainian media (especially the Kiev Post) began promoting rumours of a “Russian invasion” based upon the obscure issue of Kiev’s desire to join the European Union. George Soros created the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” as both government and private cash went to building a protest movement. The veto of a European Union Association deal was important to the elites in New York, though probably almost totally unknown to Ukrainians, hence, the “spontaneous rebellion” began with that.

The method of public-private manipulation of media, imagery and even language in these cases is well known and several important monographs have been published about it. Yet, over and over again, the organizers of this claim that the “revolutions” are “spontaneous.” over and over again, academics and talking heads – the “instant experts” created by the System – repeat the official line.

In general, the western elite mobilizes urban, privileged elements of the population, uses their own organizers and media personnel, and create riots through the building of local organizations. They are granted cash, equipment, technology, ideology and even leaders with a script to follow. Violence is encouraged and all manner of suitable provocations are provided. A handful in the west point to the fact that a) the trajectory is identical in each case; b) way too many of the protest signs are in English and c) there is no clear ideological mission.

Corporate media then report that this obscure part of the world was run by a “terrorist” that also was a “tyrant.” For the left, the System will say that the government under siege was “conservative” and occasionally “a right-wing military regime.” For the right, they will say that the government in question was “opposed to American interests” or “harbouring terrorists.”

In many cases, hundreds or more are killed. Ostensible and official enemies of the US are financed and armed. A new government takes over that immediately “privatizes” all assets that made that country a target in the first place. Constitutions are rewritten and the penal code revised to ensure no US agent is prosecuted. Afterwards, the government in question is impoverished and without legitimacy. The assets of the state have been liquidated and bought up by western conglomerates based on the “principles of the free market and the rule of law.”

Strange people are seen in cabinet posts having names without much connection with the ethnicity in question. The IMF and World Bank give dire warnings about government policy and yet, give billions that they know will never be paid back or utilized properly. Within a few months, major media begin slowly leaking documents that in fact, the protest were organized by the CIA and that the “revolution” was a failure.

As more time goes by, stories related to this “revolution” nonchalantly speak of the “popular and spontaneous revolution against the tyrant” as if it is obviously true. After several years, almost everyone spouts the original line without criticism, almost with media reports that it was all staged. The American talking head and pseudo-intellectual then carries a conceptual conflict within him that makes any real rebellion against the system psychologically impossible.

This is precisely the nature of the “Colour Revolution” from Tienanmen Square to Kiev.’’ (1)

Thus the situation in Kiev by 2014 was ripe for a colour revolution. But politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and cultural make-up – a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more industrialised regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians and ethnic Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian settlement in the west of the country, Transcarpathia and Bessarabia, and a particularly important Polish presence in Galicia, whose unofficial capital, Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is the predominant form of Christianity in the East, – but this has recently broken up as a result of the Ukrainian branch which has seen fit to rebrand itself as the Ukrainian wing of the Orthodox church – generally speaking, however, in the west the Christian tradition tends towards Roman Catholicism.

Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson, Simferopol (Crimea) and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division of the country. There is no party which can be considered ‘national’ in this respect, except ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk – now departed – as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovic’s Party of the Regions in the East (now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist Party.

However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence, or rather the re-emergence, from the shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary (i.e., military) wings. In the main ‘Svoboda’ or Freedom Party, and the paramilitaries of ‘Right Sector’ (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev; these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov Battalion responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bass. It should be added that many of these militias have been integrated into the military and armed police, including the Azov Battalion.

Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from nowhere.

This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine, an area which was one-time part of the Polish empire but incorporated into the Ukraine by Stalin in 1945. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist, and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.

The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists, Russians, Poles, and of course – Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN founder Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ‘’waging war against mixed marriages’’, with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ‘’foes of our national rebirth’’. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.

Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split into two wings: (OUN-M) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-B) under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion in June 1941, the OUN-B attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi Germany. Stepan Lenkavs’kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-B ‘government’ advocated the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-B’s ‘Prime Minister’ Yaroslav Stets’ko, and deputy to Bandera supported, ‘’the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like.’’

During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some 140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people (Untermensch, in fascist terminology).

Below is what real anti-semitism looks like. The picture was taken in Lviv (Capital of Banderistan) In June 1941 shortly after the German invasion and during the pogrom which killed in excess of 2000 Jews in the city. The terrified half-dressed Jewish woman is running for her life being pursued by a cudgel-wielding mob of Banderist thugs.

In 1943-1944 OUN-B and its armed wing the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia – UPA) carried out large scale ethnic cleansing resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome affair in Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered.

The UPA were part of an ethnic cleansing operation carried out in Nazi Germanoccupied Poland by the North Command in the regions of Volhynia (Reichskommissariat Ukraine) and their South Command in Eastern Galicia (General Government) beginning in March 1943 and lasting until the end of 1944. The peak of the massacres took place in July and August 1943. Most of the victims were women and children. UPA’s methods were particularly savage and resulted in 35,000–60,000 Polish deaths in Volhynia and 25,000–40,000 in Eastern Galicia, for the total of between 76,000 and 106,000 casualties.

The killings were directly linked with the policies of the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and its military arm, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose goal as specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B on 17–23 February 1943 (or March 1943 according to other sources) was to purge all non-Ukrainians from the future Ukrainian state. Not limiting their activities to the purging of Polish civilians, UPA also wanted to erase all traces of the Polish presence in the area. The violence was endorsed by a significant number of the Ukrainian Orthodox clergy who supported UPA’s nationalist cause. The massacres led to a civil conflict between Polish and Ukrainian forces in the German-occupied territories, with the Polish Home Army in Volhynia responding to the Ukrainian attacks.

The campaign of the UPA continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by Soviet forces. It should be remembered in this context that also in play was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)  which  was a World War II German military formation made up predominantly of military volunteers with a Ukrainian ethnic background from the area of Galicia  later also with some Slovaks and Czechs. Formed in 1943, it was largely destroyed in the battle of Brody, reformed, and saw action in SlovakiaYugoslavia and Austria before being renamed the first division of the Ukrainian National Army and surrendering to the Western Allies by 10 May 1945. The remnants of this force were given entry into both the US and more particularly Canada where they are a significant political force today.

It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian Waffen SS Division, the military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by none other than, Heinrich Himmler, which was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal (Nightingale) brigade; this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to note, that every year, and up to 2014 a commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit takes place with a march through Lviv. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the auto-car Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti FC, particularly fixtures in involving Shaktar Donetsk. There is also the annual torchlight demonstration through Kiev every 2 January in commemoration of Bandera’s birthday by some 20000 of his followers. This parade had all the makings of Nazi triumphalism, all very reminiscent of Leni Riefensthal German filmmaker and Nazi sympathiser. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA was to receive political rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA rebranded as ‘freedom fighters.’ One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly in Lviv, lovingly adorned with flowers.

Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan – Lviv – include ‘Jewish themed restaurants’ one such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose dining walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is required to haggle over highly inflated prices ‘’in the Jewish fashion’’. Yes, it’s all good clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

(It is perhaps one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn’t have to search very far.)

Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine – Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector – have been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda is Oleh Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok’s deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda’s official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector. The Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many German Waffen SS divisions on the Eastern front during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ‘’they fought against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.’’ And further that ‘’Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.’’ Tyahnybok came under pressure from the then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements, which he did, but he then retracted the retraction!

Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk in 2011 to five years in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk’s lawyer, presenting the death camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ‘’who is fighting for truth’’.

And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist. More disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements, which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn’t conform to their Ayran racial and political ideals.

One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe, and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent ‘Russian threat’. One of their reporters – our old friend, Luke Harding -described Right Sector as an ‘’eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.’’ Priceless! This must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for the course. The bald fact of the matter is that there is a de facto alliance between the genuine anti-semites, not only in Ukraine but in the Baltics also, who are now allied with Zionists in the war against the emerging Eurasian bloc.

The Nachtingal (Nightingale) brigade, took part in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lviv from 30 June 1941. Roman Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the “Banderivtsy”) or UPA armed henchmen of the fascist Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists. Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Chłaniów.

Stepan Bandera statue in Lviv

Ukraine today is in a sorry state; the poorest country in Europe only kept alive by an IMF drip-feed. The economic and social ramifications of the 2014 coup will be observed insofar as the full weight of the neo-liberal economic policies has been foisted on the Ukraine, courtesy of the IMF. This was already apparent in the early 80s but the trend accelerated after the coup. The standard IMF/WTO Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) a package of ‘reforms’ and ‘fiscal consolidation’ (I just love these IMF euphemisms) consisted of cuts in government expenditure, accompanied by extensive liberalisation of product and labour markets, together with abandonment of exchange rate control and capital flows. These policies along with political instability have had, among other things, a disastrous effect on population growth. Ukraine’s population was 52 million in 1992 and the decline started in that year. By 2016, this figure had fallen to 42.5 million, its 1960 figure, and was accelerated since the coup of 2014. The current Fertility rate stands at 1.3. Any figure less than 2 will mean a shrinking population. The death rate has also increased, along with mass migration with some 2 million Ukrainian guest workers decamping to Russia and Poland in search of work. This is a slow-motion demographic calamity.

Moreover, none of the economic indicators carry any hope of a long-term revival. The fact of economic disaster as measured in various statistics is, however, unmistakable: 2018 figures indicate per capita income languishing at US$3113.00 (compared to Angola US$3437.00). Debt as a % of GDP minus-2.15 Angola 2.19. Trade Balance for Angola stands at 25.3% Ukraine’s trade balance stands at -7.41% as a percentage of GDP. Unemployment stands at (officially at least) 10%, and in terms of external trade the current account has not been positive since 2003, those glorious days which gave rise to the ‘Orange revolution’. Finally, there are the rating agencies who provide the following ratings for Ukraine’s sovereign bonds– Moody’s B3, S&P B, Fitch B. B means below investment grade if we are being polite, junk bonds if we are not. (3) The currency – the hryvnia, exchange rate against the British pound is £1 = 34, hyrvinia. When I was last in Ukraine (2012) you would get only between 8 and 12 hyrvnia for a £. Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe being pushed down to bottom by the next basket case above, Moldova. Welcome to the Sunflower Republic.

All of this in spite of the IMF’s loans and its unilateral debt forgiveness of the Ukraine’s outstanding sovereign debt to Russia which had become due. In doing this the IMF infringed its own constitution. As Michael Hudson explains:

‘’The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (i) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the “No More Argentinas” rule, adopted after the IMF’s disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (ii) Not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (iii) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally (iv), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF’s austerity “conditionalities.” Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.’’

This was obviously a political decision made by an organization which is supposed to be politically neutral.

NOTES

(1) Matthew Raphael Johnson – Euro-Maidan – Liberal Capitalism – and the Ukrainian Fiasco – 08.06.2016

Victoria Nuland Alert

The foreign interventionists really hate Russia

PHILIP GIRALDI • JUNE 23, 2020 

It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something to bolster his “strong president” credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus and black lives matter.

Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.

Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.

So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.

One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans, Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions was “worth it.” Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.

Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.

Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.

Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

And make no mistake about Nuland’s broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration was “providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia.” Her use of the word “frontline” is suggestive.

Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign Affairsmagazine on the proper way for the United States manage what she sees as the Russian “threat.” It is entitled “How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia.” Foreign Affairs, it should be observed, is an establishment house organ produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both neocons and liberal interventionists.

Nuland’s view is that the United States lost confidence in its own “ability to change the game” against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play “a weak hand well because the United States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and Europe… Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as Russia’s threat to the liberal world has grown.”

What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as a rogue state threatening the “liberal world.” She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that Putin might seek “…reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin’s agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms.”

Nuland’s view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy. Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat, particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin’s great fear over the NATO expansion derives from his having “…always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations.”

Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as “Russian troops regularly test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country’s oil fields and smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons.”

Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having “seized” Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand.

Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House’s threats against countries that do not toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from Washington, not from “undemocratic” leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.

Victoria Nuland recommends that “The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia—one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own citizens.” Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.

Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world’s self-appointed policeman.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

A Meditation on President Putin’s Warning from History

Source

A Meditation on President Putin’s Warning from History

June 21, 2020

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

1. The last warning…

In the middle of the current global turmoil, largely ignored by the Western media, President Vladimir Putin of Russia recently wrote an article for the National Interest magazine (the article is featured on this site). In it, he magisterially dissected and integrated one of the most disputed topics in contemporary history—the cause(s) and antecedent(s) of World War II. The article is long and very detailed, drawing on a rich historical and historiographic documentation and it leaves no stone unturned. The point I wish to elaborate on here is that far from being a historical dissertation, the article is a last warning to the enemies delivered in the form of a parable. Rather than expound on the precarious state of the world and the seemingly inexorable drift to war, Putin used the tragic landscape of the late 1930s Europe to shed light not only on the true causes of WWII but also on the causes of a rapidly approaching WWIII.

Although discussing all the principal players responsible for perhaps the greatest holocide in history, I had a feeling that the article was aimed particularly at the Anglo-Saxon part of the Western empire (which also includes the EU, Israel and some Arab and Asian countries). Although I can’t be certain, there is a sense that this is president Putin’s last appeal to the former allies in the struggle against Nazism, the last melancholy hand of friendship extended to the powers that almost ignited WWII and are busy repeating the same horrible ritual of a total war against Russia. There is something deeply Russian and Orthodox Christian about Putin’s appeal. Precisely because he is aware of the deep enmity that the Anglo-Saxon establishment harbours for Russia in all its manifestations, he is that much more grateful to the British and American soldiers and statesmen for that all-too-brief, almost miraculous interlude of friendship and co-operation, that even today 80 years later appears to many like an unfortunate tear in the yarn of history.

And yet, this interlude offered a glimpse of a new dawn. The people in the West saw with their own eyes how uniquely heroic the Soviet people were in the defence of their motherland. The workers and peasants of the Soviet Union realised that there were many good people in the West who did not bear the eternal grudge but were glad to have the USSR on their side. It is often assumed that this short détente lasted five years—from the start of the German invasion until say, 1946, but this would not be accurate. The mistrust between the almost-allies was such that it took a concerted effort by Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt as well as a number of well-disposed politicians (e.g. Harry Hopkins, Anthony Eden) to cement the bond which started to crack well before the end of hostilities.

The “weakest link” in the allied leadership chain was Winston Churchill. Not fond of Russians to say the least, he was an imperialist and anti-communist par excellence. The current anti-racism protests show that this side of Churchill is well known to the younger generation. Whose fault is it that those same younger people don’t remember that Churchill once suppressed his natural instincts and fought a good fight against the greatest menace the world has ever known? Here again, we see the results of a massive blowback caused by the unceasing attempts to diminish the international and anti-fascist nature of the war-time alliance and WWII. Instead of cherishing the values that were defended by the three great nations, modern historians and politicians (with few exceptions) have competed in ways of demonising the Soviet Union (and Russia), burying the existential threat of nazi-fascism and treating WWII as a bloody misunderstanding among otherwise friendly nations. Yes, Nazi Germany was dangerous, but the USSR and its successor have been much more pernicious.

Granted, Churchill’s leadership in WWII was not enough to secure him a prime ministership in 1945, but the overall positive role he played in allying himself with the Americans and Soviets and his reputation as an anti-fascist gradually withered and ultimately died by the end of the last century. In a way, his fate is more tragic than that of Stalin who was the first to experience the “awakening of the people”. Although Stalin has not been fully rehabilitated, his role in saving the Soviet Union and freeing the world from the fascist beast is slowly being recognised and re-evaluated.

It was Churchill who started undermining the war-time alliance long before the guns fell silent. He sabotaged the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin, refused to consider giving independence to British colonies, undermined the prospects of a progressive US government via his intelligence apparatus in the USA (he sent Roald Dahl to spy on Henry Wallace) and in the ultimate betrayal of the good faith that was supposed to underpin the alliance, began planning an all-out attack on the Soviet Union as early as 1944. Named Operation Unthinkable, this plan envisaged a massive offensive against the USSR which would involve Polish troops and even re-armed German prisoners of war.

Many historical records note Stalin’s deep disappointment and a sense of hurt at the betrayal of the blood brotherhood by Churchill and Truman. Long after peace returned to the villages and cities of Europe, Stalin kept warning and beseeching his former allies not to throw away the legacy of friendship and co-operation. Despite the decades of cruel and inhumane attacks on the USSR that ensued, contributing substantially to its downfall, Soviet leaders and people never forgot the supreme sacrifice made by British and American soldiers and sailors who gave their lives in the struggle against the common enemy. This tradition of honouring the Western allies has been preserved and nurtured by President Putin. The campaign in the West to denigrate the great sacrifice of the Soviet people brought about an absurd situation in which the brave British sailors who took part in the war-time convoys that delivered badly needed supplies to the USSR were barred from receiving Soviet decorations by David Cameron.[1]

Perhaps the most hurtful and one could say evil blow that the former reluctant allies could deliver has been the attempt to re-write the history of WWII and treat Russia as a co-aggressor on the par with Germany. This is a red line for any Russian patriot and any right-thinking human being. The constant pressure to delegitimise the role of the USSR in freeing the world from the menace of fascism has led to the revival of fascist tendencies in some European countries including Croatia, the Baltic states, the Ukraine and others. These virulent forms of extreme nationalism (Chauvin-ism) were salvaged from the embers of the dying Nazi Reich, cultivated for decades in the satanic laboratories of the Western intelligence services (including Israel’s) and weaponised against Russia and its allies.[2]

A special role in the total war against Russia has been assigned to Poland—a Slav nation whose complex history has largely rested on a constant opposition to Russia and somewhat less, Germany. Briefly, Poland’s raison d’etre and geopolitical role has been to act as a spoiler in any attempts to bring about a peaceful co-existence in Europe. In the 1920s and 1930s, Polish extreme right-wing (it could be argued fascist) regime saw the country as a major power which by virtue of its religion and military prowess should rule over Central Europe.[3] The Vatican’s Intermarium (“between the seas”) project designed in the 19th Century aimed at countering the rise of the protestant Prussia in the West and Orthodox Russia in the East. It involved forming a federation from the (now former) Austro-Hungarian Slav provinces under the auspices of the Catholic Church. After the Bolshevik revolution, Poland put the plan into practice and awarded itself the leadership of the prospective “cordon sanitaire”. With the help of its Western patrons (especially Britain and France), it occupied the largely Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Under the doctrine of Prometheism, Poland started lighting “fires of freedom” all along the Soviet border. The rest of Poland’s nefarious role has been (belatedly) exposed by Russian historians. Far from being an innocent victim of Nazi expansionism, Poland wholeheartedly collaborated with Germany in plotting against the Soviet Union, planning the mass removal of the Jews, sabotaging any possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance and enslaving and converting their “heathen” Slav brethren.

It is this giant geopolitical déjà vu combined with an exponentially increasing risk of a global war that must have compelled president Putin to address the Western audiences—perhaps for the last time. As recently as 50 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for Western politicians and media to equate the USSR and Germany with regard to the culpability for the war. Yet, a concerted campaign in the Western media and chancelleries that accompanied the fall the of the USSR and the ramping up of a Russophobic campaign in the intervening years have led to the current dangerous impasse which leaves no room for diplomacy and negotiation. Largely unnoticed by the commenters, in his inimitable subtle and statesmanlike style, president Putin delivered to the western public what I believe to be the last appeal for peaceful co-existence. As I stated above, the appeal was directed primarily at the Anglo-Saxon powers which are currently at the forefront of the undeclared war against Russia.

He reminded his former allies of the dangers of using “running dogs” such as Poland or the Ukraine in order to destabilise Russia. He also informed them in no uncertain terms of Russia’s determination not to allow any further besmirching of its historic sacrifice. No more mollycoddling of petty fascist fiefdoms in the name of class or ethnic/racial solidarity. It was also a warning to the Poles that their state policy of siding with any country as long as it is inimical to Russia can only lead to ruin and renewed partition. I’ll paraphrase the notorious Russophobe Josef Beck, one of the chief architects of Poland’s pre-WWII foreign policy, who admitted after the war that Poland was destroyed because it had been acting in the interests of the Vatican and not the Polish people.

In other words, president Putin drew a line—if you wish to avoid a potential nuclear war, stop demonising and destabilising Russia and join us in creating a more equitable world. Russia will never abandon its unique civilisational path and any attempts at thwarting its legitimate claim to life and development will be punished harshly. Russian insistence on peaceful conflict resolution should not be confused for weakness. Having experienced one of the greatest genocides in history, Russia will never advocate war. But if war becomes inevitable, it will fight to the death. This stern warning was couched in the language of reconciliation. President Putin harks back to the war-time alliance with the USA and Great Britain to remind the modern audiences that confrontation is not the only way but that if attacked, Russia would defend itself to the last Russian and inflict terrible and (this time) unsustainable damage.

As noted by some commenters, his message might have been too subtle for the ignorant and ideologically blinded hacks posing as geopolitical experts in the West. So, let me enlighten them a bit by explaining the deeper meaning of president Putin’s message. Those who think that this has to do mainly with righting the wrongs of modern Western history are only partly correct. The main point is simple yet profound: Whichever form the Russian state takes, it will never be accepted as an equal by the racists, fascists and religious bigots in the West. The President is deeply aware of this but is hoping against hope that some form of détente is still possible. To elucidate the situation, he uses historical precedent to highlight the similarity between the geopolitical situations in 1941 and today and delivers a parable disguised as a historical treatise.

2. History doesn’t repeat…

A long time ago, there was a large and powerful country—let’s call it country X. Having gone through a decade of terrible convulsions and a series of civil wars which resulted in millions of deaths and a wholesale destruction of the country’s social and political systems, it began to grow and develop and this growth was perceived as a direct challenge to the Western imperialist system. The country was far from perfect. Years of suffering and neglect had taken their toll and large parts of the country needed rebuilding—especially the transport infrastructure. The people were traumatised and yearning for peace. Then, somewhat unexpectedly, a strong leader emerged who shunned the idea of imperial expansion and focussed on building up the country and preparing it for a possible war. In a famous speech, the leader warned that the country needed to catch up with the West and warned of the dangers of the attempts by the imperialist enemy to encircle and destroy it.

The leader knew that the accusations levelled at his country were mainly propaganda lies. While some Westerners were fascinated by the rapid development of the vast land, most were convinced that the ideas of suppression of rampant capitalism, development within one’s own borders, ending of imperialism and moving towards a multipolar world were seriously endangering the survival of the imperialist system. In order to curtail and extinguish the perennial enemy, the Western powers started inflaming extreme nationalism in their client states (combined with financial globalism) to encircle and destroy the only country that was a threat to their dominance. Although one country was preeminent in terms of military might, the strategy called for continental unity and this was achieved by co-opting smaller countries one after another and pushing the borders of the aggressive empire ever closer to those of country X. Hiding behind the enlightened principle of defending the Western civilisation against the peril from the East, the Empire’s aim was to surround and eventually destroy country X in order to plunder its natural wealth and human resources and forever extinguish its spirit.

The leader of X was desperate to avoid conflict. Through an international forum set up to prevent future wars, he reached out to Western governments time after time trying to convince them of his peaceful intentions and readiness to co-operate in building a peaceful multipolar world. All his attempts were in vain. The military machine of the West was moving inexorably towards his country. Not only that but a new threat emerged from a belligerent rapidly militarising island off the country’s Eastern coast whose militarist revival was supported by X’s principal enemy. The loudest and most vicious enemy of country X was a smaller neighbouring state whose rabid hatred of X and religious zeal ensured its preeminent position as the mailed fist of the Western aggression. With the help of Western intelligence services, this country encouraged and funded innumerable plots against country X and sabotaged its attempts to revamp the international security architecture.

The leader of X was demonised in the imperialist press as a ruthless butcher of various nations and ethnic groups within or outside his country, an autocrat whose ruthless grip on power was maintained by fear and whose removal of foreign agents from the political and economic apparatus was evidence of his genocidal bloodthirst. By means of a vicious propaganda campaign, a regime of harsh sanctions and an intelligence offensive, X was gradually turned into a pariah, isolated and despised. At the same time, X gave hope to many people around the world that a more just and fair society was possible. Poor countries still burdened by colonialism and imperialism looked especially favourably on X as a potential patron and protector.

Instead of folding under the ostracism and pressure of sanctions, X continued to develop rapidly and soon outpaced most of its Western competitors. The leader of X attempted to parry the concerted campaign of the imperialist enemy by reaching out to various Western countries trying to create a united defensive front. However, this was made impossible by a fascist feeding frenzy that led to a dismemberment and occupation of a previously neutral/friendly country.

In a belated attempt at creating a buffer zone against the merciless existential foe, X recaptured some of the territories it had lost previously. For this it was lambasted and chastised even more. The critical moment came when the enemy, emboldened by years of appeasement and dithering, breeched the old borders of X and quickly found itself about 450 km away from the capital of X. An erroneous perception of the enemy places all the blame for the aggression on a single country. Yet, with a couple of honourable exceptions, the entire continent contributed troops and logistical, financial, economic and propaganda support to the aggressor.

3. Guess who

The legerdemain I employed here to illustrate the peril facing the world might just work. If you toggle USSR/Russia, Germany/US-NATO, Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/Ukraine, you will realise that the similarities between that faithful summer of 1941 and the COVID-infected summer of 2020 are more than accidental. I leave it to you to fill in the names of other players. I am not claiming that the two situations are identical, but simply that the template of demonisation perseveres through centuries and political systems. If I’d tried harder, I could have fitted the Russian empire into this template but it is not worth the effort—not because the Russian empire does not matter but because the comparison between the USSR and modern Russia suffices for my purposes.[4] In the same way that Stalin used religion and tradition to strengthen the fighting spirit of the people, Putin is turning to the epic struggle of the Soviets to prepare the Russian people for what is likely to come. In a supreme irony (another one of these) in its attempt to suffocate the historical memory of Russia’s role in WWII the West has denigrated its own effort to the point where younger generations of Westerners have no knowledge of their ancestors’ just war. In a sense, this is the blowback of all blowbacks.

The rest of the story which now refers to WWII goes something like this: At this very last moment, when all hope was lost, the leaders of the three major powers overcame their suspicions and joined hands in an epic struggle against fascism and militarism. For president Putin (and many of us) this moment was magical—akin to the brief state of weightlessness induced by a freefalling aeroplane. Freed from the gravity of earthly power, the world could ascend to new hights of peaceful development. His plea/warning is unlikely to be heeded by the intended audience. Nevertheless, it is very necessary. The world cannot afford another summer of war because this one would be unbearably hot. Briefly, Putin is saying “Remember your brave ancestors who gave their lives in the joint struggle and honour them by embracing Russia as an equal and respected partner.” Putin’s essay is a wholesale repudiation of the canard that “countries don’t have friends, only interests”. Although he is appealing to the sound political interests of his Western “partners”, he is articulating something greater—a world based not on predation and profit but on humane and universally valid civilisational principles.

There is little hope that his hand will be grasped by the current lot of political clowns who are currently in power in the West. While pretending to be friendly to Russia, the Jesuitical fraud Trump has done more to damage the Russian-American ties than most of his predecessors taken together. The mendacious tapir Boris is doubling down on using the Ukraine to irritate and annoy Russia.[5] In that, he bears some similarity to his idol Churchill who spared no effort to criticise the Russian Empire and sabotage the Soviet Union. However, the comparison ends there. Unlike Churchill, who despite his despicable ideology and actions was a statesman of a great calibre, Boris is a Churchill wannabe who unlike his idol seems incapable of grasping the uniqueness of the present moment and the importance of not repeating historical mistakes.

  1. To my knowledge, president Putin has never publicly addressed the occupation of parts of Russia by the allied intervention forces in 1918. 
  2. Note similar attempts by the Anglo-Zionist empire to equate China with imperial Japan through the curriculum of Hong Kong schools 
  3. My criticism of Poland does not imply my fondness for Bolshevism. Needless to say, Poland has never changed its position vis-à-vis Russia irrespective of the latter’s system of government. 
  4. In the same way that Stalin and Putin have been accused of being the butchers of the Ukrainians, Chechens and Tatars, Nicholas II was being lambasted by the “progressive” Jews for the pogroms (which occurred mainly in the Western non-Orthodox areas of the Russian Empire). Despite saving the Jews from the holocaust and being the first to support and recognise Israel (also see The Jewish Autonomous Oblast), Stalin soon became the bete noire of the Zionists/Trotskyites and a synonym for antisemitism. Despite having excellent relations with the Russian Jews and Israel, Putin has been the target of Zionist wrath almost from the beginning. The reader should draw their own conclusions. 
  5. British involvement with the Ukrainian nationalism stretches back to the end of WWII when Sir Collin Gubbins took over from Abwehr as the runner of the Prometheus terrorist network. Of course, the links between the MI6 and Polish inspired anti-Soviet networks almost certainly existed before 1939. 

America’s Own Color Revolution

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, June 17, 2020

Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, “democracy” NGOs and other groups since the 1980’s. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order.

If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, and look at what has taken place across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.

The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent protests—Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars, burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and other social media to coordinate “hit-and-run” swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.

What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that toppled Milosevic in 2000.

Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow

In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various offshoots was created in the 1980’s by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get their money from Congress and from USAID.

In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović, using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events, the Washington Post wrote, “US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across Serbia.”

Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid of ‘intelligence helmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation. Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the scenes.

The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution. Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all cases the NED was involved with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.

After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also Soros money was reported.

Antifa and BLM

The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we understand the CIA’s Color Revolution playbook.

The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.

In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations. In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.

To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa “cells” join up with BLM chapters.

FRSO: Follow the Money

BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.

On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, “The time is now to join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization…If you have been out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you’ve been thinking about the difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road Socialist Organization is working for.”

In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.

Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.

The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros’s major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.

Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where Obama former “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist,” now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry’s ($50,000). And Garza’s SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 “organizers” in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a “multi-racial organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and policy to catalyze social change.” It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012 and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and other major foundations.

Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO’s Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a “staff” of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry’s ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project, which describes itself as “a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization.” Its board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford ($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).

Major Money and ActBlue

By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), “a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition” in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already given some $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement. This was serious foundation money.

The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: “The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”

The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in 2016 called for “defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a universal basic income, and free college for blacks.”

Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden.

That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so confident of support from black voters. What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

ما بين بوتين والأسد أقوى من «بازارات» السياسة…!

ما بين بوتين والأسد أقوى من «بازارات» السياسة…! – جريدة البناء ...

محمد صادق الحسيني

كثر أخيراً الكثير من الكلام وفيه الغث والسمين عن خلافات في الرؤى بين روسيا بوتين وسورية الأسد، وذهب كثيرون من دون علم ولا مسؤولية عن نية مزعومة لدى القيادة الروسية بالضغط باتجاه تغيير القيادة في سورية أو ما سمّوه تغيير الرئيس بشار الأسد، وهو ادّعاء لا يصحّ إلا مع مرضى النفوس ممن ينطبق عليهم المثل الإيراني الشهير:

«الكافر يقيس الناس على معتقده…»!

ظناً منهم أنّ كلّ عالم السياسة هو كعلاقتهم الذئبية مع سيدهم الأميركي…!

صحيح أن التاريخ ليس وحده من يعطي العلاقات السورية الروسية الحاليّة، ذات الطبيعة الاستراتيجية المتينة طبيعتها، وإنما الاقتصاد والسياسة والأمن والضرورات العسكرية للطرفين. وهذا يعني أن العلاقات الحاليّة مبنيّة على أسس القانون الدولي الشديدة الوضوح، في تنظيم العلاقات بين الدول، وكذلك الأمر فهي مبنية على المصالح المتبادلة للطرفين.

ومن نافل القول أيضاً أنّ هذه العلاقات، التي تزداد ترسّخاً في الوقت الحاضر، ليست علاقات جديدة، بل هي موجودة منذ استقلال سورية عن الاستعمار الفرنسي، منتصف أربعينيات القرن العشرين. وتعمّقت هذه العلاقات بعد توقيع اتفاقية التعاون المشترك بين البلدين، سنة 1955، والتي أثارت حفيظة القوى الاستعمارية الدولية يومها وعلى رأسها الولايات المتحدة، التي اتهمت سورية بأنها تجنح لأن تصبح دولة شيوعية مرتبطة بالاتحاد السوفياتي وقاعدة لتوسيع نفوذه في المنطقة…!

وقد قامت تلك القوى الاستعماريّة بمحاولة فاشلة لتطويق سورية ووقف تعاونها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، وذلك من خلال العمل على إنشاء حلف عسكري معادٍ للاتحاد السوفياتيّ، أُطلق عليه اسم حلف بغداد، بحيث يضمّ العراق الملكيّ والأردن وتركيا وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة. وقد رفضت سورية ومصر عبد الناصر هذا الملف العدواني العسكري وقاومته بكلّ الوسائل حتى أسقطته وتمّ دفنه بعد عدوان 1956 على مصر وتكريس الدور السوفياتي في «الشرق الاوسط»، اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً.

ولكن المحاولات الاستعمارية الأوروبية، بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بعد العدوان الثلاثي، لإسقاط سورية ومنعها من تمتين علاقاتها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، قد استمرّت وتمّ تصعيدها عبر ما أطلق عليه: «مبدأ آيزنهاور»، الذي اعلن عنه الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، أيزنهاور، في رسالة أرسلها إلى الكونغرس الأميركي، وجاء فيها أن الولايات المتحدة مستعدة لتقديم المساعدة الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية، لأيّ دولة في «الشرق الاوسط» تطلب ذلك.

ولم يمضِ وقت طويل حتى طلبت الإدارة الأميركية، من عضو الناتو تركيا، بالبدء بالتحرّش بسورية عسكرياً. وبالفعل بدأت تركيا بحشد الآلاف من جنودها على الحدود السورية… وقد بلغ التوتر ذروته في 18/8/1957 إثر تعيينات وتغييرات أجراها الرئيس السوري شكري القوتلي على قيادات الجيش السوري، اعتبرتها الولايات المتحدة انقلاباً شيوعياً نقل سورية الى المعسكر السوفياتي. وهو ما دفع تركيا (الناتو) إلى دقّ طبول الحرب ضد سورية. إلا انّ تهديد الزعيم السوفياتي، نيكيتا خروتشوف، بقصف تركيا بالصواريخ إن هي اعتدت على سورية، الأمر الذي دفع المعسكر الغربي بالتراجع عن نيات العدوان وسحب تركيا حشودها عن الحدود السورية وإنهاء الأزمة في شهر 10/1957. وبهذا يكون مبدأ أيزنهاور هو الآخر قد سقط تماماً وانتهت أحلام الولايات المتحدة بالسيطرة على سورية، بحجة التصدي لتمدّد النفوذ السوفياتي في «الشرق الأوسط».

وكما كانت خطط العدوان الاستعماري الأوروأميركي ضدّ سورية، في خمسينيات وستينيات وسبعينيات القرن الماضي، متواصلة ضدّ سورية والدول العربية الأخرى المعادية للاستعمار، إلا أنها وفِي جزء كبير منها كانت تستهدف المصالح السوفياتيّة، ومن ثم الروسية بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، في المنطقة والعالم، وذلك عبر تكريس سيطرة الولايات المتحدة على بحار وأسواق العالم. وكان للسيطرة على البحر المتوسط، من قبل الأساطيل الأميركية، أهمية مزدوجة خدمة للمصالح الأمنية العسكرية والاقتصادية لكلّ من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني.

ولا بدّ هنا من العودة بالذاكرة الى السياسات الأميركيّة، المعادية لسورية، منذ بداية القرن الحالي، وصولاً الى اغتيال الحريري في لبنان واستصدار القرار 1559 من مجلس الأمن وإرغام الجيش السوريّ على الانسحاب من لبنان وافتعال أزمة دولية لحصار وتدمير سورية، بعد اتهامها زوراً باغتيال الحريري. ولكن فشل هذه الحملة وصمود سورية قد دفع قوى العدوان الاستعماريّ الى إشعال حرب 2006 ضدّ لبنان، أملاً من واشنطن في تحقيق الهدف بإخضاع سورية وإنهاء دورها، المتمثل في كونها خط الدفاع الأول عن القضايا العربية، وفي مقدمتها قضية فلسطين، وكذلك لكونها قلعة أمام السيطرة الأميركية على المنطقة.

أما عن علاقة كلّ هذا مع طبيعة العلاقات السورية الروسية واكتسابها صفة العلاقات الاستراتيجية، فلا بدّ من توضيح بعض النقاط، لإظهار حقيقة العلاقة الجدلية، بين المصلحة الروسية وتلك السورية في التعاون العسكري والسياسي والاقتصادي، والتطور والنمو اللذين شهدته هذه العلاقات، منذ بدء الحرب الكونية العدوانية على سورية، سنة 2011. وأهم هذه النقاط هي التالية:

1

ـ اتفاقية التعاون المشترك، بين سورية والاتحاد السوفياتي، الموقعة سنة 1971، والتي شكلت قاعدة تعاون صلبة، على مختلف الصعد وبينها الصعيد العسكري، حيث حصل الاتحاد السوفياتي آنذاك على نقطة ارتكاز بحرية لأسطوله، الذي يقوم بمهمات الدوام القتالي في البحر الأبيض المتوسط.

ورغم تعثر عمليات الاسطول الروسي لبضع سنوات، بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي سنة 1991، الا ان بداية الالفية الحاليّة قد أعادت الحياة الى هذا الوجود البحري الروسي في المتوسط. وهو الوجود الذي يعتبر، من وجهة نظرنا، القوة الروسية التي تتواجد على خط الدفاع الأول عن أسوار موسكو، حتى قبل بدء العدوان على سورية. وليس علينا إلا أن نتذكر، بأن الاساطيل الأميركية والبريطانية والفرنسية والايطالية، التي شاركت في حروب التدخل، التي بدأتها البحرية البريطانية، في شهر حزيران سنة 1918، عندما نفذت عملية إنزال بحري على ميناء مورمانسك Murmansk في المحيط المتجمّد الشمالي، وسيطرت عليه، نقول إنّ هذه الأساطيل قد تحركت للهجوم على روسيا من البحر المتوسط الى مضائق البوسفور والدردنيل وصولاً الى البحر الأسود، جنوب روسيا، حيث وصلت الأساطيل الفرنسية والبريطانية واليونانية والايطالية الى ميناء اوديسا (حالياً في أوكرانيا)، بالإضافة الى قوة بحرية أميركية، قوامها 8000 من عناصر المارينز، قد تم إنزالها على سواحل ڤلاديڤوستوك، في أقصى الجنوب الشرق الروسي، وبدأت جميع هذه القوات، ومن خلال عمليات منسقة، بمهاجمة الأراضي الروسية… ولكنهم فشلوا في اختراق الأراضي الروسية واحتلال أجزاء منها.

2

ـ كما أنّ اتفاقية التعاون السورية الروسية، المذكورة أعلاه، قد شكلت أرضية لقيام وزارة الدفاع السوفياتية بتعزيز الوجود العسكري السوفياتي في طرطوس، بعد أن قرّر السادات يوم 8/7/1972 الاستغناء عن خدمات المستشارين العسكريين السوفيات في مصر، وهو الأمر الذي وصفه الزعيم السوفياتي ليونيد بريجنيف بأنه أكبر هدية للولايات المتحدة من دون ثمن.

الى جانب ذلك فقد شكلت هذه الاتفاقية القاعدة التي قام بموجبها الاتحاد السوفياتي بتسيير 900 رحلة جوية، لطيران النقل العسكري، لنقل 15000 طن من المعدات العسكرية للجيش السوري، بعد حرب تشرين 1973، وذلك لتعويض الخسائر التي لحقت بقوات الجيش. كما تمت إقامة جسر بحري بين روسيا واللاذقية للغرض نفسه.

ولا بدّ، في هذا الصدد، من التأكيد على ان الاتحاد السوفياتي لم يكن ليقوم بكلّ تلك العمليات، التي اعتبرها استثماراً استراتيجياً في علاقاته مع سورية، لم يكن ليقوم بذلك لو لم يكن على قناعة بأنّ الدور السوري في التصدّي لمحاولات الهيمنة الأميركية في العالم هو دور أساسي.

3

ـ وقد تأكد هذا التقدير السوفياتي العميق، للدور السوري، سنة 2010، عندما حصل الهجوم الدبلوماسي الاقتصادي الأميركي الأوروبي التركي الخليجي على روسيا الاتحادية، وذلك عندما قام الرئيس الفرنسي، نيكولا ساركوزي، بترتيب قمة رباعية في دمشق، ضمّت إلى جانبه الرئيس بشار الأسد ورئيس الوزراء التركي، رجب طيب ردوغان، والذي لم يكن رئيساً لتركيا بعد، وأمير قطر، الشيخ حمد بن خليفة آل ثاني.

وقد عقدت هذه القمة في دمشق، بتاريخ 27/5/2010، حيث عرض هؤلاء على الرئيس الأسد ما يلي:

أ ـ عرض الفرنسي العمل على إعادة دمج سورية في المجتمع الدولي وتقديم مساعدات اقتصادية أوروبية لها.

ب ـ أما أردوغان فقد عرض الضغط على «إسرائيل»، حيث كان يعمل وسيطاً في المحادثات غير المباشرة بين سورية والكيان الصهيوني، عرض تكثيف الضغط على «إسرائيل» للوصول الى حلّ لمشكلة الجولان المحتلّ.

ج ـ أما أمير قطر فقد عرض على الرئيس السوري تمويلات وقروض تصل الى 150 مليار دولار.

وذلك في مقابل موافقته على:

بناء خط أنابيب لنقل الغاز من جمهوريات آسيا الوسطى، السوفياتية سابقاً أذربيجان وتركمانستان، وإيران بعد إسقاط الحكم فيها، الى جانب الغاز القطري، ومن العراق أيضاً الذي كان لا زال تحت الاحتلال الأميركي، بحيث يمرّ هذا الخط من شمال شرق سورية ليصل الأراضي التركية ويتابع مسيره من هناك عبر بلغاريا… رومانيا المجر وصولاً الى النمسا، حيث ستقام محطة توزيع لهذا الغاز لكلّ أنحاء أوروبا. وقد سمّي هذا المشروع في حينه: خط غاز نابوكو Nabucco وهو مشروع كان يحظى بدعم أميركي أوروبي كامل وبدأ التحضير لإقامته سنة 2002، بينما تم التوقيع على الاتفاق الخاص بالتنفيذ، من قبل كل من: تركيا/ رومانيا/ بلغاريا/ المجر/ النمسا/ بتاريخ 13/7/2009. وذلك لمنافسة روسيا، أو بالأحرى لضرب الصادرات الروسية من الغاز الى أوروبا، خاصة أنّ روسيا كانت تخطط لإقامة خط أنابيب لتصدير الغاز، من جنوب روسيا إلى أوروبا، اسمه ساوث ستريم South Stream، الذي استبدلته روسيا بخط آخر اطلقت علية اسم تورك ستريم Turk Stream، وتمّ افتتاحه قبل أشهر.

ـ تجميد علاقات سورية مع إيران.

ـ وقف دعم حزب الله وحركتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي في فلسطين.

ومن المعلوم طبعاً انّ الرئيس بشار الأسد قد رفض رفضاً قاطعاً تلبية أيّ من هذه الشروط. وربما يكون مفهوم لدى الكثيرين رفض الرئيس الأسد قطع علاقاته مع إيران وحزب الله والمقاومة الفلسطينية، ولكن ما قد يصعب فهمه على الكثيرين هو أسباب رفض الرئيس الأسد، وبشكل قاطع، الموافقة على مشروع خطوط الغاز.

ولكن السياق التاريخي للعلاقات الروسية السورية، الذي عرض أعلاه، لا بدّ انّ يساعد في فهم خلفيات وموجبات هذا الموقف السوري الصلب، وبالتالي الموقف الروسي الداعم عسكرياً للرئيس الأسد منذ عام 2015. إذ إنّ صانع القرار السوري يعلم تماماً ان موضوع خط الغاز المذكور لم يكن مشروعاً تجارياً عادياً وإنما كان مخططاً استراتيجياً أميركياً يرمي الى إخراج روسيا من أسواق الغاز الأوروبية، وإلحاق أكبر الأضرار باقتصادها بهدف شل قدرتها على مواصلة عمليات التحديث والتنمية والتطوير للدولة الروسية بشكل عام وللقوات المسلحة الروسية بشكل خاص.

من هنا، ومن منطلق الوفاء للصديق الصدوق، الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق ووريثته القانونية الحاليّة، جمهورية روسيا الاتحادية، فإنّ الرئيس الأسد، وبالاستناد الى الأخلاق السياسية العليا التي يتمتع بها، فقد قرّر أن يقيم خط صدّ عن موسكو لعلمه، المبني على تحليل دقيق للأبعاد الاستراتيجية لخطوته تلك، وذلك لأنّ التآمر على مصالح روسيا كان سيُمَكِّن دول الاستعمار الغربي بإلحاق أضرار كبيرة بروسيا وبسورية تتابعاً ونتيجة لذلك. وهو ما جعل الولايات المتحدة وأذنابها، من صهاينة وأعراب وعثمانيين جدد ودول أوروبية مُستَعْمَرَةٍ من قبل الولايات المتحدة تلجأ الى الخطة البديلة، ألا وهي تدمير سورية وتفكيكها كدولة، أملاً منها في تدمير خط الدفاع الأمامي عن موسكو. ولكن الصمود الأسطوري للشعب السوري وجيشه ورئيسه وتزايد الخطر على كيان الدولة السورية وما بدأ يلوح في الأفق محدودية قدرة الدولة السورية على مواصلة الحفاظ على حصونها على شواطئ المياه الدافئة، ونظراً للأهمية الاستراتيجية الفائقة لهذه المياه، فقد قرّرت القيادة الروسية التدخل مباشرة وبالقوة العسكرية اللازمة، لدعم صمود الحصون السورية.

وقد مثَّل هذا القرار تحركاً استراتيجياً قلب موازين القوى الدولية، خاصة أنّ سورية وروسيا قد اتفقتا، بعد التدخل العسكري الروسي، على تعزيز التعاون العسكري بين البلدين، على قاعدة اتفاقيات قانونية ورسمية طويلة المدى، تم بموجبها ليس إقامة قاعدة حميميم الجوية وطرطوس البحرية، فحسب وانما إيجاد الاطار القانوني اللازم لذلك، حسب الأصول والقوانين الدولية، خدمة للمصلحة الاستراتيجية للدولتين.

من هنا فإنّ العلاقات السورية الروسية ليست علاقات قائمة على الانتهازية او التسلط او الاستغلال، وانما هي استمرار لنهج من التعاون المثمر الذي يخدم المصالح الاستراتيجية المشتركة للبلدين.

وهي بالتالي ليست علاقات خاضعة لمزاج البازارات السياسية ولا لقوانين السيطرة والهيمنة، التي تمارسها الولايات المتحدة مع أذنابها في العالم، وانما هي علاقات متكافئة تعكس مستوى عميقاً جداً من الفهم والتحليل السياسي العلمي والموضوعي الذي هو أساس كل قرارٍ صائب.

وهذا هو السر الذي يقف وراء متانة هذه العلاقات واستحالة تعرضها للخلل بسهولة عند أول تباينات في قراءة هذا الحدث او ذاك من وقائع السياسة اليومية وتحولاتها الموسمية…!

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

A Pipelineistan fable for our times

June 08, 2020

A Pipelineistan fable for our times

By Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

Ukraine was supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany; it didn’t work out that way

Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe.

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

And then there’s Ukraine. Maidan was a project of the Barack Obama administration, featuring a sterling cast led by POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and last but not least, prime Kiev cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland.

Ukraine was also supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany, as well as other European destinations.

Well, it did not exactly play like that. Nord Stream was already operational. South Stream was Gazprom’s project to southeast Europe. Relentless pressure by the Obama administration derailed it. Yet that only worked to enable a resurrection: the already completed TurkStream, with gas starting to flow in January 2020.

The battlefield then changed to Nord Stream 2. This time relentless Donald Trump administration pressure did not derail it. On the contrary: it will be completed by the end of 2020.

Richard Grennel, the US ambassador to Germany, branded a “superstar” by President Trump, was furious. True to script, he threatened Nordstream 2 partners – ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall – with “new sanctions.”

Worse: he stressed that Germany “must stop feeding the beast at a time when it does not pay enough to NATO.”

“Feeding the beast” is not exactly subtle code for energy trade with Russia.

Peter Altmaier, German minister of economic affairs and energy, was not impressed. Berlin does not recognize any legality in extra-territorial sanctions

Grennel, on top of it, is not exactly popular in Berlin. Diplomats popped the champagne when they knew he was going back home to become the head of US national intelligence.

Trump administration sanctions delayed Nordstream 2 for around one year, at best. What really matters is that in this interval Kiev had to sign a gas transit deal with Gazprom. What no one is talking about is that by 2025 no Russian gas will be transiting across Ukraine towards Europe.

So the whole Maidan project was in fact useless.

It’s a running joke in Brussels that the EU never had and will never have a unified energy policy towards Russia. The EU came up with a gas directive to force the ownership of Nord Stream 2 to be separated from the gas flowing through the pipeline. German courts applied their own “nein.”

Nord Stream 2 is a serious matter of national energy security for Germany. And that is enough to trump whatever Brussels may concoct.

And don’t forget Siberia 

The moral of this fable is that now two key Pipelineistan nodes – Turk Stream and Nord Stream 2 – are established as umbilical steel cords linking Russia with two NATO allies.

And true to proverbial win-win scripts, now it’s also time for China to look into solidifying its European relations.

Last week, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese premier Li Keqiang had a video conference to discuss Covid-19 and China-EU economic policy.

That was a day after Merkel and President Xi had spoken, when they agreed that the China-EU summit in Leipzig on September 14 would have to be postponed.

This summit should be the climax of the German presidency of the EU, which starts on July 1. That’s when Germany would be able to present a unified policy towards China, uniting in theory the 27 EU members and not only the 17+1 from Central Europe and the Balkans – including 11 EU members – that already have a privileged relationship with Beijing and are on board for the Belt and Road Initiative.

In contrast with the Trump administration, Merkel does privilege a clear, comprehensive trade partnership with China – way beyond a mere photo op summit. Berlin is way more geoeconomically sophisticated than the vague “engagement and exigence” Paris  approach.

Merkel as well as Xi are fully aware of the imminent fragmentation of the world economy post-Lockdown. Yet as much as Beijing is ready to abandon the global circulation strategy from which it has handsomely profited for the past two decades, the emphasis is also on refining very close trade relations with Europe.

Ray McGovern has concisely detailed the current state of US-Russia relations. The heart of the whole matter, from Moscow’s point of view, was summarized by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, an extremely able diplomat:

“We don’t believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and conclusions are less related to what America is doing …. We cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further.”

It’s all here. Russia-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” steadily advancing. Including “Power of Siberia” Pipelineistan. Plus Pipelineistan linking two key NATO allies. Sanctions? What sanctions?

من البحر الأسود إلى شرق المتوسط المواجهة الأميركيّة الصينيّة تشتعل في تل أبيب

محمد صادق الحسيني

السفير الصيني في «إسرائيل» نشر مقالاً قبل يومين يعلق فية على تصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركي، مايك بومبيو بشأن وصف الاستثمار الصيني في «إسرائيل» بأنة «خطر»…!.

ليتم العثور علية بعد وقت قصير، ميتاً بمنزله، في مدينة هرتسليا الساحلية شمالي تل أبيب…!

إن ظروف «موت» السفير الصيني (58 عاماً)، ما زالت غير واضحة ومبهمة ومريبة حتى الآن، رغم البيانات الإسرائيليّة الرسمية!

عُيّن دو واي سفيراً في الكيان في أوج جائحة كورونا، وكان عمل قبل ذلك سفيراً للصين في أوكرانيا.

الكيان الصهيوني ادّعى في بيان رسميّ لة بأنّ السفير مات في نومه…!

لا شك في أن البيان، الصادر عن الجهات الإسرائيلية المسؤولة عن التحقيق الجنائي، الذي فتح، لكشف ملابسات وفاة السفير الصيني، دو واي ( Du Wei )، الذي عثر علية متوفياً في شقتة في هرتسيليا، شمال تل ابيب، يثير الكثير من الشكوك وبيان سلطات تل ابيب زاد في ريبة الواقعة بدلاً من إلقاء الضوء على أسباب الوفاة الحقيقية، وذلك للأسباب التالية:

1

ـ إن المدة الزمنيّة التي أعقبت الوفاة غير كافية إطلاقاً لإجراء التحقيق المهني المتكامل وإجراء التحقيقات والفحوص الطبية اللازمة، بما في ذلك تشريح جثمان المغدور، للوقوف على أسباب الوفاة الحقيقيّة وليس للخروج ببيان باهت وبائس يدّعي أن سبب الوفاة هو السكتة القلبية.

2

ـ إن البيان صادر عن جهات حكومية إسرائيلية، من دون مشاركة أي جهة رسمية صيني، لا في التحقيقات ولا في فحوص الطب الشرعي، التي هي الوسيلة الوحيدة لتحديد أسباب وفاة أي إنسان بطريقة علميّة موثوقة ومُوَثَقَةً، وهذا لم يحصل.

وعليه فإن ما صدر عن السلطات الإسرائيلية حتى الآن لا يمكن التعامل معه سوى في اطار الاقاويل او التسريبات الصحافية، التي تمّت فبركتها من قبل جهات امنية، خدمةً لهدف واضح، الا وهو إخفاء السبب الحقيقي وراء وفاة المغدور.

3

ـ علماً أنّ هناك المزيد من عناصر الشك في الرواية الإسرائيلية والتي يعزّزها التاريخ الدبلوماسي للسفير المغدور ومواقفه المبدئيّة والمدافعة عن حقوق بلاده، جمهوريّة الصين الشعبيّة، في كل المجالات وتصدّيه الدائم لسياسات واشنطن المعادية للصين.

إذ إن تصدّيه، قبل أيام، وعبر تغريدة على تويتر، نشرت على موقع سفارة الصين في تل أبيب، ردّ فيها على تصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركيّ الوقحة ضد سياسة الصين الاستثمارية في «إسرائيل»، حيث ادعى بومبيو ان الصين تقوم بشراء «إسرائيل» بشكل ممنهج، نقول إن تصدي السفير الصيني هذا، لسياسات واشنطن العدائية تجاه بكين، لم يكن موقفه الأول.

4

ـ فقد كان للسفير دو واي، الذي عمل سفيراً لبلاده في أوكرانيا من شهر 6/2016 وحتى نهاية عام 2019، نقل أنه كانت له نفس المواقف الدبلوماسية الدقيقة والثابتة والمعبرة عن مصالح بلاده، عندما انتقدت الإدارة الأميركية والعديد من المسؤولين الاميركيين، قيام شركةBeijing Skyrizon Aviation الصينية، في أواخر سنة 2017 بشراء حصة، بلغت 41 % من مصانع SICH الأوكرانية العملاقة، للصناعات الجوفضائية، وهي إحدى أهم مصانع محركات الطائرات العملاقة في العالم، مثل طائرات انطونوف / 124 / وشقيقتها الكبرى انطونوف / 225 / والتي تبلغ حمولتها 400 طن، الى جانب صناعة محركات الغاز العملاقة الخاصة بتشغيل محطات توليد الكهرباء.

5

ـ كان للسفير المغدور دور حساس وهام جداً في التصدي للحملة الاميركية، ضد الصين، وفي التصدي للضغوط والتهديدات الأميركية لحكومة كييف، التي خضعت في نهاية المطاف لتلك الضغوط وقامت بتجميد الصفقة، مع الشركة الصينية.

إلا أن الجهود الصينية، الدبلوماسية والتجارية التي قادها السفير المغدور، سنتي 2017 و 2018 قد تواصلت وأثمرت عن اتفاق بديل، صيني أوكراني، قامت بموجبه شركة Beijing Skyrizon Aviation الصينية باستثمار 250 مليون دولار في الشركة الأوكرانية، المذكورة اعلاه، لإقامة مركز تجميع وخدمات لمنتجات الشركة الأوكرانية، في مدينة شونغ كينك Chongqing في جنوب غرب الصين.

6

ـ وهذا يعني ان الدور، الذي لعبه السفير المغدور، في تحقيق هذه الصفقة التجارية التكنولوجية العالية الأهمية، كان دوراً مركزياً وغاية في الأهمية، وهو الأمر الذي جعل الإدارة الأميركية تطلق حملة من التهديد، قادها جون بولتون في حينه، بالعقوبات ضد كل من الصين واوكرانيا، الامر الذي جعل السفير الصيني يرد بما معناه ان العقوبات لن تجدي نفعاً في وقف تعاون مثمر بين بلدين ذوي سيادة.

وقد شاركه، في التصدي لهذه الحملة الجديدة، عضو البرلمان الاوكراني السابق، أوليه لايشكو Oleh Lyashko، عندما أصدر تصريحاً قال فيه: اذا كانت الولايات المتحدة لا تريدنا أن نبيع المحركات للصين فلتتفضل وتشتريها هي.

7

ـ وقد تأكد نجاح السفير المغدور، في إتمام تلك الصفقة، على الرغم من الضغوط والتهديدات الأميركية لأوكرانيا، وذلك على لسان رئيس شركة Motor Sich الاوكرانية، السيد فيياشيسلاف بوغوسلاييڤ Vyacheslav Boguslayev، الذي صرح لوكالة الانباء الوطنية الاوكرانية Ukrinform، بتاريخ 13/12/2019 ، وقال: لقد كانت لدينا مشكلة ووجدنا مستثمرين وبعنا أسهماً لهم (من اسهم الشركة الاوكرانية) وانا نفسي بعت أسهمي لهم.

8

ـ كما أن الرئيس التنفيذي لمجموعة شين واي التكنولوجية الصينية / Xinwei technology group، المملوكة للدولة الصينية ومقرها الأساسي في شنغهاي، السيد وانغ شينغ / Wang Jing / قد صرّح بان مجموعته قد اشترت 80 % من الشركة الاوكرانية منذ عام 2017 وبشكل قانوني تماماً، من خلال شراء حصص من قبل أفراد صينيّين، قيمة كل حصة أقل من 10% من قيمة أسهم الشركة الأوكرانية.

9 ـ من هنا فإن المناقصة التي دخلت اليها شركة CK Huchison Holdings الصينية، لبناء محطة تحلية مياه عملاقة في «إسرائيل» وإدارتها لمدة 25 عاماً، هي التي يجب التدقيق في الدور الذي لعبته في وفاة السفير الصيني المغدور وليس الجلطة القلبية. خاصة اذا ما أخذنا في عين الاعتبار ان هذا السفير قد تم تعيينه في تل أبيب اواسط شهر شباط 2020 وأنه كان مرشحاً أن يلعب دوراً مهماً في توسيع التعاون الاقتصادي والتكنولوجي بين الشركات الصينية والإسرائيلية، التي تتطلع الى (الشركات الإسرائيلية) للدخول مع الصين في تعاون يشمل الجيل الخامس من شبكات الاتصالات… إلى جانب أن كل ذلك يشكل خطوات هامة على طريق تحقيق المشروع الصيني العملاق طريق واحد وحزام واحد.

كل ذلك يؤكد لنا بأن ما جرى للسفير الصيني في تل أبيب ليست وفاة طبيعية حتى لو كانت، في الظاهر، ناتجة عن «مشاكل في القلب»…!.

لكن ثمة ما هو أهم كان قد حصل خلال زيارة بومبيو لتل ابيب قد يكشف حقيقة ما تعرّض له السفير الصيني في تل ابيب…!

فالمصادر المتابعة للزيارة تجزم بأن بومبيو هدد نتن ياهو بوقف التنسيق الأمني الأميركي مع «إسرائيل»، وان أجواء اللقاءات، التي عقدها وزير الخارجية الاميركية، مايك بومبيو، خلال زيارته قبل ايام للكيان الصهيوني، لم تكن هادئة أبداً وإن كانت سلطات تل ابيب قد أظهرتها على انها زاهية وأتقنت الإخراج، كما بدت الأجواء في مؤتمر بومبيو الصحافي، مع «صديقه» نتن ياهو، ومسؤولين إسرائيليين آخرين..!

اذ ان اجواء الاجتماعات الرسمية كما تؤكد تلك المصادر كانت اكثر بكثير من أجواء جدية، اذ سادها الكثير من التوتر والتهديد والوعيد لنتن ياهو، من قبل ضيفة «وصديقه» بومبيو.

ومواضيع البحث لم تكن، كما جرت العادة، مثل تفاصيل مؤامرة القرن، من ضم وقضم للاراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة، او تهنئة بنجاح نتن ياهو في تشكيل حكومة جديدة، يعتقد البعض أنها حكومة حرب، وانما تركزت الزيارة على موضوع أساسي واحد هو :

الحرب على الصين الشعبية..!

وهي صديق القضية الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني، وخط الصد الأول، في مواجهة آخر محاولات الولايات المتحدة لاستعادة جزء من هيبتها التي يتسارع تآكلها بشكل كبير، وفي كل ميادين المواجهة على صعيد العالم كله…

لذا فإن البحث قد تركز، في لقاءات بومبيو مع المسؤولين الإسرائيليين، على قضيتين أساسيتين هما :

1-

وقف أو منع مشاركة شركة CK Huchison Holdings الصينية، في مناقصة طرحتها «إسرائيل» لبناء محطة تحلية للمياه، اطلق عليها اسم سوريك بـ / Sorek B / الواقعة قرب قاعدة بالماخيم الجوية الإسرائيلية، المقامة على اراضي مدينة يِبْنا الفلسطينية المحتلة، بالقرب من منطقة ريشون ليتسيون الإسرائيلية جنوب تل ابيب.

علماً أن تكلفة هذه المحطة ستبلغ ملياراً ونصف المليار دولار، وستنفذها الشركة الصينية، بالتعاون مع شركة IDE TECHNOLOGIES الإسرائيلية، اذا ما رست المناقصة عليهما والتي ستعلن نتيجتها يوم 24/5/2020.

2-

وفِي هذا الإطار فقد طلب الوزير الاميركي من نتنياهو وقف مشاركة الشركة الصينية، في تنفيذ هذا مشروع البنى التحتية المائية هذا، لما تشكله مشاركة شركات صينية من تهديد «لأمن المواطن الإسرائيلي والاميركي»، حسب ما قاله وزير الخارجية الاميركية لمحطة «كان» التلفزيونية الإسرائيلية، خلال مقابلة له معها، أجريت خلال زيارته لتل ابيب قبيل ايام.

3-

ومن الجدير بالذكر ايضاً ان هذا الخلاف، الإسرائيلي الاميركي، ليس وليد الزيارة، المشار اليها اعلاه، وانما تمتد جذورها الى العام الماضي، حيث كانت الادارة الاميركية قد طلبت من رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي إعادة النظر، في كل مشاريع التعاون الإسرائيلية الصينية، لما لها من أضرار على العلاقة بين واشنطن وتل ابيب. مما اضطر نتنياهو، في شهر 10/2019، الى تشكيل لجنة فنية، لبحث هذا الموضوع، خضوعاً للامر الاميركي.

4-

ولكن الادارة الاميركية لم تقتنع بالاجراءات الإسرائيلية الشكلية، حسب ما نشره مركز راند الاميركي للدراسات الشهر الماضي، خاصة في ظل موافقة الحكومة الإسرائيلية، على عقد لشركة موانئ صينية مختصة بادارة الموانئ، تتولى بموجبه هذه الشركة ادارة ميناء حيفا، الذي يضم، في جزئه الشمالي، قاعدة بحرية أميركية. وهو ما استوجب تدخلاً أميركياً. بشخص وزير الخارجية الاميركي نفسه.

5-

وبناءً على ما وصلت إليه الاتصالات بين الطرفين، بخصوص نشاط الشركات الصينية في «إسرائيل، فإن وزير الخارجية الاميركي، قد ابلغ نتنياهو، بان الولايات المتحدة ستقوم بتخفيض او حتى وقف التعاون الاستخباري مع «إسرائيل»، اذا لم تقم «إسرائيل» بالاستجابة للشروط الاميركية، حسب ما اكد مصدر خاص تابع الزيارة المذكورة. وهذا يعني امراً أميركياً لنتنياهو بوقف نشاط الشركات الصينية والاستثمارات الصينية في «إسرائيل».

علماً ان الحكومة الإسرائيلية منخرطة في مباحثات مع شركات صينية، لمنحها حقوق ادارة ميناء اسدود جنوب البلاد، الى جانب وجود تعاون صناعي عسكري بين شركات الصناعات العسكرية الإسرائيلية والعديد من الشركات الصينية، الامر الذي تعتبره واشنطن خطراً على أسرارها الصناعية وخاصة العسكرية منها.

6-

اذن فإن هذه الزيارة لم تكن زيارة مجاملة، او ذات طابع بروتوكولي او ما شابه ذلك، وانما كانت زيارة ميدانية لإصدار أوامر محددة، وتحت طائلة المسؤولية لنتنياهو. وبالتالي فإن من الضروري تصنيف هذه الزيارة في خانة إجراءات الحرب الاقتصادية على الصين، التي تؤشر الى أن الولايات المتحدة سوف ترغم أذنابها من أعراب وأوروبيين، في القريب العاجل، على الانخراط في حربها المتعددة الوسائل ضد الصين، والطلب منهم تخفيض تبادلاتهم التجارية معها إن لم يكن وقفها بالكامل.

وهي خطوات أميركية عدائية، لا تختلف عن إعلان الحرب، وان لم تكن بالوسائل العسكرية حتى الآن. هذه الخطوات التي لن تقف جمهورية الصين الشعبية مكتوفة الأيدي تجاهها وانما ستتخذ سلسلة من الإجراءات، المالية والتجارية والاقتصادية، التي ستكلف الاقتصاد الاميركي أثماناً، ليس بمقدور سمسار العقارات، دونالد ترامب، تقديرها ومواجهة تداعياتها.

العالم يشتبك، ومركز ثقلة ينتقل من الغرب الى الشرق، والسنن الكونية تفعل فعلها…!

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله…

Is there a 6th column trying to subvert Russia?

THE SAKER • APRIL 30, 2020 

For those of us who followed the Russian Internet there is a highly visible phenomenon taking place which is quite startling: there are a lot of anti-Putin videos posted on YouTube or its Russian equivalents. Not only that, but a flurry of channels has recently appeared which seem to have made bashing Putin or Mishustin their full-time job. Of course, there have always been anti-Putin and anti-Medvedev videos in the past, but what makes this new wave so different from the old one is that they attack Putin and Mishustin not from pro-Western positions, but from putatively Russian patriotic positions. Even the supposed (not true) “personal advisor” to Putin and national-Bolshevik (true), Alexander Dugin has joined that movement (see here if you understand Russian).

This is a new, interesting and complex phenomenon, and I will try to unpack it here.

First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5% of the people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple: the more they talk, the more they are hated.

So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and here for more details

Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western “liberal” (in the Russian sense) opposition is now roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion (they refer to it as “Rashka”) and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there is a much stronger “liberal” opposition which gets the support of all those who had a great time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their malfeasance).

As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a credible opposition at all.

Why?

Well, look at this screenshot I took from a Russian polling site:

The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you see the percentage of people who “totally trust” and “mostly trust” the six politicians, in order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.

The only thing which really matters is this: 

in spite all the objective and subjective problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains everything else I will be talking about today.

As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:

  1. Most Russians remember the horrors of the 1990s when the pro-Western “liberals” were in power.
  2. Second, the Russian people could observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev. The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt that if the pro-western “liberals” got to power, they would turn Russia into something very similar to today’s Ukraine.
  3. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii.
  4. Most (all?) of the pro-western “NGO” (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organization were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal their sources of financing and most of them got listed as “foreign agents”. Others were simply kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared to be “mass protests” under these condition.
  5. There is a solid “anti-Maidan” movement in Russia (including in Moscow!) which is ready to “pounce” (politically) in case of any Maidan-like movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with them.
  6. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces are solidly behind Putin and Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations.
  7. Last, but not least, the Russian liberals are so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as “obrazovanshchina“, a word hard to translate but which roughly means “pretend educated”: these folks have always considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply cannot hide their contempt for the “common man” (very similar to Hillary’s “deporables”). The common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates “liberals”.

There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column realized that calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a “bloody despot” and a “KGB killer” might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.

And then, somebody, somewhere (I don’t know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit that.

First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to “sell out” (or “trade”) Novorussia. One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia. Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and “give” Syria to Putin, if he “gave” Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would “give” Syria to Trump and he would “give” Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the “new Hitler” who would invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and “put Trump into power”. These plain stupid fairy tales had not credibility in Russia. But Putin “selling out” Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did not allow the DNR/LNR forces to seize Mariupol.

I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces entered Mariupol their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol, but then they would end up surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a “cauldron/siege” kind of situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) “prove” that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol be liberated.

Eventually, both the “sellout Syria” and the “sellout Novorussia” narratives lost their traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And nevermind here the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to “stabilize the legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise” (see herefor details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!

Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step and that Putin was Israel’s chum.

Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is… … well… … exactly *nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus and it would be “game over” for a civilized Syria and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.

As I have already mentioned in a past article, these were the original Israeli goals for Syria:

  1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services.
  2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north.
  3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
  4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon.
  5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
  6. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
  7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
  8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
  9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
  10. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.

It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses:

1) Israel dismally failed to achieve ANY of the above set goals and

2) the Russian intervention is the one single most important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, “saved the day”, especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.

Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP (Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.

But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) “liberals” but that they would find a much more powerful “ally” in those nostalgic of the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some detail.

First, there is one thing human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even “survival week”) sounds like fun times. The truth is that while in boot camp I hated almost every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russian have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated 80s the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is all true. What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.

Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all. And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have “smelled blood” and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won’t, if only for the following very basic reasons:

  1. The kind of state apparatus which protects Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say “pseudo”) patriotic opposition.
  2. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader (remember the chart above!)
  3. This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.

The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let’s call them “new Communists” or “Neo-Communists”. And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the “liberal” opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.

The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:

  1. Putin has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka “Atlantic Integrationists” aka “Washington consensus” types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov, etc.) are still there.
  2. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all they key actors were 5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense of the term) of people who hate anything “social” and who support “liberal” ideas just so they can fill their pockets.

Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now they are often referred to as “oligarchs” (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they have a major influence in the financial sector, which is what they care mostly about).

So we have something of a, maybe not quite “perfect”, but still very dangerous storm looming over Russia. How? Consider this:

Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates.

One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal would not be millions and billions for the few, but making it possible for the creativity of the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.

So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite “Socialist”) opposition?

They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture. Let me explain.

First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the “United West” German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.

Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly “liberal” and pro-Western one).

Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin’s apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call “IMF types” is safer than following recommendations of what could be loosely called “opposition economists” (here I think of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in crushing the “IMF types”. The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that in many ways, the state cannot afford totally alienating them. Right now the banks support Putin only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a “total war” against Putin.

If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the “internal opposition”.

So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies and the Russian society is far more survivable one – if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry Orlov’s books who explains it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often “insider”, opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.

This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: “unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution”. Having listened to many tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that far from fearing a bloody revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.

”Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such”.

”Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such”.

Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the “regime in power” might appear to be.

Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).

These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me.

They “warn” about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.

Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other) is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The graphic above.

Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this “success” would be limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that it is all “Putin territory”. In terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come close to what the “rest of Russia” could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly believe that Putin stands for their interest and that he is “their man”. These people will never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.

But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in the events).

Now lets add it all up.

There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis.

This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western “alphabet soup” ever since Putin came to power.

This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western “alphabet soup”.

Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists.

So what is the solution?

Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high time for Putin to finally openly break with the “Washington consensus types” and listen to Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.

Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic culture and traditions and show the “Washington consensus” types to the door.

Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that they don’t own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the Empire, most Russian don’t want to do that.

The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution).

Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all the nuances we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.

Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and do the right thing.

Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore he has to do it.

باي باي أميركا جغرافيا العالم تُرسَم من جديد

محمد صادق الحسيني

في سبعينيات القرن الماضي، وفي معرض حديث صحافي له حول الصراع العربي الاسرائيلي، قال مستشار الامن القومي آنذاك، زبيغنيو بريجنسكي، باي باي PLO، ايّ وداعاً منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية…!

وهو بالطبع كان يقصد وداعاً للقضية الفلسطينية وثوارها نهائياً…!

ولكن القضية الفلسطينية والمنظمة لا زالت حية وحملة راية النضال والتحرير صاروا ذوي بأس اشدّ، رغم انف بريجنسكي، وحاملي تلك الراية الهادفة الى تحرير فلسطين وإعادة شعبها الى ارضه المغتصبة وإقامة دولته المستقلة وهم باقون على هذه الارض، بينما ذهب بريجنسكي وهو يمنّي النفس بزوال المنظمة ورواد التحرير…!

وها نحن اليوم نصل الى لحظة الحقيقة، التي تعكس موازين القوى الدولية والإقليمية والمحلية، والتي تجعلنا نقول: باي باي أميركا. نودع هذا البلد الذي هزم في كلّ معاركه بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية وها هو يُهزم في معركة وباء كورونا المنتشر في أرجاء العالم، ليس فقط من خلال فشل الإدارة الأميركية في التصدي للوباء، على أرض الولايات المتحدة، وانما من خلال الفشل الأكبر، على صعيد العالم أجمع، الذي لم يفاجأ بهذا الفشل.

فعندما يقوم الملياردير الصيني، جاك ما ( Jack Ma )، مؤسس وصاحب شركة علي بابا للتسوّق الالكتروني، بتقديم ثمانين مليون دولار لحكومة أوكرانيا لمساعدتها في التصدي لوباء كورونا، في الوقت الذي لم تقدّم فيه واشنطن لهذه الدولة، التي تحتاج المساعدة، سوى مليون ومئتي الف دولار، فإنّ هذا يعني الكثير…!

اذ انّ النشاط والحضور الصينيين في أوكرانيا لا يقتصر على هذا الملياردير وانما يتكامل مع نشاط الدولة الصينية، التي تستثمر أموالا طائلة في مجالات اقتصادية عدة، في هذا البلد الأوروبي الصناعي.

علماً انّ أهمّ تلك الاستثمارات هي تلك التي لا زالت قيد التفاوض، بين الحكومة الصينية وتلك الاوكرانية، حول شراء الصين للجزء الأكبر من المجمع الصناعي الاوكراني، الغاية في الأهمية، وهو مجمع: موتور سيخ Motor Sich. علماً ان هذا المجمع يضمّ أحد أكبر وأهمّ مصانع محركات الطائرات وتوربينات الغاز، التي تستعمل في محطات الطاقة، في العالم كله.

وانطلاقاً من هذا المثال، على الدور الصيني في مساعدة الدول المحتاجة في مواجهة وباء كورونا، فلا بدّ من الاشارة الى بعض العناصر الهامة، التي أدّت الى هزيمة الولايات المتحدة في الحرب العالمية البيولوجية التي لا زالت بعض معاركها في أوْجها او على اشدّها. ومن اهم تلك العناصر ما يلي:

1

ـ عدم امتلاك الولايات المتحدة لقاعدة البيانات اللازمة للتصدي لهذا الوباء، بسرعة ونجاعةٍ، كما فعلت الصين. اما سبب عدم امتلاكها لهذه القاعدة، التي تسمّى: «قاعدة البيانات الضخمة، او Big Data Base «، فيعود الى عدم امتلاكها للتكنولوجيا الضرورية لهذا الأمر. وهي التكنولوجيا التي يطلق عليها تكنولوجيا الجيل الخامس، او تكنولوجيا (5 G)، وما علينا الا النظر الى تصرفات الولايات المتحدة تجاه شركة هواوي، رائدة هذه التكنولوجيا في العالم، والحرب الشعواء التي تشنّها ضدّها على مستوى العالم. خاصة أنّ واشنطن تعلم تمام العلم انّ من يمتلك هذه التكنولوجيا هو مَن سيمتلك كرسي القيادة في العالم أجمع.

الصين استثمرت في قطاع المعرفة والعلوم وتطوير التكنولوجيا وتأهيل القوى البشرية، الضرورية لإدارة الحياة البشرية، في الصين وغيرها، مستقبلاً.

اما الولايات المتحده فقد استثمرت او استنفذت قدراتها المالية، ومنذ بداية الستينيات وحرب فيتنام في القرن الماضي وحتى اليوم، في سلسلة حروب عبثية فاشلة جعلتها أقرب الى الدولة الفاشلة غير القادرة على تأمين الكمامات حتى للأطباء الأميركيين في اهمّ المستشفيات الاميركية وليس فقط في المستشفيات الحكومية البائسة.

2

ـ عدم اقتصار الفشل، في مواجهة وباء كورونا، على الولايات المتحدة فقط وإنما امتداده الى أدواتها، في العالم أجمع. وهنا نشير بشكل محدّد الى كلّ من:

*الاتحاد الأوروبي.

*حلف شمال الأطلسي.

فعلى صعيد الاتحاد الأوروبي، وعند بدء اجتياح الوباء للدول الأوروبية، وعلى رأسها إيطاليا الأكثر تضرراً، امتنعت بقية الدول الأعضاء في الاتحاد الأوروبي عن تقديم أيّ دعم للحكومة الايطالية. لا بل إنّ حكومات مثل الحكومة الألمانية والهولندية قد منعت شركات القطاع الخاص من بيع مستلزمات طبية لإيطاليا وهي في أمَسّ الحاجة اليها. وكذلك فعلت الولايات المتحدة طبعاً، والتي لم تكتفِ بذلك، بل قرصنت كميات كبيرة من المستلزمات الطبية من شركات إيطالية، ونقلتها الى الولايات المتحدة بواسطة طائرات النقل العسكرية الاميركية، التي لا تخضع لرقابة الدولة الإيطالية.

كما استخدمت دول الاتحاد الأوروبي هذه السياسة تجاه اسبانيا ودول البلطيق، التي لم تجد من يقدّم لها المساعدة سوى روسيا والصين، تماماً كما حصل مع إيطاليا، عندما أقامت روسيا والصين جسراً جوياً نقل كميات ضخمة من المساعدات الطبية، الى جانب مئات الكوادر الطبية والاختصاصيين في الحرب البيولوجية والكيماوية والنووية (مهمات تطهير وتعقيم المستشفيات والمنشآت العامة).

ولعلنا نذكر قيام الرئيس الصربي بتقبيل العلم الصيني، كتعبير عن عمق شكره للصين حكومة وشعباً، وكذلك قيام الكثير من الإيطاليين باستبدال علم الاتحاد الأوروبي بعلم الصين او روسيا.

وهو ما يعني فشل الإدارة الأميركية السياسية، في أوروبا في تثبيت او تعزيز نفوذها في هذه القارة، الأمر الذي اضطرها للطلب من المسؤولين الألمان وغيرهم من التحرّك تجاه دول البلقان لعدم إفساح المجال لمزيد من تعزيز النفوذ الصيني الروسي في هذه المنطقة من العالم. وقد أجرت المستشارة الألمانية سلسلة اتصالات مع حكومات دول البلقان ثم أعلن الاتحاد الأوروبي عن تشكيل هيئة، أسماها: حملة المجموعة الأوروبية (Europe Team Campain) لمساعدة تلك الدول.

اما على صعيد حلف شمال الأطلسي، الأداة العسكرية للولايات المتحدة في أوروبا والعالم، فلا بدّ من التأكيد على انّ فشله لم يكن أقلّ من فشل الاتحاد الأوروبي، في التصدّي لوباء كورونا، فبدلاً من قيام قواعده العسكرية، المنتشرة في كلّ الدول الاوروبية، بما في ذلك دول البلقان، بتقديم المساعدات للدول المحتاجة، وبفتح مستشفياته العسكرية لمعالجة المصابين بالوباء، فانّ هذا الحلف قد صمَّ آذانه وأغلق عيونه عما يحصل في دول تمركز قواعده.

وهو الأمر الذي جعل كلاً من الصين الشعبية وروسيا تنطلق للإمساك بزمام المبادرة في تقديم المساعدات الطبية والتقنية لكلّ الدول المحتاجة. حيث أرسلت وزارة الدفاع الروسية والصينية عشرات طائرات النقل العسكرية، محمّلة بالمساعدات، وكان من بين الدول التي تلقت مساعدات من هذا النوع الولايات المتحدة نفسها.

3

ـ لكن الأمر لا يقتصر على المساعدات الطبية، المقدّمة من الصين الشعبية وروسيا وجمهورية كوبا الى الدول التي احتاجت لها، بل يتعدّى ذلك الى الأبعاد الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية والاستراتيجية، على صعيد العالم كله. اذ انّ هذا الدور والحضور الدولي الواسع الذي قامت به كل من الصين الشعبية وروسيا يعزز نفوذهما ودورهما الدوليين، وعلى كلّ الأصعدة. الأمر الذي يضع الموقع الأميركي في الدرجة الثانية، من حيث التأثير على السياسات الدولية وبالتالي على طرق وأساليب حلّ الصراعات الدوليّة القائمة حالياً. كما أنّ هذا الواقع يخلق الظروف الموضوعية الضرورية لهندسة العلاقات الدولية على أسس جديدة، او تغيير قواعد الاشتباك كما يقال بلغة العسكريين، ونعني بأسس العلاقات الدولية الجديدة تلك القائمة على التعاون الاقتصادي والتفاهم المشترك واحترام قواعد القانون الدولي الناظمة لكلّ العلاقات الدولية.

وهو الأمر الذي سيقود الى تغيير جذري في كلّ مجالات حياة المجتمع البشري، والى وضع أفضل مما هو عليه الآن، خاصة أنّ التكنولوجيا المعلوماتية الجديدة سيكون لها الدور الأساسي، في كلّ الخطط والعلاقات المشتركة بين البشر في المستقبل، والتي من بينها وسائل وأدوات الإنتاج في القطاع الاقتصادي.

4

ـ وبالنظر الى التراجع الذي شهده الدور الأميركي وأدواته الأوروبية، على صعيد النفوذ في العالم كما في مجال التطور العلمي التكنولوجي، فقد اقترح الكاتب الأميركي دانييل پي ڤايديخ (Daniel P. Vajdich) في موضوع نشره في مجلة

New York Times: “Putin has destroyed the US science and medicine” (Ruslan Ostashko)

New York Times: “Putin has destroyed the US science and medicine” (Ruslan Ostashko)

Source

April 19, 2020

Translated and subtitled by Eugenia Gurevich. Translator’s notes: Translator’s notes:

(1) “liberoid” opposition – Ruslan mockingly refers to the Russian liberal opposition, which is anything but liberal;

(2) “Sumerians” – this is a mocking reference to the Ukrainians; some Ukrainian “historians” claim that the Ukrainian “civilization” is as ancient as the Sumerian;

(3) Shaman coming to chase off Putin – a reference to a bizarre situation last year when a medicine-man (or shaman) from Yakutia decided to walk to Moscow to “perform a ceremony to chase off Putin”;

(4) Sobol – Lubov Sobol, an associate of Alexei Navalny, a figure in the Russian “opposition” beloved by the West. Sobol is notorious because of a number of scandals she created.

THE ISTANBUL CANAL AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ERDOGAN’S MULTIPOLARITY

South Front

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

From Father of Turks to Father of Ottomans

Turkey’s president Erdogan will no doubt go down in history as the leader who overturned the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and ended the country’s experiment as a secular nation-state. Perhaps that experiment was doomed to fail from the start—Turkish leaders over the decades have never found a workable formula for including the Kurds in the larger Turkish body politic, except through policies of forcible assimilation. Erdogan, however, was the first to decide to put an end to it and instead reorganize Turkey around principles of neo-Ottomanism and pan-Turkism, in which the economically powerful, politically viable, and culturally proximate Turkish state would no longer seek to join the European Union. Instead it would become a source of international governance, development, and security assistance to the polities which emerged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, and even to those which were not part of the empire.

As this policy was guaranteed to provoke a negative reaction from every other power player in the region, including Turkey’s ostensible allies in NATO, Erdogan ended up pursuing a policy of “equidistance” with every politically relevant player in his neighborhood. NATO, yes, but also S-400 from Russia. Allowing Russian military flights to use Turkish airspace, yes, but also sales of Bayraktar attack drones and other military equipment to Ukraine. Turkish Stream, yes, but also the Instanbul Canal.

Ending Montreaux

The 1936 Montreaux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits is but one of many Ataturk’s legacies. Signed in 1936 in the Montreaux Palace in Switzerland, it is arguably the only arms control treaty of the interwar era still extant. At the time, it represented an effort to put an end to the centuries of conflict over the control of the Black Sea Straits by giving Turkey control while at the same time limiting other powers’ ability to project naval military power in or out of the Black Sea. In some respects the restrictions on the passage of warships are very real. For example, the Convention allows no more than nine warships with a total displacement of 15 thousand tons to pass through the Straits at any one time. In practice it means a single US AEGIS cruiser or destroyer, and while nothing prevents additional ships from passing later, the total tonnage of foreign warships belonging to powers that do not have Black Sea coastlines of their own cannot exceed 30 thousand tons (45 thousand in exceptional cases), which, again, limits the US Navy to no more than 2-3 AEGIS ships. Combined with a ban on capital ships, which includes aircraft carriers, from foreign navies, it means NATO would be hard-pressed to mount a serious aeronaval operation against any target on the Black Sea. While Montreaux was not greatly tested during World War 2, and the Warsaw Pact aerial and naval preponderance meant challenging it would be a futile exercise in the first place, it has proven its worth in the last decade, particularly after the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation. Had it not been in place, NATO’s demonstrations of force in the Black Sea might have been considerably more muscular, to the point of accidentally triggering an armed confrontation. While Russia has always been a supporter of the Montreaux Convention, its current relative military weakness in the Black Sea, where it faces the navies of three NATO member states and currently also that of Ukraine, means the Convention is all the more important to its security.

However, the proposed Istanbul Canal is not covered by the Montreaux Convention, as it specifically pertains to regulating military traffic through the Straits. To be sure, interested parties are bound to argue the intent of the Convention was to cover the passage of naval warships in and out of the Black Sea, and establish a certain level of collective security there. With that in mind, it should not matter whether foreign warships enter the Black Sea via the Straits or through the new Istanbul Canal. Moreover, even when the Canal is functioning any warship entering the Black Sea will have to have passed through one of the two straits—the Dardanelles, since the Istanbul Canal, if completed, will bypass only one of the two straits. The Montreaux Convention specifically refers to the “regime of the Straits”, not a regime of the Bosphorus. Nevertheless, one can be equally certain that some interested parties will make the legalistic argument that that the Montreaux Convention only regulates the passage of warships that pass through both of the straits. Ships may, after all, gain access to the Sea of Marmara that separates the two straits without restrictions placed on ships passing into the Black Sea. Turkish officials have been ambiguous on the future status of the Montreaux Convention, should Istanbul Canal enter into operation.

Gas Warfare

The second dimension of the proposed canal is economic. While the Montreaux Convention does not regulate the passage of cargo ships through the straits, the Bosphorus in particular remains a relatively narrow and convoluted passageway. When one also considers the high population density on both banks of the Bosphorus, the use of this strait by oil tankers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers raises particular safety concerns. Indeed, up to about 2015 the Turkish government prohibited LNG carriers from traversing the Bosphorus. While this changed during Erdogan’s rule, the ever-present danger of a serious incident means it is only a temporary solution.

Thus even if Turkey opts to apply Montreaux Convention rules on passage of warships remain unaffected, Istanbul Canal will have the potential to considerably increase tanker traffic in and out of the Black Sea. In view of Erdogan’s interest in building up relations with Ukraine, and Ukraine’s search for alternative sources of natural gas, the Canal would have the effect of increasing Turkey’s sphere of influence over the Black Sea. At the moment, there is not a single LNG terminal anywhere on the Black Sea. However, that could change once the construction of the canal moves forward. The most likely candidates are Ukraine, with a proposed site in Odessa, and Romania, with the natural location being Konstanta. US interest in promoting its own interests and expanding political control through oil and gas exports means that either or both projects would be met with enthusiastic US support.

The Mentally Sick Man of Europe

While even the most optimistic estimates do not predict the canal could be built in less than a decade, at a cost approaching $100 billion. Turkey’s own financial situation is not such that it can allow itself such a luxury without undermining other projects, and Erdogan’s ability to alienate other leaders means outside funding might be difficult to come by, particularly if outside funding means outside control over the canal. Yet the whole idea behind the canal is that it should serve the sovereign needs of Turkey. In such circumstances, who would be willing to bankroll Erdogan’s unpredictable whims? No amount of refugee crises is liable to extract that kind of a contribution from the European Union, and US funding would naturally come with US control. So it is no surprise the project’s initial construction start date of 2013 has slipped rather dramatically. Even right now, in 2020, the Turkish government is only talking about launching a tender to select firms that would be engaged in its construction.

Therefore at the moment Istanbul Canal is confined to the realm of pipe dreams. In order for it to be completed, it would have to become the biggest state priority in Turkish politics, and would require international financial and possibly also technological support. While there is no doubting Erdogan’s determination to transform Turkey into a power player capable of dictating its will to its geopolitical neighbors and rivals, the country he governs lacks the capacity for transforming his dreams into reality.

Donald Trump’s Ukraine Server- How the FBI and ODNI hacked and influenced the American psyche

March 21, 2020

By GH Eliason for The Saker Blog
Server, server, who has the Trump-Ukraine server? The answers won’t leave room for doubt on this question.
This is part one of a 3 part series showing the FBI and US Intel agency heads are complicit in the DNC hack after the fact and 2016 election interference. Early on, the FBI and Mueller found the real hackers and worked to hide them from justice and exposure in media. Without the FBI and US Intel community help, the Russia saga would have never happened and unbelievable amounts of corruption would have been exposed early on.
Part 2 will expose the identities of the DNC hackers and where they fit in the Information Operation (IO) to indict and impeach US President Donald Trump and destroy 2016 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as agents of Russia or under Russian influence. The US and UK Intel superstars that helped them and some of the projects they worked on including destroying US media platforms not supporting the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be exposed.
Part 3 will conclude analyzing media complicity with corporate contractors, US Intel, and law enforcement.
The only thing that matters are facts and provable evidence. 
When the NYT, 60 Minutes NY, and other outlets contacted me as the original source for what Donald Trump knows about Ukraine’s involvement in 2016 election interference and the DNC hacks, apparently they were correct. It was the only thing they got right about the events even with Pulitzer Prizes and Emmy Awards.  I’ll show why in Part 3 of the series.
Let’s start by solving the DNC hacks in a few paragraphs. If this isn’t the most conclusive evidence you’ve seen for the purpose of getting to the real hackers, don’t read any further afterward.
Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) is the group, Robert Mueller indicted for the DNC hacks. Shaltay Boltay leaders who were in the FSB are the people Comey, Clapper, and Mueller they investigated, indicted, and proclaim guilty of the DNC hack and 2016 election influence.
The story of why Mueller and the FBI, ODNI, and NSA couldn’t prove it shows how deep corruption and criminal abetting are rooted in US government agencies and political parties today. The indicted group has a relationship with Dimitry Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and secondary relationships to Hillary Clinton through the DNC and the RNC through people like Senator John McCain.
Until Crowdstrike’s report late in 2016, the tools Fancy Bear used were proprietary identifiers. Even into 2017, the use of these tools was limited to Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These same distinct tools were used to hack the group the ODNI, FBI, and Robert Mueller identified as the DNC hacking groups, Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear.
In a security white paper entitled En Route with Sednit Part 1: Approaching the Target Version 1.0 October 2016 by ESET LLC, Shaltai Boltai was hacked by Fancy Bear in late October 2016. ESET made this attribution based on a set of specialized hacking software specific to the group Fancy Bear.
According to RFE/RLRUH8 (Ukraine Cyber Alliance) credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.” He claims the malware allowed CyberHunta not only to retrieve Surkov’s e-mail but to “take the entire [Russian] presidential administration system under their control, and they gathered information right from the computers.”
This is verified by Ukraine’s SBU. “And the information that is available in these letters, and which were extracted by” Cyberhunt “, are extremely similar. That is, the methods of execution of all these things – on those documents that officially appear in the materials of criminal proceedings, “- said the head of the SBU.
Lastly,
From Forbes “For example, in October of 2016 “Fancy Bear” was accused of hacking (Shaltai Boltai) Humpty Dumpty.- Paul Roderick Gregory a contributor at CyberHunta sister publication euromaidanpress.com
What’s unique about this is Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev “Lewis” is the actual hacker for what is known as the Surkov leaks. The hacked material was released in two parts. The first, Lewis released himself on the CyberHunta website. This hacked material was then taken directly to the Atlantic Council.
Other victims of Shaltay Boltay include the head of News Media, Aram Gabrelyanov , presenter Dmitry Kiselev , retired o􀄶cer Igor Strelkov- Girkin , presidential aide Vladislav Surkov , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
While they are not quite on the Russian FSB to-do list, they fall nicely into Ukraine’s.
         The first information dump in the Surkov hack (administrative assistant might have been hacked) Shaltay Boltay posted the information on Ukraine’s Cyberhunta website(you need a password to post on a hacker website).
         After the first information dump was released by Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev through the CyberHunta web platform, they were authenticated by the Atlantic Council on the 25th of October, 2016.
         Anikeev was tricked into leaving Ukraine in late October by the FSB. He went to Moscow where he was arrested and charged with treason.
         Shaltay Boltay was hacked by Fancy Bear (identified by specific tools Dimitry Alperovitch said were as strong as DNA evidence) and the hacked information (2nd Surkov dump) was released by Ukraine’s CyberHunta.
Shaltay Boltay was part of CyberHunta which was why they could post material on the Ukrainian website. Ukraine’s CyberHunta and Cyber Alliance work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry as Ukrainian cyber Intel and the DNC as opposition researchers in 2016 through Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska.
Cyber Alliance hackers are Ukrainian nationalists that did not work directly with Shaltay Boltay. They were hired by Alexandra Chalupa. Shaltay Boltay (Mueller’s DNC hackers) was hacked by Fancy Bear in Ukraine even though according to Mueller they were Fancy Bear…from Ukraine.
From the Ukrainian hackers own webportal InformNapalm– InformNapalm volunteer intelligence community was the original publisher of the analysis and the actual dumps of Surkov’s correspondence provided by Ukrainian Cyber ​​Alliance (UCA) in October 2016 (second Surkov dump)… A few days ago, a number of Russian news agencies published a story about the arrest of FSB officers responsible for information security, the head of department at Kaspersky Lab (Department of cybercrime investigations), and one Vladimir Anikeev who testified against another FSB employee.
Anikeev is believed to be “Lewis”, the spokesperson for Anonymous International. FSB recently decided to confuse the matters by using the discovery on Anikeev’s computer of #SurkovLeaks files, which had been obtained and published by #UCA, and had already been in the public domain.
As the speaker for #UCA, I categorically deny any connections between Ukrainian Cyber Alliance and Anonymous International. I will now try to unravel this KGB tangle.
According to RUH8 “Shaltai Boltai people post “samples” of letters of influential, but nonpublic
people, virtually without comment. And they also offer information for sale. But did any of the
allegedly sold correspondences surface anywhere? Why not? Because a complete dump would inflict a
tremendous damage on Moscow, whereas the real goal is to pull some strings and rein in a competitor for power.” .-RUH8
As you’ll see in a second, we found our DNC hackers. The same hacker (RUH8) that gave Ukraine’s CyberHunta credit for the Surkov hack and the first part of the document dump takes credit for the second document dump his group hacked from CyberHunta/Shaltay Boltay’s Anikeev after his arrest.
Notice as much as he hates Anikeev, the Ukrainian nationalist RUH8 denies a connection to the FSB regarding Shaltay Boltay’s work.
“Sometimes they get hacking help from their Russian friends, he says. “There are people there who are so angry at their own government that they are risking spy charges and passing information to us,” RUH8 explains.”- Inside The Ukrainian ‘Hacktivist’ Network Cyberbattling The Kremlin-RFERL
RUH8, the proud Russian hating Ukrainian nationalist is clear. Shaltay Boltay, its members Mueller indicted, WERE NOT working for the Russian government when this combined group hacked the 2016 US election. They were working for Ukraine.
 Initial reports out of Russian media tied Mikhailov to a group of hackers in Ukraine and Thailand called Shaltay Boltay, which means Humpty Dumpty. The group is reportedly affiliated with Anonymous, who released damaging documents on high-level Russians in 2014 and the Kremlin alleges that the arrests are related to this act, as Markov told The Daily Beast that Mikhailov: “definitely controlled Shaltay Boltay,” which “cooperated with the Ukrainian SBU [security service], which is the same as working for the CIA; he worked with them, which is obviously treason.”-Paste Magazine
What if… Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy accessing the servers to see who was “leaking DNC and Team Hillary communications” was from the cyber experts Alexandra Chalupa hired for opposition research from Ukraine?
Think about this for a second because it’s a sensible scenario. Chalupa checks in with her go-to gal Christina Dobrovolska who doubles as Ukraine’s Cyber spy manager.
Christina checks to see who’s available in Ukraine and it’s the guy whose work the entire Russian election influence narrative was based on. He’s ok because he works with Ukraine’s CyberHunta. Who cares that he hacked Huma Abedin’s Yahoo account is a wanted criminal or works for a foreign Intel service.
“At the same time her aides were creating “loyalty scores”, Clinton, “instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign’s server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her—not the other way around—and she wanted ‘to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.”-Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign
“In particular, he says, spear-phishing — using messages that mimic those of legitimate companies along with a request and link to change personal security information — “is quite efficient.”
 RUH8 credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.”- RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance- RFE/RL
The lights go on and the bell sounds. The DNC Russian hacker narrative begins. Que Alexandra Chalupa.
 “In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. “While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.”-Politico 2017 interview with Alexandra Chalupa
It turns out that Ukrainian cyber Intel RUH8’s special Russian friend in Cyberhunta is the same guy Crowdstrike, Comey, Clapper, and Mueller investigated for the DNC hack and the Yahoo hack.
There’s only one problem with the above. The Russian group Shaltay Boltay has never been caught with the Fancy Bear tools. RUH8 and Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance and Cyberhunta had them and used them and used them on Shaltay Boltay. Because the hackers outed themselves by hacking each other with Fancy Bear tools, we have the entire group and subgroups Intel operatives as Chalupa called them in Ukraine.
“So the help of the USA… I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in
international politics.” We have no Need of CIA Help Ukrainian Hackers of #Surkov Leaks-RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance, Cyberhunta, Shaltay Boltay, Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear
Reread RUH8’s statements. This is a guy that is dying to do a book and movie deal to finally get the acclaim he thinks he deserves. Let’s give him one- Capturing the DNC Hackers.
After everything was said and done by Comey, Clapper, and Mueller about Russian hackers and influence, Shaltay Boltay’s archives (aka Fancy Bear servers) had to be retrieved from UKRAINE.
“Anonymous International founder, who is now in jail, reported that he had stored his databases with stolen information in a Kiev apartment. Thanks to Anikeev’s testimony, the investigators found out that the information carriers (servers) with the hacked archives are stored in Kiev.”

Why did Ukrainian Intel operatives do all this?

Dimitry Alperovitch of Crowdstrike has an ongoing “Twitter buddy” relationship with Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta, which includes Shaltay Boltay dating back to at least 2016.
“Hey. I am the press secretary, a simple Ukrainian hacker, more precisely: we are hackers, but imagine a masked man who speaks to you. I do not do OSINT, I do not tell schoolchildren how to hack websites, I do not care about who and what agreed, I’m not an army or a hundred, I do not obey orders and do not follow a ceasefire, build democracy and fight for justice, I am a hacker, and my goal is to break!
 To break, spoil, rob, entangle, blackmail, frighten, divulge, mock and mock the defenselessness of the victims. Because I can. Hate is my name. I will harm the Russian Federation. And I do not care who you are – a liberal or a guardian, Russians must suffer. Traitors and spongers of Russian invaders must suffer. Pensioners and functionaries, Buryats and October, must suffer. If I find a way how to harm you, even for a penny, I immediately use it. Do you live in Russia? Bad luck. I will not tolerate, will not be merciful, I do not forget and do not forgive.- RUH8
C:\Users\GH\Desktop\spy for hire\CYBER TERROR PART 6 REAL TERRORISM\photos used\threat\RUH8 PROTECTING PEOPLE PRAVY SEKTOR CUTS-twitter.com-2019.04.28-01-33-28.png
Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta (including Shaltay Boltay) work under the flag of Dimitro Yarosh’s Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalism. The groups and their web platforms were started by former Pravy Sektor spokesman Sviatoslav Yurash. Yurash was also the spokesman for the 2014 EuroMaidan coup, the Ukrainian military, and is the liaison between the ultra-nationalists and the Ukrainian Diaspora through his position as Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress affiliate in Kiev.
All of this started as an Influence Operation in Ukraine that resulted in the 2014 coup and subsequent move to hard Ukrainian nationalism. It bled into the United States as the 2016 election season heated up.
Suffice to say, means, motive, method, and opportunity have been established by the hackers themselves. Sources friendly to their efforts and neutral mainstream sources including RFERL verify it.
If you’re not convinced now, read no further.
         They (as a foreign Intel service) interfered in the 2016 US election.
         They, along with members of the US Intel community tried to destabilize the government in Russia and the USA.
         They shaped and promoted a false narrative that shipwrecked US and Russia relations.
         Their work helped Crowdstrike shape the Fancy Bear-Cozy Bear narrative.
         They shape the US Intel view of what’s going on in Ukraine allowing for crimes against humanity in Donbass (LNR &DNR) to go unaddressed.
         Later in the series, I’ll show these same groups (Ukraine Cyber Alliance, RUH8, Cyberhunta-Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear) were used to manufacture evidence that will be used in the #MH17 trial at the Hague in conjunction with Bellingcat.
         US Intel for hire superstars used the Fancy Bear groups in conjunction with the #Propornot project illegally to identify and take down news and commentary platforms in the US and EU that published stories against the narratives, they were developing and promoting.
         They illegally targeted people expressing social and political opinions. All of this was with the blessing of period ODNI and FBI leadership.

The Disproven Conspiracy Theories about the DNC Hack and 2016 Russian Election Interference

The disproven conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia and Russian election interference is the ones that were proven baseless in court, not the court of opinion. The evidence was fabricated or just not there, to begin with. The FBI’s criminality hiding the real criminals is examined below.
But, these fake stories are still promulgated in an ongoing effort to sabotage the 2020 election cycle and tear the US social fabric apart. Examples of this are- Why Trump Still Believes (wrongly) that Ukraine Hacked the D.N.C.The Conspiracy Theory So Far Out There Even Trump’s Biggest Defenders Are Walking Away From It and @ScottShaneNYT How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House.

This article is going to open up the potentially wide-ranging crimes at the FBI aiding and abetting criminals for purely political reasons.

 There are only two possible reactions you can have to this. There are some people that will react emotionally or politically and the consequences be damned. As long as it happens to someone they are sure they hate, why care?
When precedents are set, they work both ways. When political leaders like Trump or Sanders are tried in the court of opinion and declared loyal to a foreign government because the other party doesn’t like them. The method is set for every other person that graces the social or political stage.
Look further into the distance and realize this flows downhill. If it’s fine for political leaders, don’t be surprised when it’s your turn at bat because someone doesn’t like you. This kind of lawlessness spreads quickly as we’ve seen since 2016.
Or maybe it’s time to objectively look at the facts and see where the evidence leads in an unbiased way. That’s it. That’s all.
All of the common knowledge stories rely on readers to assume ODNI head James Clapper’s 2017 report was conclusive and the Mueller investigations were successful. Neither of them was, nor could they ever be.
James Clapper was responsible for the evidence Intel agencies presented in the January 2017 report trying to hamstring the newly elected Trump administration for political reasons.
If ODNI chief Clapper believed the 17 Intel Agency strong report, why couldn’t he stand by the same fact-base in 2018? Clapper no longer cited his iron-clad evidence he presented as proof of Russian interference or the DNC hacks.
In 2018, former ODNI head Clapper’s solid proof of Russian interference in the 2016 election became 78,000 people voted against Hillary Clinton and she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Notice Jimmy Clapper wasn’t quoting his solid gold January 2017 report anymore.
Who were these 78,000 Clinton haters that cost the DNC the election in 2016?
Back when there was a real Clinton administration, First Lady Hillary Rodman Clinton demanded the US get involved in the Bosnian war. Hillary Clinton supported KLA terrorists and extremists through a bombing campaign. US bombers drove the families of these voters into the arms of murderers so extreme, they were cutting organs out of living people to sell on the black market. Clinton had them taken off the official terrorist lists to the frustration of negotiators trying to make peace during the war.
The Serbian Diaspora voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania usually votes for the Democratic ticket, that is, unless your name is Hillary Clinton. This was a bloc vote against Hillary Clinton who they hold responsible for the murder of their families at the hand of terrorists. It’s why Clinton ignored those states campaigning. Clinton mistakenly thought having all the major Diaspora votes in swing-states would be enough.
The problem with the evidence of the Russian government interference in 2016 is it had to be manufactured and repeated by a compliant media to exist.
What will be shown through mainstream sources is the Russian FSB and GRU attacks on the American psyche was produced by domestic and foreign criminals that were hostile to the Russian government for nearly a decade before the DNC hacks. The hackers who are IO specialists were targeting Russian politics, not the US.
Robert Mueller and James Comey are accessories after the fact. They tried feverishly and unsuccessfully to incriminate the wrong people because the facts expose large scale political corruption well beyond what is currently known and it all revolves around Ukraine.
According to PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) in a study titled Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017 there was no Russian impact on the election and they used 6 research standards to measure it.
If you don’t trust official studies done under the Trump administration tenure, Jon Solomon had this to write after uncovering 2016-17 FBI memos: The piecemeal release of FBI files in the Russia collusion investigation has masked an essential fact: James Comey’s G-men had substantially debunked the theory that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow by the time the 45th president was settling into the Oval Office, according to declassified memos, court filings and interviews.
And that means a nascent presidency and an entire nation were put through two more years of lacerating debate over an issue that was mostly resolved in January 2017 inside the bureau’s own evidence files. The proof is now sitting in plain view.- FBI’s Russia collusion case fell apart in first month of Trump presidency, memos show
This is why James Clapper changed his tune so radically. When you look at the above, Hillary was taken out behind the woodshed in 2016 for good reasons. Ask yourself what does it have to do with Russians, Russia, or Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? The only scenario all the evidence supports is Hillary Clinton stepped on a proverbial rake and made herself unelectable in 2016.

FBI, CIA, and ODNI criminal conspiracy against the United States

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution– Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.
Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
I refuse to give James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, or Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant little men.  They acted with full knowledge of what they were doing. Along with all of the agencies’ department heads, these men used their offices trying to try to overthrow the election of the President of the United States and change the fabric of US society by creating irreparable political and social division.
American officials, sworn to defend the USA used their power to fabricate a political narrative they called Intelligence to create their own foreign policy (Russia/Ukraine)and domestic policy(including media, political norms and policy) for the United States.
As late as 2018, #JamesComey was clear when he dismissed a House intelligence committee report that found no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as a “political document”. When the ODNI report was written, he knew there was no evidence of Donald Trump-Russia collusion. They all knew.
ODNI Clapper, FBI Comey, John Brennan and Special Counsel Mueller knew in 2017 that the US Intel community conceded there was no coordinated effort by Russia to influence the 2016 election months before.
They successfully divided the United States socially and politically in ways Orwell would be proud of.

Why did US political activism by sworn officials cross a bridge too far?

It all started falling into place after 9-11. Congress decided the FBI needed to get into the Intelligence business. At the time, the FBI fought the changes saying it would hurt their criminal investigation mandate. Because the CIA legally can’t operate domestically, the FBI was rebooted to do the job.
The 2000s version of the FBI was right. The FBI went from being the world’s premier criminal investigation agency to one of the worst imitations of a private sector  CIA domestically and around the world.
The same man the FBI called a nuisance and danger to national security after the twin towers collapsed in New York networked intelligently enough to become the trainer of choice for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, NATO, et al.
This new mandate from Congress created over 5000 new Intel positions right away inside the FBI that were filled with outside contractors.
Today’s Intel agency leaders including Homeland Security and FBI department heads were his students from the early 2000s onward. The rise and risk of Intelligence for hire is detailed in U.S. Intelligence Crisis Poses a Threat to the World (Part 1)
This particular agency trainer almost singlehandedly started the US side of the social-political Russian collusion storyline by himself labeling anyone outside his narrative Kremlin trolls and pro-Russian influencers.  He made looking for pro-Russian collaborators fashionable in a post-2016 world in a way that would make Joe McCarthy tingly.
He personally is why media came under so much scrutiny and groups like Propornot were formed to destroy media that didn’t agree to the McCarthy-like narrative, alternative media sources that spoke against the Clinton campaign and post-2014 Ukraine. Watch as it starts again as the 2020 election cycle heats up.
Along with the other US Intel actors, he aided and abetted the murder of journalists in Ukraine by providing the tools, training, means, and method to set it up. It’s quite an embarrassment for Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, and the agencies, et al.
Imagine, one of the rock-stars of modern Intel being found in that position after your agencies were trained to look at information like him for over a decade. It’s no wonder they hand-fed the current Russia policy narrative he developed to MSM.
In part2, I’ll detail who he is, many of the crimes, along with the real identities of the DNC hackers.
Fusion GPS and Patterning the Trump-Sanders Accusations and Russia Investigation
If the ODNI and FBI engaged in consistent patterns of activity for political reasons that tear the societal fabric of the USA to support corruption that destroy the lives of US citizens, change foreign policy, and erode citizen’s rights, should it be investigated?
It started with Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries. This bled into the 2020 primaries.
Sander’s accusations started with “Adam Parkhomenko, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly suggested that Senator Bernie Sanders owes his popularity to Russian support, backed the attorney’s abortive bid for president.”- NYMag
Sander’s accusations of Russia collusion ended with –“A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton”-USA Today
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Bernie Sanders started with a tweeted accusation. Most of the Russian nationals not named were publishers and journalists that support Bernie Sanders and were listed by the FBI trainer who started accusing American web portals of being influencers for the Russian government.

Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the co-founders of the private investigative firm Fusion GPS never tried to vet any of the information Christopher Steele gave them in the infamous and tantalizing Steele Dossier.
The closest anyone has come to a real source is an unknown Russian émigré in the US provided the narrative for Christopher Steele (foreign Intel agent) about events he/she had no first-hand knowledge of.
“Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled in his notes.”- The Hill
Is it possible for investigative journalists like Simpson and Fritsch not be even remotely curious about the legitimacy of such scandalous information? This Intel is about an elected US President and they claim they were acting patriotically.
Fusion GPS Founders On Russian Efforts To Sow Discord: ‘They Have Succeeded’. This is quite a statement considering when asked, they admitted they knew absolutely nothing about Steele’s politically motivated fiction.
It’s easy to see why such an appalling politically driven fantasy fell apart after it was given a real examination. But, that’s not the point.
Simpson and Fritsch turned around and gave the Steele Dossier to Republican Senator John McCain (the anti-Trump), knowing full well if he acted in character the Dossier would be made public.  Why McCain’s office? The answer is included below.
“The Washington Times first disclosed the document on April 25, 2017. Republicans later told the Justice Department the filing should have set off alarm bells inside the FBI about Mr. Steele’s credibility, given his admission he had accepted gossip.”-The Washington Times
“The top judge on the federal court overseeing the U.S. government’s surveillance activities accused the FBI on Tuesday of providing false and misleading information about Carter Page in applications to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser.”– The National Interest
“Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI’s gross abuse of its power – its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don’t consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal, what is?”– The Intercept

ODNI, FBI Hacked and Influenced the American Psyche

Throughout the entire hack and election influence saga US Intel officials acted like spokesmodels for Ukrainian –American Diaspora leader Alexandra Chalupa. They constantly acted for the benefit of private citizen groups and companies who wanted to change US foreign policy and the fabric of society in the USA.
The following is from a man that knows the facts. How can you get such a senior position otherwise? Here’s his big media sound bite;
“FEINSTEIN: And what would those goals have been?
PRIESTAP: I think the primary goal, in my mind, was to sow discord, and to try to delegitimize our free and fair election process. I also think another of their goals, which the entire United States intelligence community stands behind, was to denigrate Secretary Clinton and to try to help then — current President Trump.”- Vox
“Russia, for years, has conducted influence operations targeting our elections,” an FBI agent told Congress on Wednesday. But what made 2016 different was the degree of interference, facilitated by the Internet, said Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.”.-(CNSNews.com)
And here are Bill Priestap’s conclusions after the media turn away and he’s forced to put on his big boy pants and own up to the evidence the FBI has after years of investigation.
“Further, all three witnesses in that hearing—Ms.Manfra, Dr. Files, and FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap—agreed that they had no evidence that votes themselves were changed in any way in the 2016 election.”- REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Therein lays the crux of the problem. The FBI wanted the election interference story to resonate publically but under oath, there was never any evidence.
According to the IG Report, FBI leaders, lawyers, and investigators were pulling out all stops to derail Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election. How did this organized, continuous, multi-faceted, and multi-event war play on the American psyche? You tell me.
FBI Tried to Influence the Trump Campaign“While the results of any physical searches related to Page are unknown, what is known is that federal spying on the Trump campaign through Page went further. Prior to the FISA surveillance orders, the FBI tasked informant Stefan Halper with targeting Page. (Another agency may have as well.) The IG report revealed that in targeting Page, Halper sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”-The Federalist
The only thing to consider is the FBI may have conducted the biggest set of serial crimes of this decade by a law enforcement agency.
This effectively divided every American on a social and political basis. It wasn’t a single event but a continuing policy surrounding the election, foreign policy, and the lengths federal investigators could go to hamstring the executive branch for political reasons.
Before the December 2016 ODNI-FBI GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity JAR, there was no proof of Russian intervention except what came out of the Clinton camp. James Comey denied it. After the ODNI JAR, there was no evidence of Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
The report itself and the actions surrounding it were nothing short of a successful politically charged foreign policy intervention by the FBI and ODNI. How can I say this?
Mueller indicted a Russian company called Concord Management & Consulting LLC for being the vehicle the Russian government used to interfere in the 2016 election. All the information Robert Mueller, James Comey, and James Clapper had to go on came from the indicted DNC hacking group themselves.
After establishing this, we’ll look at the ongoing relationship between the investigators and the criminal hacking groups to reshape American politics, cover-up enormous corruption in the Obama administration, Clinton campaign, and hamstring an elected US President.
The other company called the Internet Research Agency was part of Concord Management.
“In 2014, according to Russian media, Internet Research Ltd. (Russian: «Интернет исследования») was founded in March 2014, joined IRA’s activity. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that this company is a successor of Internet Research Agency Ltd. Internet Research Ltd. is considered to be linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the holding company Concord Management and Consulting. The “Trolls of Olgino” are considered to be his project. As of October 2014, the company belonged to Mikhail Bystrov, who had been the head of the police station at Moscow district of Saint Petersburg.
Russian media point out that according to documents, published by hackers from Anonymous International, Concord Management is directly involved with trolling administration through the agency. Researchers cite e-mail correspondence, in which Concord Management gives instructions to trolls and receives reports on accomplished work. According to journalists, Concord Management organized banquets in the Kremlin and also cooperated with Voentorg and the Russian Ministry of Defense.”-Wikipedia
This information is well documented enough to have an almost accurate Wikipedia listing barring one glaring point Mueller, Comey, and Clapper needed to ignore to build their Trump-Russia collusion, Russian election interference, and Russian hacking narrative.
Scott Humor at the Saker.is researched the Internet Research Agency extensively. In an article entitled “A Brief History of the Kremlin Trolls,” he shows clearly the Internet Research Agency only existed on paper. Even then, it ceased to exist in 2015. It was liquidated and the company emerged as a construction retail company called TEKA.
This brings us to the foreign policy objective the US Intel community and US Intel agencies hacked the American psyche very successfully to reach:
“On 29 December 2016, the White House accused and sanctioned the FSB and several other Russian companies for what the US intelligence agencies said was their role in helping the Russian military intelligence service, the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) disrupt and spread disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election. In addition, the State Department also declared 35 Russian diplomats and officials persona non grata and denied Russian government officials access to two Russian-owned installations in Maryland and New York.”- Wikipedia
Here’s the fun part. Everything we know about 2016 Russian involvement stems from this same small group that ODNI and FBI had to embellish by magnitudes to link them to a Russian government operation and then indict.
While they were the hackers and Information Operators the FBI investigated and Robert Mueller indicted, the hacking groups weren’t working for the Russian government for the Yahoo hack or the DNC hack and 2016election hacks.
Dmitry Dokuchaev used his position to commit crimes against Russia and the USA which helped the FBI to build the one narrative they needed to fabricate official Russian government involvement.
         U.S. v. Dmitry Dokuchaev, et al.
         “Dokuchaev is a former hacker from Yekaterinburg. He was reportedly blackmailed into joining the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, after his private exploits became known to the service, but then built a successful career, rising to the rank of major. The Russian investigation appears to link him to a group called Shaltai Boltai, or Humpty Dumpty, which broke into electronic mailboxes, mostly of Russian officials and business people, obtained compromising information about them and then either sold or published it. The group’s work was a combination of blackmail, competitive intelligence and public relations; Dokuchaev’s alleged role was to direct the group toward particular victims and cover up its activities while pretending to investigate it.”- Bloomberg- What the Yahoo Hack Says About Russian Spies-The 2014 hack appears to have been a business scheme run by Russian intelligence officers
The FSB agency mandate is limited by law to work inside Russia, not outside. This alone makes it illegal for the FSB to engage in state-level espionage and hacking operations outside.
The FSB has an incredible amount of legal authority to surveil all information passed on or through Russian servers.
Jeff Carr noted the Russian Law on the FSB (article 15) states that “all individuals and legal entities in Russia, providing postal services, telecommunications of all kinds, including systems, data communication, satellite communications, are obliged at the request of the Federal Security Service to include in the extra hardware equipment and software, as well as create other conditions necessary for the operational and technical measures by the Federal Security Service.”
And yet;
In case you missed it, the FSB through Dmitry Dokuchaev’s Shaltay Boltay was accused of illegally hacking accounts of Russian officials. Why would the FSB hack these officials it legally had almost unlimited jurisdiction to the information without hacking?
For anyone clinging to the Yahoo or DNC hacks with a purely political mindset; this is the same as walking into a bank vault with $1 billion dollars in it. You know you have the legal right to walk away with any or all of it. But, just for giggles, you hire a foreign criminal to rob the place which makes you liable for bank robbery, conspiracy, and treason.
And in the real world case of Yahoo, you get caught because the Canadian hacker you illegally hired for the Yahoo hack broke the Canadian criminal code of silence when he testified against you.
To put it delicately, this would have to be the most inept crime of all time. For this to be true, Dokuchaev must have just fallen off the turnip truck and hit his head. Got whacked with the ole’ ugly stick at the same time he stepped on a rake as he was laughed at by a 12-year-old girl who wound up and kicked him in the…….Seriously? That’s as insulting as it is injurious.
Instead, what we have is a group of Russian criminals (Shaltai Boltai) who are not working for the Russian government and continually try to hack Russian officials for blackmail. According to Stratfor, “In a 2015 interview, the leader of Shaltai Boltai, code-named “Lewis,” said his group was driven purely by money, not ideology… The narrative linking Shaltai Boltai to the FSB officers came just three days after the initial stories suggesting the FSB officers were the sources of leaks to U.S. intelligence.”
But were Dokuchaev and Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay) feeding US Intelligence information? If so, what kind of information?
The “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI quotes Shaltay Boltay because this group is the primary source of information about both events because they created what we know about them.

Dokuchaev, Shaltay Boltay, the FBI, and Robert Mueller

Summary:
The FBI interviewed members of Shaltay Boltay groups and asked for help writing the 2016 election hacking and influence story. Shaltay Boltay could play the heroes and the villains. They were heroes because they created the influence story about a non-existent company that no one could find that Putin ordered to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.
They were the villains because they were the DNC hackers. If Shaltay Boltay cooperated to implicate Trump and Putin, US citizenship and jobs were waiting for them.
Dokuchaev and his working group Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay), otherwise known as Anonymous International or Humpty Dumpty  are the source for everything known about the Russian Internet Agency (IRA), Russian election interference, and provides the Russian FSB-GRU connection through Dokuchaev needed to make the Russia-DNC hack narrative almost work.
Shaltay Boltay are the Yahoo hackers that stole Huma Abedin’ State Department logins. This is important because it also separates them from being Russian government operatives.
More importantly, their own self described claim to fame was creating realities. Shaltay Boltay primary work is in Information Operations. The founder of the elusive Shaltai Boltai hacker group has been uncovered as Vladimir Anikeyev, a native Dagestani and expert in “black PR.”
It’s no secret today Comey’s FBI and the Mueller investigation were working hard to grasp at any straw they could to derail the Trump presidency. Even though they knew there was no collusion, their teams worked overtime to prove it by pushing half-truths in an invented narrative.
What brings the FBI investigators and Comey’s behavior to a collusion, harboring, and abetting threshold is they identified the leaders of the hacking groups early on, the hackers, and ignored them to hide corruption.

Was the ODNI and Comey’s FBI an accessory after the fact to the DNC Hacks and murder? – Harboring Criminals

Comey’s Russian collusion team and the Mueller probes pushed the 2016 investigations away from the criminals they were supposed to be investigating.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) were part of a higher level group. While this group worked for money, not politics, the higher-level group are extreme nationalists.
The big question if their entire history is blackmailing Russians, who are they working for in relation to the US election?
         The FBI knew this group fabricated the only basis used for a Russia election interference investigation. The FBI knew they did this from Ukraine.
The reason the FBI and Mueller knew the Russian government FSB-GRU connection to the hacks was fabricated was the leaders of Shaltay Boltay were extremely clear and public about hurting the Russian government and Russians.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew from 2014- late 2016, the indicted and ignored involved leaders and US oriented parts of Shaltay Boltay were located in Kiev, Ukraine.
Shaltay Boltay leaders were wanted criminals and worked against the Russian government 2014-2016 when they fled to Kiev. This is evidenced by the so-called Surkov hack. The emails were released through the working group Shaltay Boltay was with 2014-16.
         The FBI and Mueller had this group’s IP addresses which Mueller used in his indictments and the willing cooperation of the server company that hosted them.
“If we consider the situation from the other side, it is unclear why the FBI and related experts are talking only about our company,” said Fomenko. “After all, the U.S. intelligence report says that the hacking was staged from eight IP addresses, six of them belonging to our company (the criminals used our equipment), and two other companies being not connected with us in any way. One of them is located in the Netherlands, I don’t know about the other. But it’s all just about us. What is this? Prejudice?”-RBTH
         The FBI and Mueller refused to investigate or interview the owner of the server (King Servers) the DNC hackers used who wanted to testify. Yet, Shaltay Boltay’s IP addresses were considered key evidence anyway. Apparently, the DNC hackers owed him money.
The FBI knew the groups involved physical location and concealed it to shield them from the investigation by constantly attributing the DNC and subsequent hacks to Russia.
         The FBI and Mueller purposefully stayed away from the main group and targeted sub-groups, outliers, and used false accusations that protected the Executive branch from being dragged into the investigation. At the very least, all of this happened as the direct result of Obama’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
Shaltai Boltai’s Yevgeny Nikulin was interviewed by the FBI. According to Disobedient Media’s Adam Carter “Nikulin has stated in a letter, passed to his lawyer Martin Sadilek and reported by Moscow Times, that, after his arrest on October 5, 2016, he was visited by the FBI several times, the first of which was on 14-15 November, 2016.
From the Bell– In it, he also mentions attacks on the servers of the Democratic Party committee. Kozlovsky writes that he was engaged in them on behalf of the FSB officer, whom he calls “Ilya.” Later, the hacker began to claim that under the pseudonym “Ilya” he was supervised by FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchaev.
         The FBI investigators allegedly offered payment for information implicating Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
On 5/11/17 Newsweek ran an article headlined FBI PROBE INTO CLINTON EMAILS PROMPTED OFFER OF CASH, CITIZENSHIP FOR CONFESSION, RUSSIAN HACKER CLAIMS.“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.”
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay was part of a foreign Intel structure whose goal since 2014 has been to disrupt US-Russia relations.
         The FBI knew Shaltay Boltay as part of Ukrainian CyberHunta worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign as opposition researchers through the DNC.
Alexandra Chalupa used private/public Ukrainian Cyber Intel groups Ukraine Cyber Alliance and CyberHunta(part of the Ukrainian Ministry of Information) to do opposition research. Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska (US State Department contractor, liaison to the US-Ukrainian Diaspora) led the groups under the Information Ministry.
         The FBI knew the main workgroup also worked in conjunction with Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and members of the US Intel community. The groups were used to fabricate anti-Russian narratives for NATO and statements delivered to US Congressional committees voting on support for Ukraine.
The Daily Beast-The deputy head of its now-defunct Center for Information Security, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested, along with two colleagues and an employee of the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky, Ruslan Stoyanov, for allegedly passing secret information to Western intelligence agencies.
         The FBI knew only Crowdstrike, Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta had possession of key component tools of the DNC hack that Crowdstrike’s Dimitry Alperovitch stated were like DNA evidence.
The FBI knew Crowdstrike relied on information they shared with the Ukrainian Intel groups.
         According to Wikileaks, the phishing attack on Podesta originated in Ukraine.
         The FBI and Mueller knew the groups labeled Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear along with American and British Intel community members were involved in setting up the Ukrainian Information Ministry’s murder for hire platform Myrotvorets beginning very in early 2015.
These same groups protected by the FBI worked with US & UK Intel Community superstars to set up and refine Myrotvorets. This was Ukraine’s hit-for-hire listings that named the enemies of post-Maidan Ukraine. It started with the murder of journalist Olez Buzina one month after the webplatform went live. At the time it went live, I predicted the first murder would soon follow. Unfortunately, it did.
         The FBI knows the core members responsible for all this and that can answer for it are the ones they concealed from the investigation still operate in Ukraine.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, anyone who “harbors or conceals” a person to prevent their “discovery and arrest” is guilty of a crime.

TheTrump-Ukraine Servers

Servers, servers, let’s see who has the Trump-Ukraine server. I chose the following article quote from @benshapiro out of the all the rest of the barrel for the colorful language he uses. Imagine a lone DNC server determined to live its life in peace and solitude makes the arduous journey to Kiev, Ukraine. This is a story of triumph over adversity. It’s a real tear-jerker.
He begins by introducing part of the conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
 “The Phone Call
According to the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House, Trump asks Zelensky for a favor, “because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. . . . They say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
Here, Trump is referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that Russia was framed by Ukraine for the 2016 hack and subsequent release of a damaging tranche of Democratic National Committee emails, which involves a supposed “secret” DNC server being spirited away to and hidden in Ukraine. He seems to be asking Zelensky to investigate the conspiracy theory, presumably in hopes that it would remove the taint of Russian interference from his 2016 victory.”- The Two Theories of Trump’s Actions in the Ukraine Affair By BEN SHAPIRO October 25, 2019 11:01 AM-  National Review
What the wondrous barrel of articles and colorful tales ignore is this is the 21st century and your computer doesn’t need to plug directly into a server. Many people across the world use US hosting services (servers) and vice versa.
Let’s add facts into this and dispense with hyperbole.
Alexandra Chalupa told Politico part of her Oppo-research team was Ukrainian “private Intel.” She hired Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta (which included Shaltay Boltay at the time). These groups work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry, SBU (Ukraine’s version of the CIA), the US State Department under Obama, and are Ukraine’s front line Cyber hacking, spy, and Information Operations unit against Russia, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.
Would you have foreign hackers running rampant on your servers based in the United States which fall under the direct legal purview of election law, Constitutional law, and Federal law?
Of course not. If you were in a gray area where your candidate for US President could be taken to the carpet and impeached for using foreign spy services to build the campaign, the best move would be having questionable work or workers that can be questioned on safe ground to begin with.
If you were working for another country’s spy services, would you want a direct fingerprint inside the election of a US president? Again the answer is no. The ramifications to your own country could be enormous once a better than the barrel investigative journalist gets a whiff of it.
If you do your work through a safe server in your own country, you remain anonymous, have a better chance of success, and might get a medal for it.
The above limits the number of servers in the world that could be used to just 4 or 5. Remember, security is everything. These groups are part of the Ukrainian security infrastructure and realistically would need to be able to scale up to nation-state level actions.
1.       Shaltay Boltay’s server where they stored their archive.
2.       The servers RUH8, Cyber Alliance, and Cyberhunta use.
3.       The Ministry of Information servers because all the hackers including Shaltay Boltay (credited with the DNC hack) worked for them
4.       According to the Kiev Post-Ukrainian special services looking into disappearance of servers from presidential office’s situational room because of former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko gutted the server room claiming the servers belonged to someone else and had to be returned. He paid for this out of his own pocket instead of Ukrainian state funds. This is almost blasphemy for a graft guy like Poroshenko. The former Ukrainian president is adamant that even though they were the most protected servers in Ukraine, no Ukraine state business was conducted on them.
The reason for this shortlist instead of a particular DNC server is their servers will catalog all their crimes. Not just the DNC hack adventure. It will also catalog all their contacts. This part is important to pursue criminal and civil investigations for crimes and damages they did to news and analytical platforms, public people, journalists, and citizens of the US, Russia, EU, as well as their own country, Ukraine.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, the sites that were hacked in association to #Propornot and lost income, jobs, or reputation, are entitled to restitution. Crimes have been committed against the American, Russian, and EU people, Democratic party members, the Trump administration, Bernie Sanders campaign 2016.
Will the FBI, ODNI, and private Intel companies be held accountable for allowing and protecting foreign spy agencies to operate freely inside US infrastructure?
The politicization of the ODNI, FBI, and CIA needs to cease. This can only be done by phasing out private money from the Intel and law enforcement game. The FBI has no business in the Intel game because the change of mandate is what corrupted a world-renown criminal investigation agency in the first place.
Next up in the series: Outing the DNC hackers
Donald Trump’s Ukraine Server- How the FBI and ODNI hacked and influenced the American psyche
Server, server, who has the Trump-Ukraine server? The answers won’t leave room for doubt on this question.
This is part one of a 3 part series showing the FBI and US Intel agency heads are complicit in the DNC hack after the fact and 2016 election interference. Early on, the FBI and Mueller found the real hackers and worked to hide them from justice and exposure in media. Without the FBI and US Intel community help, the Russia saga would have never happened and unbelievable amounts of corruption would have been exposed early on.
Part 2 will expose the identities of the DNC hackers and where they fit in the Information Operation (IO) to indict and impeach US President Donald Trump and destroy 2016 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as agents of Russia or under Russian influence. The US and UK Intel superstars that helped them and some of the projects they worked on including destroying US media platforms not supporting the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be exposed.
Part 3 will conclude analyzing media complicity with corporate contractors, US Intel, and law enforcement.
The only thing that matters are facts and provable evidence. 
When the NYT, 60 Minutes NY, and other outlets contacted me as the original source for what Donald Trump knows about Ukraine’s involvement in 2016 election interference and the DNC hacks, apparently they were correct. It was the only thing they got right about the events even with Pulitzer Prizes and Emmy Awards.  I’ll show why in Part 3 of the series.
Let’s start by solving the DNC hacks in a few paragraphs. If this isn’t the most conclusive evidence you’ve seen for the purpose of getting to the real hackers, don’t read any further afterward.
Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) is the group, Robert Mueller indicted for the DNC hacks. Shaltay Boltay leaders who were in the FSB are the people Comey, Clapper, and Mueller they investigated, indicted, and proclaim guilty of the DNC hack and 2016 election influence.
The story of why Mueller and the FBI, ODNI, and NSA couldn’t prove it shows how deep corruption and criminal abetting are rooted in US government agencies and political parties today. The indicted group has a relationship with Dimitry Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and secondary relationships to Hillary Clinton through the DNC and the RNC through people like Senator John McCain.
Until Crowdstrike’s report late in 2016, the tools Fancy Bear used were proprietary identifiers. Even into 2017, the use of these tools was limited to Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These same distinct tools were used to hack the group the ODNI, FBI, and Robert Mueller identified as the DNC hacking groups, Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear.
In a security white paper entitled En Route with Sednit Part 1: Approaching the Target Version 1.0 October 2016 by ESET LLC, Shaltai Boltai was hacked by Fancy Bear in late October 2016. ESET made this attribution based on a set of specialized hacking software specific to the group Fancy Bear.
According to RFE/RLRUH8 (Ukraine Cyber Alliance) credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.” He claims the malware allowed CyberHunta not only to retrieve Surkov’s e-mail but to “take the entire [Russian] presidential administration system under their control, and they gathered information right from the computers.”
This is verified by Ukraine’s SBU. “And the information that is available in these letters, and which were extracted by” Cyberhunt “, are extremely similar. That is, the methods of execution of all these things – on those documents that officially appear in the materials of criminal proceedings, “- said the head of the SBU.
Lastly,
From Forbes “For example, in October of 2016 “Fancy Bear” was accused of hacking (Shaltai Boltai) Humpty Dumpty.- Paul Roderick Gregory a contributor at CyberHunta sister publication euromaidanpress.com
What’s unique about this is Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev “Lewis” is the actual hacker for what is known as the Surkov leaks. The hacked material was released in two parts. The first, Lewis released himself on the CyberHunta website. This hacked material was then taken directly to the Atlantic Council.
Other victims of Shaltay Boltay include the head of News Media, Aram Gabrelyanov , presenter Dmitry Kiselev , retired o􀄶cer Igor Strelkov- Girkin , presidential aide Vladislav Surkov , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
While they are not quite on the Russian FSB to-do list, they fall nicely into Ukraine’s.
         The first information dump in the Surkov hack (administrative assistant might have been hacked) Shaltay Boltay posted the information on Ukraine’s Cyberhunta website(you need a password to post on a hacker website).
         After the first information dump was released by Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev through the CyberHunta web platform, they were authenticated by the Atlantic Council on the 25th of October, 2016.
         Anikeev was tricked into leaving Ukraine in late October by the FSB. He went to Moscow where he was arrested and charged with treason.
         Shaltay Boltay was hacked by Fancy Bear (identified by specific tools Dimitry Alperovitch said were as strong as DNA evidence) and the hacked information (2nd Surkov dump) was released by Ukraine’s CyberHunta.
Shaltay Boltay was part of CyberHunta which was why they could post material on the Ukrainian website. Ukraine’s CyberHunta and Cyber Alliance work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry as Ukrainian cyber Intel and the DNC as opposition researchers in 2016 through Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska.
Cyber Alliance hackers are Ukrainian nationalists that did not work directly with Shaltay Boltay. They were hired by Alexandra Chalupa. Shaltay Boltay (Mueller’s DNC hackers) was hacked by Fancy Bear in Ukraine even though according to Mueller they were Fancy Bear…from Ukraine.
From the Ukrainian hackers own webportal InformNapalm– InformNapalm volunteer intelligence community was the original publisher of the analysis and the actual dumps of Surkov’s correspondence provided by Ukrainian Cyber ​​Alliance (UCA) in October 2016 (second Surkov dump)… A few days ago, a number of Russian news agencies published a story about the arrest of FSB officers responsible for information security, the head of department at Kaspersky Lab (Department of cybercrime investigations), and one Vladimir Anikeev who testified against another FSB employee.
Anikeev is believed to be “Lewis”, the spokesperson for Anonymous International. FSB recently decided to confuse the matters by using the discovery on Anikeev’s computer of #SurkovLeaks files, which had been obtained and published by #UCA, and had already been in the public domain.
 As the speaker for #UCA, I categorically deny any connections between Ukrainian Cyber Alliance and Anonymous International. I will now try to unravel this KGB tangle.
According to RUH8 “Shaltai Boltai people post “samples” of letters of influential, but nonpublic
people, virtually without comment. And they also offer information for sale. But did any of the
allegedly sold correspondences surface anywhere? Why not? Because a complete dump would inflict a
tremendous damage on Moscow, whereas the real goal is to pull some strings and rein in a competitor for power.” .-RUH8
As you’ll see in a second, we found our DNC hackers. The same hacker (RUH8) that gave Ukraine’s CyberHunta credit for the Surkov hack and the first part of the document dump takes credit for the second document dump his group hacked from CyberHunta/Shaltay Boltay’s Anikeev after his arrest.
Notice as much as he hates Anikeev, the Ukrainian nationalist RUH8 denies a connection to the FSB regarding Shaltay Boltay’s work.
“Sometimes they get hacking help from their Russian friends, he says. “There are people there who are so angry at their own government that they are risking spy charges and passing information to us,” RUH8 explains.”- Inside The Ukrainian ‘Hacktivist’ Network Cyberbattling The Kremlin-RFERL
RUH8, the proud Russian hating Ukrainian nationalist is clear. Shaltay Boltay, its members Mueller indicted, WERE NOT working for the Russian government when this combined group hacked the 2016 US election. They were working for Ukraine.
Initial reports out of Russian media tied Mikhailov to a group of hackers in Ukraine and Thailand called Shaltay Boltay, which means Humpty Dumpty. The group is reportedly affiliated with Anonymous, who released damaging documents on high-level Russians in 2014 and the Kremlin alleges that the arrests are related to this act, as Markov told The Daily Beast that Mikhailov: “definitely controlled Shaltay Boltay,” which “cooperated with the Ukrainian SBU [security service], which is the same as working for the CIA; he worked with them, which is obviously treason.”-Paste Magazine
What if… Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy accessing the servers to see who was “leaking DNC and Team Hillary communications” was from the cyber experts Alexandra Chalupa hired for opposition research from Ukraine?
Think about this for a second because it’s a sensible scenario. Chalupa checks in with her go-to gal Christina Dobrovolska who doubles as Ukraine’s Cyber spy manager.
Christina checks to see who’s available in Ukraine and it’s the guy whose work the entire Russian election influence narrative was based on. He’s ok because he works with Ukraine’s CyberHunta. Who cares that he hacked Huma Abedin’s Yahoo account is a wanted criminal or works for a foreign Intel service.
“At the same time her aides were creating “loyalty scores”, Clinton, “instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign’s server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her—not the other way around—and she wanted ‘to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.”-Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign
“In particular, he says, spear-phishing — using messages that mimic those of legitimate companies along with a request and link to change personal security information — “is quite efficient.”
RUH8 credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.”- RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance- RFE/RL
The lights go on and the bell sounds. The DNC Russian hacker narrative begins. Que Alexandra Chalupa.
“In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. “While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.”-Politico 2017 interview with Alexandra Chalupa
It turns out that Ukrainian cyber Intel RUH8’s special Russian friend in Cyberhunta is the same guy Crowdstrike, Comey, Clapper, and Mueller investigated for the DNC hack and the Yahoo hack.
There’s only one problem with the above. The Russian group Shaltay Boltay has never been caught with the Fancy Bear tools. RUH8 and Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance and Cyberhunta had them and used them and used them on Shaltay Boltay. Because the hackers outed themselves by hacking each other with Fancy Bear tools, we have the entire group and subgroups Intel operatives as Chalupa called them in Ukraine.
“So the help of the USA… I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in
international politics.” We have no Need of CIA Help Ukrainian Hackers of #Surkov Leaks-RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance, Cyberhunta, Shaltay Boltay, Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear
Reread RUH8’s statements. This is a guy that is dying to do a book and movie deal to finally get the acclaim he thinks he deserves. Let’s give him one- Capturing the DNC Hackers.
After everything was said and done by Comey, Clapper, and Mueller about Russian hackers and influence, Shaltay Boltay’s archives (aka Fancy Bear servers) had to be retrieved from UKRAINE.
“Anonymous International founder, who is now in jail, reported that he had stored his databases with stolen information in a Kiev apartment. Thanks to Anikeev’s testimony, the investigators found out that the information carriers (servers) with the hacked archives are stored in Kiev.”

Why did Ukrainian Intel operatives do all this?

Dimitry Alperovitch of Crowdstrike has an ongoing “Twitter buddy” relationship with Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta, which includes Shaltay Boltay dating back to at least 2016.
“Hey. I am the press secretary, a simple Ukrainian hacker, more precisely: we are hackers, but imagine a masked man who speaks to you. I do not do OSINT, I do not tell schoolchildren how to hack websites, I do not care about who and what agreed, I’m not an army or a hundred, I do not obey orders and do not follow a ceasefire, build democracy and fight for justice, I am a hacker, and my goal is to break!
 To break, spoil, rob, entangle, blackmail, frighten, divulge, mock and mock the defenselessness of the victims. Because I can. Hate is my name. I will harm the Russian Federation. And I do not care who you are – a liberal or a guardian, Russians must suffer. Traitors and spongers of Russian invaders must suffer. Pensioners and functionaries, Buryats and October, must suffer. If I find a way how to harm you, even for a penny, I immediately use it. Do you live in Russia? Bad luck. I will not tolerate, will not be merciful, I do not forget and do not forgive.- RUH8
C:\Users\GH\Desktop\spy for hire\CYBER TERROR PART 6 REAL TERRORISM\photos used\threat\RUH8 PROTECTING PEOPLE PRAVY SEKTOR CUTS-twitter.com-2019.04.28-01-33-28.png
Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta (including Shaltay Boltay) work under the flag of Dimitro Yarosh’s Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalism. The groups and their web platforms were started by former Pravy Sektor spokesman Sviatoslav Yurash. Yurash was also the spokesman for the 2014 EuroMaidan coup, the Ukrainian military, and is the liaison between the ultra-nationalists and the Ukrainian Diaspora through his position as Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress affiliate in Kiev.
All of this started as an Influence Operation in Ukraine that resulted in the 2014 coup and subsequent move to hard Ukrainian nationalism. It bled into the United States as the 2016 election season heated up.
Suffice to say, means, motive, method, and opportunity have been established by the hackers themselves. Sources friendly to their efforts and neutral mainstream sources including RFERL verify it.
If you’re not convinced now, read no further.
         They (as a foreign Intel service) interfered in the 2016 US election.
         They, along with members of the US Intel community tried to destabilize the government in Russia and the USA.
         They shaped and promoted a false narrative that shipwrecked US and Russia relations.
         Their work helped Crowdstrike shape the Fancy Bear-Cozy Bear narrative.
         They shape the US Intel view of what’s going on in Ukraine allowing for crimes against humanity in Donbass (LNR &DNR) to go unaddressed.
         Later in the series, I’ll show these same groups (Ukraine Cyber Alliance, RUH8, Cyberhunta-Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear) were used to manufacture evidence that will be used in the #MH17 trial at the Hague in conjunction with Bellingcat.
         US Intel for hire superstars used the Fancy Bear groups in conjunction with the #Propornot project illegally to identify and take down news and commentary platforms in the US and EU that published stories against the narratives, they were developing and promoting.
         They illegally targeted people expressing social and political opinions. All of this was with the blessing of period ODNI and FBI leadership.

The Disproven Conspiracy Theories about the DNC Hack and 2016 Russian Election Interference

The disproven conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia and Russian election interference is the ones that were proven baseless in court, not the court of opinion. The evidence was fabricated or just not there, to begin with. The FBI’s criminality hiding the real criminals is examined below.
But, these fake stories are still promulgated in an ongoing effort to sabotage the 2020 election cycle and tear the US social fabric apart. Examples of this are- Why Trump Still Believes (wrongly) that Ukraine Hacked the D.N.C.The Conspiracy Theory So Far Out There Even Trump’s Biggest Defenders Are Walking Away From It and @ScottShaneNYT How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House.

This article is going to open up the potentially wide-ranging crimes at the FBI aiding and abetting criminals for purely political reasons.

 There are only two possible reactions you can have to this. There are some people that will react emotionally or politically and the consequences be damned. As long as it happens to someone they are sure they hate, why care?
When precedents are set, they work both ways. When political leaders like Trump or Sanders are tried in the court of opinion and declared loyal to a foreign government because the other party doesn’t like them. The method is set for every other person that graces the social or political stage.
Look further into the distance and realize this flows downhill. If it’s fine for political leaders, don’t be surprised when it’s your turn at bat because someone doesn’t like you. This kind of lawlessness spreads quickly as we’ve seen since 2016.
Or maybe it’s time to objectively look at the facts and see where the evidence leads in an unbiased way. That’s it. That’s all.
All of the common knowledge stories rely on readers to assume ODNI head James Clapper’s 2017 report was conclusive and the Mueller investigations were successful. Neither of them was, nor could they ever be.
James Clapper was responsible for the evidence Intel agencies presented in the January 2017 report trying to hamstring the newly elected Trump administration for political reasons.
If ODNI chief Clapper believed the 17 Intel Agency strong report, why couldn’t he stand by the same fact-base in 2018? Clapper no longer cited his iron-clad evidence he presented as proof of Russian interference or the DNC hacks.
In 2018, former ODNI head Clapper’s solid proof of Russian interference in the 2016 election became 78,000 people voted against Hillary Clinton and she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Notice Jimmy Clapper wasn’t quoting his solid gold January 2017 report anymore.
Who were these 78,000 Clinton haters that cost the DNC the election in 2016?
Back when there was a real Clinton administration, First Lady Hillary Rodman Clinton demanded the US get involved in the Bosnian war. Hillary Clinton supported KLA terrorists and extremists through a bombing campaign. US bombers drove the families of these voters into the arms of murderers so extreme, they were cutting organs out of living people to sell on the black market. Clinton had them taken off the official terrorist lists to the frustration of negotiators trying to make peace during the war.
The Serbian Diaspora voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania usually votes for the Democratic ticket, that is, unless your name is Hillary Clinton. This was a bloc vote against Hillary Clinton who they hold responsible for the murder of their families at the hand of terrorists. It’s why Clinton ignored those states campaigning. Clinton mistakenly thought having all the major Diaspora votes in swing-states would be enough.
The problem with the evidence of the Russian government interference in 2016 is it had to be manufactured and repeated by a compliant media to exist.
What will be shown through mainstream sources is the Russian FSB and GRU attacks on the American psyche was produced by domestic and foreign criminals that were hostile to the Russian government for nearly a decade before the DNC hacks. The hackers who are IO specialists were targeting Russian politics, not the US.
Robert Mueller and James Comey are accessories after the fact. They tried feverishly and unsuccessfully to incriminate the wrong people because the facts expose large scale political corruption well beyond what is currently known and it all revolves around Ukraine.
According to PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) in a study titled Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017 there was no Russian impact on the election and they used 6 research standards to measure it.
If you don’t trust official studies done under the Trump administration tenure, Jon Solomon had this to write after uncovering 2016-17 FBI memos: The piecemeal release of FBI files in the Russia collusion investigation has masked an essential fact: James Comey’s G-men had substantially debunked the theory that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow by the time the 45th president was settling into the Oval Office, according to declassified memos, court filings and interviews.
And that means a nascent presidency and an entire nation were put through two more years of lacerating debate over an issue that was mostly resolved in January 2017 inside the bureau’s own evidence files. The proof is now sitting in plain view.- FBI’s Russia collusion case fell apart in first month of Trump presidency, memos show
This is why James Clapper changed his tune so radically. When you look at the above, Hillary was taken out behind the woodshed in 2016 for good reasons. Ask yourself what does it have to do with Russians, Russia, or Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? The only scenario all the evidence supports is Hillary Clinton stepped on a proverbial rake and made herself unelectable in 2016.

FBI, CIA, and ODNI criminal conspiracy against the United States

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution– Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.
Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
I refuse to give James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, or Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant little men.  They acted with full knowledge of what they were doing. Along with all of the agencies’ department heads, these men used their offices trying to try to overthrow the election of the President of the United States and change the fabric of US society by creating irreparable political and social division.
American officials, sworn to defend the USA used their power to fabricate a political narrative they called Intelligence to create their own foreign policy (Russia/Ukraine)and domestic policy(including media, political norms and policy) for the United States.
As late as 2018, #JamesComey was clear when he dismissed a House intelligence committee report that found no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as a “political document”. When the ODNI report was written, he knew there was no evidence of Donald Trump-Russia collusion. They all knew.
ODNI Clapper, FBI Comey, John Brennan and Special Counsel Mueller knew in 2017 that the US Intel community conceded there was no coordinated effort by Russia to influence the 2016 election months before.
They successfully divided the United States socially and politically in ways Orwell would be proud of.

Why did US political activism by sworn officials cross a bridge too far?

It all started falling into place after 9-11. Congress decided the FBI needed to get into the Intelligence business. At the time, the FBI fought the changes saying it would hurt their criminal investigation mandate. Because the CIA legally can’t operate domestically, the FBI was rebooted to do the job.
The 2000s version of the FBI was right. The FBI went from being the world’s premier criminal investigation agency to one of the worst imitations of a private sector  CIA domestically and around the world.
The same man the FBI called a nuisance and danger to national security after the twin towers collapsed in New York networked intelligently enough to become the trainer of choice for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, NATO, et al.
This new mandate from Congress created over 5000 new Intel positions right away inside the FBI that were filled with outside contractors.
Today’s Intel agency leaders including Homeland Security and FBI department heads were his students from the early 2000s onward. The rise and risk of Intelligence for hire is detailed in U.S. Intelligence Crisis Poses a Threat to the World (Part 1)
This particular agency trainer almost singlehandedly started the US side of the social-political Russian collusion storyline by himself labeling anyone outside his narrative Kremlin trolls and pro-Russian influencers.  He made looking for pro-Russian collaborators fashionable in a post-2016 world in a way that would make Joe McCarthy tingly.
He personally is why media came under so much scrutiny and groups like Propornot were formed to destroy media that didn’t agree to the McCarthy-like narrative, alternative media sources that spoke against the Clinton campaign and post-2014 Ukraine. Watch as it starts again as the 2020 election cycle heats up.
Along with the other US Intel actors, he aided and abetted the murder of journalists in Ukraine by providing the tools, training, means, and method to set it up. It’s quite an embarrassment for Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, and the agencies, et al.
Imagine, one of the rock-stars of modern Intel being found in that position after your agencies were trained to look at information like him for over a decade. It’s no wonder they hand-fed the current Russia policy narrative he developed to MSM.
In part2, I’ll detail who he is, many of the crimes, along with the real identities of the DNC hackers.
Fusion GPS and Patterning the Trump-Sanders Accusations and Russia Investigation
If the ODNI and FBI engaged in consistent patterns of activity for political reasons that tear the societal fabric of the USA to support corruption that destroy the lives of US citizens, change foreign policy, and erode citizen’s rights, should it be investigated?
It started with Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries. This bled into the 2020 primaries.
Sander’s accusations started with “Adam Parkhomenko, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly suggested that Senator Bernie Sanders owes his popularity to Russian support, backed the attorney’s abortive bid for president.”- NYMag
Sander’s accusations of Russia collusion ended with –“A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton”-USA Today
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Bernie Sanders started with a tweeted accusation. Most of the Russian nationals not named were publishers and journalists that support Bernie Sanders and were listed by the FBI trainer who started accusing American web portals of being influencers for the Russian government.

Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the co-founders of the private investigative firm Fusion GPS never tried to vet any of the information Christopher Steele gave them in the infamous and tantalizing Steele Dossier.
The closest anyone has come to a real source is an unknown Russian émigré in the US provided the narrative for Christopher Steele (foreign Intel agent) about events he/she had no first-hand knowledge of.
“Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled in his notes.”- The Hill
Is it possible for investigative journalists like Simpson and Fritsch not be even remotely curious about the legitimacy of such scandalous information? This Intel is about an elected US President and they claim they were acting patriotically.
Fusion GPS Founders On Russian Efforts To Sow Discord: ‘They Have Succeeded’. This is quite a statement considering when asked, they admitted they knew absolutely nothing about Steele’s politically motivated fiction.
It’s easy to see why such an appalling politically driven fantasy fell apart after it was given a real examination. But, that’s not the point.
Simpson and Fritsch turned around and gave the Steele Dossier to Republican Senator John McCain (the anti-Trump), knowing full well if he acted in character the Dossier would be made public.  Why McCain’s office? The answer is included below.
“The Washington Times first disclosed the document on April 25, 2017. Republicans later told the Justice Department the filing should have set off alarm bells inside the FBI about Mr. Steele’s credibility, given his admission he had accepted gossip.”-The Washington Times
“The top judge on the federal court overseeing the U.S. government’s surveillance activities accused the FBI on Tuesday of providing false and misleading information about Carter Page in applications to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser.”– The National Interest
“Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI’s gross abuse of its power – its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don’t consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal, what is?”– The Intercept

ODNI, FBI Hacked and Influenced the American Psyche

Throughout the entire hack and election influence saga US Intel officials acted like spokesmodels for Ukrainian –American Diaspora leader Alexandra Chalupa. They constantly acted for the benefit of private citizen groups and companies who wanted to change US foreign policy and the fabric of society in the USA.
The following is from a man that knows the facts. How can you get such a senior position otherwise? Here’s his big media sound bite;
“FEINSTEIN: And what would those goals have been?
PRIESTAP: I think the primary goal, in my mind, was to sow discord, and to try to delegitimize our free and fair election process. I also think another of their goals, which the entire United States intelligence community stands behind, was to denigrate Secretary Clinton and to try to help then — current President Trump.”- Vox
“Russia, for years, has conducted influence operations targeting our elections,” an FBI agent told Congress on Wednesday. But what made 2016 different was the degree of interference, facilitated by the Internet, said Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.”.-(CNSNews.com)
And here are Bill Priestap’s conclusions after the media turn away and he’s forced to put on his big boy pants and own up to the evidence the FBI has after years of investigation.
“Further, all three witnesses in that hearing—Ms.Manfra, Dr. Files, and FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap—agreed that they had no evidence that votes themselves were changed in any way in the 2016 election.”- REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Therein lays the crux of the problem. The FBI wanted the election interference story to resonate publically but under oath, there was never any evidence.
According to the IG Report, FBI leaders, lawyers, and investigators were pulling out all stops to derail Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election. How did this organized, continuous, multi-faceted, and multi-event war play on the American psyche? You tell me.
FBI Tried to Influence the Trump Campaign“While the results of any physical searches related to Page are unknown, what is known is that federal spying on the Trump campaign through Page went further. Prior to the FISA surveillance orders, the FBI tasked informant Stefan Halper with targeting Page. (Another agency may have as well.) The IG report revealed that in targeting Page, Halper sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”-The Federalist
The only thing to consider is the FBI may have conducted the biggest set of serial crimes of this decade by a law enforcement agency.
This effectively divided every American on a social and political basis. It wasn’t a single event but a continuing policy surrounding the election, foreign policy, and the lengths federal investigators could go to hamstring the executive branch for political reasons.
Before the December 2016 ODNI-FBI GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity JAR, there was no proof of Russian intervention except what came out of the Clinton camp. James Comey denied it. After the ODNI JAR, there was no evidence of Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
The report itself and the actions surrounding it were nothing short of a successful politically charged foreign policy intervention by the FBI and ODNI. How can I say this?
Mueller indicted a Russian company called Concord Management & Consulting LLC for being the vehicle the Russian government used to interfere in the 2016 election. All the information Robert Mueller, James Comey, and James Clapper had to go on came from the indicted DNC hacking group themselves.
After establishing this, we’ll look at the ongoing relationship between the investigators and the criminal hacking groups to reshape American politics, cover-up enormous corruption in the Obama administration, Clinton campaign, and hamstring an elected US President.
The other company called the Internet Research Agency was part of Concord Management.
“In 2014, according to Russian media, Internet Research Ltd. (Russian: «Интернет исследования») was founded in March 2014, joined IRA’s activity. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that this company is a successor of Internet Research Agency Ltd. Internet Research Ltd. is considered to be linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the holding company Concord Management and Consulting. The “Trolls of Olgino” are considered to be his project. As of October 2014, the company belonged to Mikhail Bystrov, who had been the head of the police station at Moscow district of Saint Petersburg.
Russian media point out that according to documents, published by hackers from Anonymous International, Concord Management is directly involved with trolling administration through the agency. Researchers cite e-mail correspondence, in which Concord Management gives instructions to trolls and receives reports on accomplished work. According to journalists, Concord Management organized banquets in the Kremlin and also cooperated with Voentorg and the Russian Ministry of Defense.”-Wikipedia
This information is well documented enough to have an almost accurate Wikipedia listing barring one glaring point Mueller, Comey, and Clapper needed to ignore to build their Trump-Russia collusion, Russian election interference, and Russian hacking narrative.
Scott Humor at the Saker.is researched the Internet Research Agency extensively. In an article entitled “A Brief History of the Kremlin Trolls,” he shows clearly the Internet Research Agency only existed on paper. Even then, it ceased to exist in 2015. It was liquidated and the company emerged as a construction retail company called TEKA.
This brings us to the foreign policy objective the US Intel community and US Intel agencies hacked the American psyche very successfully to reach:
“On 29 December 2016, the White House accused and sanctioned the FSB and several other Russian companies for what the US intelligence agencies said was their role in helping the Russian military intelligence service, the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) disrupt and spread disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election. In addition, the State Department also declared 35 Russian diplomats and officials persona non grata and denied Russian government officials access to two Russian-owned installations in Maryland and New York.”- Wikipedia
Here’s the fun part. Everything we know about 2016 Russian involvement stems from this same small group that ODNI and FBI had to embellish by magnitudes to link them to a Russian government operation and then indict.
While they were the hackers and Information Operators the FBI investigated and Robert Mueller indicted, the hacking groups weren’t working for the Russian government for the Yahoo hack or the DNC hack and 2016election hacks.
Dmitry Dokuchaev used his position to commit crimes against Russia and the USA which helped the FBI to build the one narrative they needed to fabricate official Russian government involvement.
         U.S. v. Dmitry Dokuchaev, et al.
         “Dokuchaev is a former hacker from Yekaterinburg. He was reportedly blackmailed into joining the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, after his private exploits became known to the service, but then built a successful career, rising to the rank of major. The Russian investigation appears to link him to a group called Shaltai Boltai, or Humpty Dumpty, which broke into electronic mailboxes, mostly of Russian officials and business people, obtained compromising information about them and then either sold or published it. The group’s work was a combination of blackmail, competitive intelligence and public relations; Dokuchaev’s alleged role was to direct the group toward particular victims and cover up its activities while pretending to investigate it.”- Bloomberg- What the Yahoo Hack Says About Russian Spies-The 2014 hack appears to have been a business scheme run by Russian intelligence officers
The FSB agency mandate is limited by law to work inside Russia, not outside. This alone makes it illegal for the FSB to engage in state-level espionage and hacking operations outside.
The FSB has an incredible amount of legal authority to surveil all information passed on or through Russian servers.
Jeff Carr noted the Russian Law on the FSB (article 15) states that “all individuals and legal entities in Russia, providing postal services, telecommunications of all kinds, including systems, data communication, satellite communications, are obliged at the request of the Federal Security Service to include in the extra hardware equipment and software, as well as create other conditions necessary for the operational and technical measures by the Federal Security Service.”
And yet;
In case you missed it, the FSB through Dmitry Dokuchaev’s Shaltay Boltay was accused of illegally hacking accounts of Russian officials. Why would the FSB hack these officials it legally had almost unlimited jurisdiction to the information without hacking?
For anyone clinging to the Yahoo or DNC hacks with a purely political mindset; this is the same as walking into a bank vault with $1 billion dollars in it. You know you have the legal right to walk away with any or all of it. But, just for giggles, you hire a foreign criminal to rob the place which makes you liable for bank robbery, conspiracy, and treason.
And in the real world case of Yahoo, you get caught because the Canadian hacker you illegally hired for the Yahoo hack broke the Canadian criminal code of silence when he testified against you.
To put it delicately, this would have to be the most inept crime of all time. For this to be true, Dokuchaev must have just fallen off the turnip truck and hit his head. Got whacked with the ole’ ugly stick at the same time he stepped on a rake as he was laughed at by a 12-year-old girl who wound up and kicked him in the…….Seriously? That’s as insulting as it is injurious.
Instead, what we have is a group of Russian criminals (Shaltai Boltai) who are not working for the Russian government and continually try to hack Russian officials for blackmail. According to Stratfor, “In a 2015 interview, the leader of Shaltai Boltai, code-named “Lewis,” said his group was driven purely by money, not ideology… The narrative linking Shaltai Boltai to the FSB officers came just three days after the initial stories suggesting the FSB officers were the sources of leaks to U.S. intelligence.”
But were Dokuchaev and Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay) feeding US Intelligence information? If so, what kind of information?
The “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI quotes Shaltay Boltay because this group is the primary source of information about both events because they created what we know about them.

Dokuchaev, Shaltay Boltay, the FBI, and Robert Mueller

Summary:
The FBI interviewed members of Shaltay Boltay groups and asked for help writing the 2016 election hacking and influence story. Shaltay Boltay could play the heroes and the villains. They were heroes because they created the influence story about a non-existent company that no one could find that Putin ordered to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.
They were the villains because they were the DNC hackers. If Shaltay Boltay cooperated to implicate Trump and Putin, US citizenship and jobs were waiting for them.
Dokuchaev and his working group Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay), otherwise known as Anonymous International or Humpty Dumpty  are the source for everything known about the Russian Internet Agency (IRA), Russian election interference, and provides the Russian FSB-GRU connection through Dokuchaev needed to make the Russia-DNC hack narrative almost work.
Shaltay Boltay are the Yahoo hackers that stole Huma Abedin’ State Department logins. This is important because it also separates them from being Russian government operatives.
More importantly, their own self described claim to fame was creating realities. Shaltay Boltay primary work is in Information Operations. The founder of the elusive Shaltai Boltai hacker group has been uncovered as Vladimir Anikeyev, a native Dagestani and expert in “black PR.”
It’s no secret today Comey’s FBI and the Mueller investigation were working hard to grasp at any straw they could to derail the Trump presidency. Even though they knew there was no collusion, their teams worked overtime to prove it by pushing half-truths in an invented narrative.
What brings the FBI investigators and Comey’s behavior to a collusion, harboring, and abetting threshold is they identified the leaders of the hacking groups early on, the hackers, and ignored them to hide corruption.

Was the ODNI and Comey’s FBI an accessory after the fact to the DNC Hacks and murder? – Harboring Criminals

Comey’s Russian collusion team and the Mueller probes pushed the 2016 investigations away from the criminals they were supposed to be investigating.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) were part of a higher level group. While this group worked for money, not politics, the higher-level group are extreme nationalists.
The big question if their entire history is blackmailing Russians, who are they working for in relation to the US election?
         The FBI knew this group fabricated the only basis used for a Russia election interference investigation. The FBI knew they did this from Ukraine.
The reason the FBI and Mueller knew the Russian government FSB-GRU connection to the hacks was fabricated was the leaders of Shaltay Boltay were extremely clear and public about hurting the Russian government and Russians.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew from 2014- late 2016, the indicted and ignored involved leaders and US oriented parts of Shaltay Boltay were located in Kiev, Ukraine.
Shaltay Boltay leaders were wanted criminals and worked against the Russian government 2014-2016 when they fled to Kiev. This is evidenced by the so-called Surkov hack. The emails were released through the working group Shaltay Boltay was with 2014-16.
         The FBI and Mueller had this group’s IP addresses which Mueller used in his indictments and the willing cooperation of the server company that hosted them.
“If we consider the situation from the other side, it is unclear why the FBI and related experts are talking only about our company,” said Fomenko. “After all, the U.S. intelligence report says that the hacking was staged from eight IP addresses, six of them belonging to our company (the criminals used our equipment), and two other companies being not connected with us in any way. One of them is located in the Netherlands, I don’t know about the other. But it’s all just about us. What is this? Prejudice?”-RBTH
         The FBI and Mueller refused to investigate or interview the owner of the server (King Servers) the DNC hackers used who wanted to testify. Yet, Shaltay Boltay’s IP addresses were considered key evidence anyway. Apparently, the DNC hackers owed him money.
The FBI knew the groups involved physical location and concealed it to shield them from the investigation by constantly attributing the DNC and subsequent hacks to Russia.
         The FBI and Mueller purposefully stayed away from the main group and targeted sub-groups, outliers, and used false accusations that protected the Executive branch from being dragged into the investigation. At the very least, all of this happened as the direct result of Obama’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
Shaltai Boltai’s Yevgeny Nikulin was interviewed by the FBI. According to Disobedient Media’s Adam Carter “Nikulin has stated in a letter, passed to his lawyer Martin Sadilek and reported by Moscow Times, that, after his arrest on October 5, 2016, he was visited by the FBI several times, the first of which was on 14-15 November, 2016.
From the Bell– In it, he also mentions attacks on the servers of the Democratic Party committee. Kozlovsky writes that he was engaged in them on behalf of the FSB officer, whom he calls “Ilya.” Later, the hacker began to claim that under the pseudonym “Ilya” he was supervised by FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchaev.
         The FBI investigators allegedly offered payment for information implicating Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
On 5/11/17 Newsweek ran an article headlined FBI PROBE INTO CLINTON EMAILS PROMPTED OFFER OF CASH, CITIZENSHIP FOR CONFESSION, RUSSIAN HACKER CLAIMS.“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.”
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay was part of a foreign Intel structure whose goal since 2014 has been to disrupt US-Russia relations.
         The FBI knew Shaltay Boltay as part of Ukrainian CyberHunta worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign as opposition researchers through the DNC.
Alexandra Chalupa used private/public Ukrainian Cyber Intel groups Ukraine Cyber Alliance and CyberHunta(part of the Ukrainian Ministry of Information) to do opposition research. Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska (US State Department contractor, liaison to the US-Ukrainian Diaspora) led the groups under the Information Ministry.
         The FBI knew the main workgroup also worked in conjunction with Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and members of the US Intel community. The groups were used to fabricate anti-Russian narratives for NATO and statements delivered to US Congressional committees voting on support for Ukraine.
The Daily Beast-The deputy head of its now-defunct Center for Information Security, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested, along with two colleagues and an employee of the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky, Ruslan Stoyanov, for allegedly passing secret information to Western intelligence agencies.
         The FBI knew only Crowdstrike, Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta had possession of key component tools of the DNC hack that Crowdstrike’s Dimitry Alperovitch stated were like DNA evidence.
The FBI knew Crowdstrike relied on information they shared with the Ukrainian Intel groups.
         According to Wikileaks, the phishing attack on Podesta originated in Ukraine.
         The FBI and Mueller knew the groups labeled Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear along with American and British Intel community members were involved in setting up the Ukrainian Information Ministry’s murder for hire platform Myrotvorets beginning very in early 2015.
These same groups protected by the FBI worked with US & UK Intel Community superstars to set up and refine Myrotvorets. This was Ukraine’s hit-for-hire listings that named the enemies of post-Maidan Ukraine. It started with the murder of journalist Olez Buzina one month after the webplatform went live. At the time it went live, I predicted the first murder would soon follow. Unfortunately, it did.
         The FBI knows the core members responsible for all this and that can answer for it are the ones they concealed from the investigation still operate in Ukraine.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, anyone who “harbors or conceals” a person to prevent their “discovery and arrest” is guilty of a crime.

TheTrump-Ukraine Servers

Servers, servers, let’s see who has the Trump-Ukraine server. I chose the following article quote from @benshapiro out of the all the rest of the barrel for the colorful language he uses. Imagine a lone DNC server determined to live its life in peace and solitude makes the arduous journey to Kiev, Ukraine. This is a story of triumph over adversity. It’s a real tear-jerker.
He begins by introducing part of the conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
 “The Phone Call
According to the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House, Trump asks Zelensky for a favor, “because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. . . . They say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
Here, Trump is referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that Russia was framed by Ukraine for the 2016 hack and subsequent release of a damaging tranche of Democratic National Committee emails, which involves a supposed “secret” DNC server being spirited away to and hidden in Ukraine. He seems to be asking Zelensky to investigate the conspiracy theory, presumably in hopes that it would remove the taint of Russian interference from his 2016 victory.”- The Two Theories of Trump’s Actions in the Ukraine Affair By BEN SHAPIRO October 25, 2019 11:01 AM-  National Review
What the wondrous barrel of articles and colorful tales ignore is this is the 21st century and your computer doesn’t need to plug directly into a server. Many people across the world use US hosting services (servers) and vice versa.
Let’s add facts into this and dispense with hyperbole.
Alexandra Chalupa told Politico part of her Oppo-research team was Ukrainian “private Intel.” She hired Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta (which included Shaltay Boltay at the time). These groups work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry, SBU (Ukraine’s version of the CIA), the US State Department under Obama, and are Ukraine’s front line Cyber hacking, spy, and Information Operations unit against Russia, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.
Would you have foreign hackers running rampant on your servers based in the United States which fall under the direct legal purview of election law, Constitutional law, and Federal law?
Of course not. If you were in a gray area where your candidate for US President could be taken to the carpet and impeached for using foreign spy services to build the campaign, the best move would be having questionable work or workers that can be questioned on safe ground to begin with.
If you were working for another country’s spy services, would you want a direct fingerprint inside the election of a US president? Again the answer is no. The ramifications to your own country could be enormous once a better than the barrel investigative journalist gets a whiff of it.
If you do your work through a safe server in your own country, you remain anonymous, have a better chance of success, and might get a medal for it.
The above limits the number of servers in the world that could be used to just 4 or 5. Remember, security is everything. These groups are part of the Ukrainian security infrastructure and realistically would need to be able to scale up to nation-state level actions.
1.       Shaltay Boltay’s server where they stored their archive.
2.       The servers RUH8, Cyber Alliance, and Cyberhunta use.
3.       The Ministry of Information servers because all the hackers including Shaltay Boltay (credited with the DNC hack) worked for them
4.       According to the Kiev Post-Ukrainian special services looking into disappearance of servers from presidential office’s situational room because of former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko gutted the server room claiming the servers belonged to someone else and had to be returned. He paid for this out of his own pocket instead of Ukrainian state funds. This is almost blasphemy for a graft guy like Poroshenko. The former Ukrainian president is adamant that even though they were the most protected servers in Ukraine, no Ukraine state business was conducted on them.
The reason for this shortlist instead of a particular DNC server is their servers will catalog all their crimes. Not just the DNC hack adventure. It will also catalog all their contacts. This part is important to pursue criminal and civil investigations for crimes and damages they did to news and analytical platforms, public people, journalists, and citizens of the US, Russia, EU, as well as their own country, Ukraine.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, the sites that were hacked in association to #Propornot and lost income, jobs, or reputation, are entitled to restitution. Crimes have been committed against the American, Russian, and EU people, Democratic party members, the Trump administration, Bernie Sanders campaign 2016.
Will the FBI, ODNI, and private Intel companies be held accountable for allowing and protecting foreign spy agencies to operate freely inside US infrastructure?
The politicization of the ODNI, FBI, and CIA needs to cease. This can only be done by phasing out private money from the Intel and law enforcement game. The FBI has no business in the Intel game because the change of mandate is what corrupted a world-renown criminal investigation agency in the first place.
Next up in the series: Outing the DNC hackers

There is a ticking time bomb in the Ukraine

THE SAKER • MARCH 19, 2020 •



Between the fallout of the murder of General Soleimani and the coronovirus, the Ukraine has been somewhat forgotten, which is understandable, but also potentially dangerous. The “young and dynamic” President Zelenskii has more or less been forgotten, especially by the legacy corporate ziomedia. This does not, however, mean that the situation there did not evolve or, in fact, that it is not becoming extremely dangerous. So for those who did not keep an eye on the Ukraine, here is a short summary of what has been going on:

Summary of developments

First, Zelenskii has proven to be a total ZERO. Simply put, neither he not his team can get anything done, anything at all. I really mean nothing, nothing at all.
Second, while initially the victory of Zelenskii seem to indicate that the Ukronazis had suffered a crushing defeat, it now is completely obvious that Zelenskii lacks the will, or the means, or both, to tackle this huge problem. Now the Ukronazis are back in force, they provoke Zelenskii on a daily basis, but the man is simply unable to react and reassert his authority.
Third, in social and economic terms, the Ukraine is in free fall. Following years of chaos and corruption the Ukraine is now a deindustrialized country which can sell only three things: men (for menial jobs in Poland and in the EU), women (prostitution) and its “black soil” (chernozem). Once the land is sold, it will give the Ukrainian budget enough money to keep up the appearance of a state for a few more month, maybe a year or so. After that – it’s show over, curtain down, lights off and everybody go home…
Fourth, it is pretty clear who the kingmaker of the Ukraine is: Arsen Avakov, the “eternal” (by Ukrainian standards) Minister of the Interior. He not only has real firepower, he also seems to be able to turn the Ukronazi “spigot” on and off depending on his personal needs and circumstances. Unlike the bona fide nutcases, Avakov does not strike me as a Nazi at all, in fact, I would say that he is non-ideological – he is all about “pure power”. This makes him a much more desirable “partner” for the Empire than real nutcases.
Fifth, while the Minsk Agreements are still more or less on the agenda, at least officially, the Ukronazis have been vocal enough in their protests to basically completely stall any meaningful negotiations. Yes, prisoners will probably be exchanged, but beyond that I see any real progress as exceedingly unlikely. For all practical purposes, the regime in Kiev has made it very clear: there will be no negotiations with the Donbass, which simply means that there will be no negotiated solution. It’s that simple, really.
Six, COVID19 has hit the Ukraine very, very hard. The problem is that the authorities, which fully knew that they had no means to do anything meaningful began by thumping their chests and saying that there were no cases in the Ukraine only to then suddenly decree drastic quarantine measures. And yet, the true information is seeping out: Ukrainians hospitals are full of cases, mostly un-diagnosed, and many have already died. Officially, and as of right now, there are only 14 confirmed cases in the Ukraine, and only two fatalities. But absolutely everybody knows that these numbers are totally fictional and that the real number of cases remains unknown due to a lack of testing kits, not a lack of cases. MDs in Ukrainian hospitals are sounding the alarms, but nobody is listening.
Seventh, the situation is made even worse by the fact that there are not credible alternatives to Zelenskii. There IS an opposition in the Ukraine, the typical Ukronazis nutcases and the generally pro-Russian politicians who are categorically and absolutely unacceptable to the (much larger) Ukronazi opposition. Thus, there does not appear to be any political solution or alternative to the current regime. Right now, the two politicians who appear to be the most competent are Vadim Rabinovich and Elena Lukash. These two are very sharp and, frankly, very courageous, but they don’t have a power base powerful enough to take on the Nazis. Finally, there is Viktor Medvechuk whose main quality is also his biggest weakness: he is considered close to Putin. These are all rather smart and courageous figures, but compared to the power of an Arsen Avakov – they are just soap bubbles. Will that change in the future? Maybe, but not in the foreseeable future.

Possible scenarios

When a country enters a dramatic and deep systematic crisis, something must inevitably eventually give. Right now there are relatively few protests simply because there is no political force of personality which could inspire people to rally and struggle for change. Most Ukrainians are both absolutely exhausted and absolutely desperate. They are into the “survival mode” which history has taught them and they simply wait. Frankly, I can’t blame them. My advise to all my Ukrainian contacts has been “get out of there while you can”, but if you can’t get out, then going into a survival mode is the only option.
Right now, the Ukronazis feel energized and they are back with a vengeance demanding that the Ukraine finally be transformed into the Banderastan they have been dreaming about for generations (except they don’t use the word “Banderastan” but prefer the expression “Banderstat”. Their strength is in their unity and firepower. Their main weakness is that most Ukrainians hate them. A most dangerous combination.
Some observers have suggested that a coup might take place. I doubt it because I don’t see any person capable of leading such a coup. Avakov would be ideal, but he is *already* in power, he does not need a coup at all. Furthermore, if an openly Ukronazi regime replaces Zelenskii, this will only further deepen the distress of the general population.
The truth is both as simple as it is terrible: there is no solution for the Ukraine. None whatsoever.
So what could happen next?
The basic ingredients are pretty predictable: protests, civil unrest, violence and, eventually, a break-up of the Ukraine into several entities.
In theory, this could be avoided, but in order to do this, at the very least, the following basic conditions have to be met:
  1. The West and Russians must work together in a major reconstruction effort to rebuild the entire country, not only the war-devastated Donbass
  2. The regime in Kiev must be acceptable to all three: the West, Russia and the Ukrainian people
  3. The Ukronazis need to be disarmed and, when needed, either jailed or expelled
As you can immediately tell, this is not happening.
Yes, some have begun thinking about this issue, see, for example, this very interesting report from the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG), in particular, take a good look at the “Economic Steps” and “Political Steps” suggested in this report. The fact that a guy like Gen (Ret) Breedlove, former SACEUR and rabid Russia-hater, could sign this document is, by itself, quite amazing.
However, with the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic AND a brutal oil war threatening most economies of our planet, I expect the western nations to simply lose interest in the Ukraine: they will be too busy scrambling to recover from the political fallout of the SARS-CoV-2 crisis. As for Russia, there is absolutely no way that she will agree to foot the bill for the reconstruction of the Ukraine, nor will she provide the forces needed to get rid of the Ukronazis. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the Ukraine will be mostly left on its own. Russia will, of course, continue to support Novorussia (for example, SARS-CoV-2 testing kits have already arrived from Russia) while distributing Russian passports to anyone wanting one (the vast majority of the people of Novorussia).

Conclusion

The SARS-CoV-2/COVID19 pandemic will have huge political repercussions worldwide because in this specific case, not only will the AngloZionist propaganda machine not be able to hide the truth from the people (if anything, all sorts of fake news and crazy rumors will have more “street cred” than what the politicians tell us), but the consequences of this crisis will be felt everywhere, including at home. So Trump can go on in each of his pressers about how everything in the USA is “the best”, “the greatest” and “the mightiest”, but the truth is that the this virus will reveal not only the total inability of the private sector to save the day, it will also reveal how utterly dysfunctional the US, along most other western states really are (no, Walmart and Amazon will not save the day). No wonder the western politicians are scrambling to show how “involved” they all are – they are simply trying to cover their rear end for the inevitable “lessons learned” moment coming for all. Maybe at some point in the future will see most US Americans reconsider what they think they know about Socialism and Libertarianism, especially when it becomes clear how different the reaction to the virus was in China and Russia compared to the EU or US.
The sad truth about the “indispensable nation” is not slowly coming out. First and trickle, but then the inevitable tsunami
The sad truth about the “indispensable nation” is not slowly coming out. First and trickle, but then the inevitable tsunami
Them Chinese commies not only beat the virus in a record time, they are helping the dying capitalists (who, by the way, are not helping each other!)
Them Chinese commies not only beat the virus in a record time, they are helping the dying capitalists (who, by the way, are not helping each other!)
But what will be only embarrassing for US politicians will, barring some kind of miracle, hit the Ukraine with consequences far worse than what we have seen up until now.
For the time being, the Ukronazis are explaining that the Nazi salute is just perfect for this situation: not only do hands not touch, but the palm of the saluting head is facing the sun, which is hygienically good (that, and a lot of Nazis are pagans, sun worship is common amongst them).
Right now, in what are still the early stages of the pandemic, almost nobody is paying attention (most folks in the West have yet to understand that security, any and all form of security, must always be collective to be effective). Right now, the bigger danger comes from the Ukrainians returning home from abroad. But this will soon change, and the danger will become Ukrainians leaving the Ukraine. At this point the EU countries will have to turn to the Kremlin for a common response to what promises to be a major disaster.

Are Russia and Turkey on a collision course?

THE SAKER • FEBRUARY 28, 2020 

[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]

The murder of the Iranian hero-martyr General Soleimani created a situation in which a war between Iran and the Axis of Kindness (USA/Israel/KSA) became a real possibility but, at the very last minute, Uncle Shmuel decided that he had no stomach for a full-scale war against Iran. Wise decision.

This, however, does not at all imply that the AngloZionist Empire decided to stand by idly, far from it. The need to take quick and determined action became particularly acute following the huge anti-US demonstrations in Iraq (well over one million people in the streets!) which directly put at risk the US occupation (the MSM would call it “presence”) in both Iraq and Syria.

At the same time, Turkish President Erdogan’s refusal to remove all the “bad terrorists” from the Idlib province eventually resulted in a joint Syrian-Russian offensive to liberate the province. That offensive, in turn, clearly infuriated the Turks who warned of a major military operation to prevent the Syrians from liberating their own country.

This begs the question: are Russia and Turkey really on a collision course?

There are certainly some very worrying warning signs including a number of very harsh statements by Erdogan himself, and a suddenly re-kindled Turkish interest for the US “Patriots”.

On the ground in Idlib, the Turks have clearly provided the “bad terrorists” with a lot of support including equipment, MANPADs, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Turks actually went as far as sending special forces to assist the “bad terrorists” directly. Finally, from footage taken by Russian and Syrian drones, and even the “bad terrorists” themselves, it appears undeniable that Turkish MLRS and regular artillery provided the “bad terrorists” with fire support.

Both sides also agree that a number of Turkish personnel were killed (they only disagree on how many and what these Turks were doing in Syria).

Finally, and most ominously, there is even a video circulating on the Internet which appears to show a US “Stinger” being fired by the “bad terrorists” at a Russian aircraft which, thank God, managed to evade it (unlike 2 Syrian Army helicopters which were shot down).

So the first conclusion that we can come to is that the Turks are already engaged in combat operations against the Syrians. For the time being, these combat operations are just below the threshold of “credible deniability”, but not by much. For example, if the Turks had shot down a Russian aircraft you can be pretty certain that the Russian public opinion (which has still not forgiven Erdogan for the downed Su-24) would have demanded that the Russian Aerospace Forces massively retaliate (just as they have every time Russian military personnel have been killed) kill scores of Turks.

The Russian position is very straightforward. It goes something like this:

The Turks committed to remove all the “bad terrorists” from the Idlib province, leaving only the “good terrorists” who are committed to a ceasefire and a political peace process in place. That did not happen. In this case, the Syrians clearly have to do themselves what the Turks refused (or could not) do. The Russian military presence in Syria, and the Russian military operations, are all absolutely legitimate and legal: the legitimate government of Syria invited the Russians in, and the UNSC agreed to back the Syrian peace process. Thus the Russian Aerospace Forces’ strikes against the “bad terrorists” are absolutely legal. Furthermore, Russia very much deplores the presence of regular Turkish units among the “bad terrorists” which is both illegal and very unhelpful. Finally, the Russian Aerospace forces have no way to determine who sits in which tank, or who provides artillery cover for the operations of the “bad terrorists”. Thus, if Turkish military personnel are killed in Syrian or Russian operations, this would be entirely the fault of Ankara.

So far the Turkish military operation has been rather unsuccessful and limited.

But Erdogan is now promising a major attack.

Will that happen and what can the Turks really do?

First and foremost, Turkey does not have the means to enter into a full-scale conflict with Russia. Turkey cannot do that for political, economic and military reasons:

Political: the simple truth is that Turkey (and Erdogan) desperately need Russian political support, not only towards the West, but also towards Iraq, Iran or Israel. Furthermore, Erdogan has now clearly deeply alienated the Europeans who are fed up with Erdogan’s constant threats to open the “refugees” spigot. As for the Turks, they have already known for years that the EU will never accept them and that NATO will not support Turkey in its (very dangerous) operations in Iraq and Syria.

Economic: Turkey’s economy really suffered from the sanctions introduced by Russia following the shooting down of the Russian Su-24 by Turkish aircraft (backed by USAF fighters). What was true then is even more true now, and the Turkish public opinion understands that.

Military: the past years have been absolutely disastrous for the Turkish armed forces which were purged following the coup attempt against Erdogan. This sorry state of affairs is indirectly confirmed by the very poor performance of Turkish forces in Syria.

What about a conflict limited to Syria?

Again, Turkey is in a bad position. For one thing, the Syrians and, even more so, the Russians control the airspace above Idlib. The Turks are so frustrated with this state of affairs that they have now reportedly asked the US to deploy Patriot missiles in southern Turkey. This is a rather bizarre request, especially considering that Turkey purchased S-400s from Russia or how pathetically the Patriots actually performed (recently in the KSA and elsewhere before that). This, by the way, might well be a case of fake news since, apparently, there are no Patriots available for Turkey even if the US agreed to sell.

Then there is the bellicose rhetoric we hear from Erdogan. For example, he recently declared that:

“The regime, backed by Russian forces and Iran-backed militants, are continuously attacking civilians, committing massacres and shedding blood, (…) I hereby declare that we will strike regime forces everywhere from now on regardless of the [2018] deal if any tiny bit of harm is dealt to our soldiers at observation posts or elsewhere.”

That kind of language is, of course, very dangerous but, at least so far, the Turkish operation has been both limited and unsuccessful. Syrian President Assad was not impressed and declared that:

It also means that we must not rest idle, but prepare for the battles to come. As a result, the battle to liberate the Aleppo and Idlib countryside continues regardless of some empty sound bubbles coming from the north (vain threats from Erdogan), just as the battle continues to liberate all of Syrian soil, crush terrorism and achieve stability.

In the meantime, in Iraq, the US has apparently dug-in and categorically refuses to leave. In practical terms this means that the Iraqis will have to step up their anti-US campaign both politically (more protests and demonstrations) and militarily (more IEDs, convoy attacks and, probably soon, drone, cruise missile and ballistic missile attacks on US targets in Iraq). I don’t believe that the US will be able to sustain that kind of pressure in the mid to long term, especially not in an election year (which promises to be hellish anyway). Right now, the Idiot-in-Chief seems to think that threatening Iraq with “very big sanctions” is the way to restore good relationships. In reality, all this will do is to further inflame anti-US feelings in Iraq and the rest of the region.

Then there is the tactical situation. Please check these two maps: (click on map for a higher resolution)

The part in red shows the government controlled areas. The light blue (or light green on the 2nd map) show the Turkish deployment. The part in olive green (or darker green on the 2nd map) shows the parts of the Idlib province which are still under Takfiri occupation. Finally, the small region around Tell Rifaat are controlled by the Kurds.

The Syrian forces, backed by Russia, have now pushed back the latest Turkish+Takfiri attack north and west of Aleppo and they are now attacking the southern tip of the Takfiri occupation zone around the Zawiya mountain and highlands, see here:

The Syrians have options here. They can either gradually push north, or they can try to envelop the Takfiri forces in a “cauldron”. Finally, the Syrians would score a major victory if they succeeded in regaining control of the highway between Aleppo and Latakia (in blue on the map).

As for the Turkish-backed Takfiris, they are pushing very hard towards Idlib, so far with only moderate and temporary successes (they typically take a location at hugecost in lives and equipment and then cannot hold on to it as soon as the Syrians and Russians bomb the crap out of their newly conquered positions).

All of this is taking place while Syrian, Russian, Turkish and US patrols are regularly meeting, often in rather tense situations which could quickly escalate into a firefight or, even worse, an open battle. There is also the risk of an incident in the air since these four nations also conduct air operations over Syria. And, just like in the case of the ground operations, Syrian and Russian air operations are legal under international law, Turkish, US or Israeli operations are not and constitute an act of “aggression” (n.b: the highest crime under international law).

So far, the various negotiations between the parties have not yielded any result. This might change on March 5th when a conference on Syria attended by Turkey, Russia, France and Germany will meet (probably in Istanbul) to try to find a negotiated solution. Considering that Turkish soldiers are killed every day and already that 2 Syrian helicopters have been shot down, this might be too late to avoid an escalation.

I will conclude here by posting a (minimally corrected) machine translation of a Russian translation of a text originally written by a Turkish political commentator and translated into Russian by a Telegram channel: (emphasis added)

Russia’s strategy from the very beginning was to return full control of Syrian territories to Assad. And Moscow was implementing its plans, getting closer to the goal step by step. As long as Damascus will not take Idlib, the operation will continue. You don’t need to be an expert in this field to understand this. This is obvious. Someone says that Erdogan’s trip to Ukraine played a role in the offensive operations of Damascus. In fact, this visit is the result of the Syrian army’s offensive. The Turkish President went to Kiev just after tensions rose between the Turkish armed forces and the Russian side. Erdogan is in Ukraine made statements that have caused irritation in Moscow.

Turkish diplomacy was at an impasse. We discussed for a long time that you can’t put all your eggs in one Russian basket. And they said: we will buy the S-400, build a nuclear power plant, and develop tourism. And Putin was made a hero in our country. And now the defense Secretary is talking about buying American patriot air defense systems. And the President is talking about acquiring Patriot. “We did not succeed with Russia, we will get closer to the United States” – this is not how foreign policy is done. We need consistency in foreign policy. It is not appropriate for a country with a strong military power to change sides between world powers once a week.

What we are still discussing these days: we need to get closer to Europe and the US against Russia. These discussions worry our entrepreneurs who work with Russia. The tourism sector is concerned. Without Russian tourists, our tourism sector cannot fill all the volumes and make a profit. We have not yet been able to resolve these issues, and we are discussing a clash with Russia. Let’s remember what happened after Turkey shot down a Russian plane. Our tourism sector could not recover for two years. What to expect from a military clash. We have to talk about it.

The goal of our state: to live in peace on our land, and keep all the troubles away from yourself, while doing this to attract new troubles – this is not an indicator of a good military strategy or a well-thought-out diplomatic strategy. Everyone should understand this.

The risk for Erdogan is obvious: in case of a serious confrontation with Russia (and Syria AND Iran, don’t forget them!), the consequences for Turkey might be severe, resulting in a sharp rise in anti-Erdogan feelings in Turkey, something he can hardly afford.

And that brings us to the current US/NATO/CENTCOM posture following the assassination of General Soleimani I mentioned in the beginning of this article. The risks of a quick and dangerous escalation involving the US and Iran are still extremely high. The same can be said for the risks of a resumption of anti-US attacks by Iraqi Shia forces. Then there are the conflicts in both Afghanistan and Yemen, which Uncle Shmuel probably would prefer to end, but has no idea how. In these countries a rapid escalation could occur at any time, especially following Iran’s officially declared goal to kick the US out of the Middle-East. And now, there is a risk of major escalation between Turkey, Syria and Russia: such an escalation would have a major potential to suck in the US forces in the region, even if nobody does so deliberately (or if the Iranians do that very deliberately).

Right now Uncle Shmuel is busy with a strategic PSYOP trying to get Russia and Iran into a conflict (see this propaganda piece for example). That will not work, as both the Russians and the Iranians are waaaaaaay too savvy to fall for such primitive things. The US also tried to instigate riots inside Iran, but they quickly petered out (as did the rumors about the US deliberately shooting down the Ukrainian airliner).

The Middle-East is impossible to predict, it is too complex and there are too many possible factors which influence the situation. Still, my guess is that the March 5th conference, assuming it takes place, will force Erdogan to back down and re-pledge his commitment to bringing back security to the Idlib province. That is, as far as I can see, the only way for Erdogan to avoid an embarrassing military defeat with possibly very serious political consequences.

Conversely, should there be an open clash between Turkey and Syria+Russia, then I don’t see NATO intervening to back Turkey. At the most, the US/NATO can send forces to “protect” Turkey and equipment, but in both cases these would not be effective (the problems of the Turkish military are too big to be solved by such mostly symbolic actions). While some more rabid countries (Poland, Netherlands, UK and, of course, the USA) might be tempted to get a major NATO action going against Syria and, through that, against Russia, the mentally saner EU countries have exactly zero desire to end up in a war against Russia, not over the Ukraine, and not over Syria.

Thus while Erdogan is desperately trying to pit the US against Russia, this will not work, especially since this latest pro-US “zag” will only further alienate Iran (and the rest of the region). I predict that after the March 5th conference, Erdogan will be forced to resume his “friendship” with Putin and basically cave in.

If that does not happen, for whatever reason, an escalation will be pretty close to inevitable.

PS: Colonel Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) has published on his blog an interesting article which looks at a theory which, apparently, is popular in the Middle-East and Russia. This theory says that what is taking place is a gigantic show, a deception, in which both Russia and Turkey appear to be at odds, but in reality are working hand in hand to disarm the Takfiris and exchange territory. Here are, in his opinion, the possibly indications of such a collaboration: (machine translated and minimally corrected)

  1. After some formalities, Turkey resumed joint patrols with the Russian military in Rojava, which is carried out in a routine manner.
  2. Russia has increased the quota for the supply of Turkish tomatoes to Russia despite the fact that Russia threatened to block the supply of Turkish tomatoes.
  3. US did not give Turkey patriot missile, which was described in the Turkish media referring to anonymous sources in the Turkish government. No actual support from the United States and NATO, Turkey has not received.
  4. Despite the fact that the SAA was not going to stop the offensive and continued to surround the Turkish observation points, Turkey has effectively given Assad’s carte blanche for all of February, stating that no major combat operation will be initiated before the beginning of March.
  5. The main chain of the new observation points were deployed by Turkey to the North of highway M-4. The southern direction is not actually strengthened. Attempts to cover the Kafr will Sagna or Kafr Nabl were not undertaken, although this is more important points than Nairab.
  6. The bulk of the Pro-Turkish militants were drawn to Idlib and Carmine, while the southern front was actually exposed for Assad there is a situation of maximum favour for liberation dozen cities and towns.
  7. The battle of Niravam turned into a week-long meat grinder, where the militants engaged in stupid frontal assaults against Syrian positions with heavy losses but capturing Neirab, there is virtually nothing on the operational level, they did not win – losing people and most importantly – time.
  8. The Russian and Turkish military keep all channels of communication and exchange information, including on the movement of Turkish columns. The Russian military help to supply the surrounded Turkish observational points in the rear of Assad.
  9. Moscow and Ankara have repeatedly stressed that not to seek a military conflict with each other, preferring to seek resolution of disputes through diplomatic means.

And Rozhin adds:

Why all this may be part of a backroom deal? Because such a scenario would allow Turkey to look like a defender of Idlib, which is in strong opposition to the plans of Assad and Putin. At least visually. As for Assad and Putin, they can claim to have liberated part of the Idlib province. The battle of Niravam in this logic allow Erdogan to save face before “in the interests of peace and security,” to sign a new deal with Russia with a new line of demarcation, which officially has already been discussed at negotiations in Moscow on 17-18 February. Officially, the Turks rejected it. But it’s official. And if we assume that the agreement already exists and this just fixed sight 5 March, while Assad released another piece of Idlib and the militants “An-Nusra” will be partially disposed in the battles with the SAA in Idlib and in the southern frontal attack on the front under Niranam. In favor of this version may indicate the previous experience of transactions between Russia and Turkey, when Ankara loudly growled at Assad, but de facto did not prevent the Assad regime to clean up the enclaves and win the battle for Aleppo. Against this version can play what the Turks themselves are suffering losses in manpower, and further concessions to Russia may undermine Erdogan’s positions in Idlib, so he tries to bargain.

I personally doubt this version, if only because this is a very tricky and dangerous way to get things done, and because of the many threats and even ultimatums Erdogan is constantly spewing. A more likely explanation for all of the above is that 1) the Takfiris are desperate and are running out of steam and 2) the Turks are afraid of a serious confrontation with Russia. Rozin concludes:

I think that by March 5 the question of whether there is was a secret deal or not will finally be clarified, since Erdogan’s threats are all focusing on early March, at which point he will have to either attack or chose to play the role of peacemaker, which “diplomatically” stopped the advance of Assad.

Here I can only agree with him.

لماذا تدهورت العلاقات الروسيّة التركيّة؟

ناصر قنديل

خلال الشهر الماضي كان كل شيء يبدو مستقراً في العلاقات الروسية التركية، فموسكو تنجح بترتيب أول لقاء رسمي علني على مستوى أمني رفيع بين سورية وتركيا جَمَع في موسكو، اللواء علي مملوك رئيس مجلس الأمن الوطني في سورية مع الجنرال حقان فيدان رئيس المخابرات التركية، تم خلاله التوصل لتفاهم على خريطة تضمن فتح الطريقين الدوليين بين حلب ودمشق وحلب واللاذقية بتنسيق تركي روسي سوري أمني وعسكري يُنهي دور الجماعات الإرهابية شمال سورية. وكانت تركيا بعد تموضعها في لبييا تفتح الباب لرعاية روسية تركية لدعوة رئيس الحكومة المدعومة من تركيا فايز السراج وقائد الجيش الليبي الجنرال خليفة حفتر إلى موسكو لحوار من أجل وقف الحرب.

التدهور الحاصل اليوم في العلاقات التركية الروسية، والذي بلغ حافّة الحرب، بعدما لعب الرئيس التركي أوراق ضغط في ساحات محرّمة، كزيارته لأوكرانيا وما رافقها من كلام تلويحاً بالانقلاب على علاقته بروسيا، أو إعادة تشغيل خط معلن لتعاون تركي أميركي في سورية بعد طول انقطاع، وبالمقابل انتقال روسيا من حصر غاراتها الجوية بالجماعات المسلحة المدعومة من تركيا إلى قصف مؤلم يستهدف القوات التركية مباشرة داخل الأراضي السورية، وحديث روسي علني بلغة التحذير عن الدعم الكامل للجيش السوري في حال تعرّضه لأي استهداف تركي، إشارات تعني أن العلاقة تدهورت إلى ما يوازي لحظة إسقاط أردوغان للطائرة الروسية عام 2015.

تقول مصادر روسية إن الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، تلاعب بالتفاهمات التي تمّت بينه وبين الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين حول سورية وليبيا، وقام بتحويلها إلى أوراق اعتماد لاستدراج عروض أميركية أوروبية حول سورية وليبيا طمعاً بالمزيد، وقد تلاعب به الأميركيون فتورط في ارتكاب خطأ لا يُغتفر، وهو المراوغة والخداع واللعب من وراء ظهر الرئيس بوتين، وبعدما كان أردوغان قد حصل من الرئيس الروسي على ضمان الحفاظ على دور تركي في العملية السياسية في كل من سورية وليبيا، شرط التزام حدود الدور العسكري بالحد الأدنى في ليبيا لزوم هذا الدور، والاستعداد للعودة إلى اتفاق أضنة تحت سقف سيادة الدولة، بالنسبة لسورية، حصل على إغراء أميركي للانقلاب على التفاهم، واستعمال الوقت لنقل الآلاف من المقاتلين السوريين إلى ليبيا، وتسليم مواقعهم لجبهة النصرة، التي يُفترض إخراجها من مناطق سيطرتها وليس توسيع هذه المناطق. والوعود الأميركية هي تقديم الدعم لتشكيل إطار دولي إقليمي للحل السياسي في سورية وليبيا، تكون لتركيا كلمة حاسمة فيه، وما يستدعيه ذلك من إسقاط صيغة أستانة بالنسبة لسورية. وهذا مطلوب من أردوغان، وضمان نقل القضيتين السورية والليبية إلى مجلس الأمن. وهذا ما ستفعله أميركا وأوروبا عندما يؤدي أردوغان ما عليه.

جاء الردّ الروسي السوري الاستباقي بالعملية العسكرية في محافظتي إدلب وحلب ليُجهض كل ألاعيب أردوغان، ويضعه مرة أخرى بين خيارين لا ثالث لهما، التموضع في قلب مسار استانة والرعاية الروسية والتأقلم مع خسارة الرهان على التلاعب بالجغرافيا السورية، والعودة للانضباط بالتفاهمات بخصوص ليبيا، أو البديل الثاني وهو التموضع مع الجماعات الإرهابيّة وخوض الحرب بجانبها أو بالنيابة عنها. وهذا سيعني تموضعاً روسياً حاسماً في ليبيا إلى جانب الجنرال حفتر وتقديم كل الدعم اللازم لتقدّمه العسكري، ومواصلة شرسة للمواجهة في سورية من دون أي مراعاة للوضعية التركية، وجعل أردوغان الخاسر الأكبر في الحربين.

مشروع أردوغان للقمة الرباعية التي تضمّه مع الرئيس بوتين والرئيس الفرنسي والمستشارة الألمانيّة مواصلة للعبة المراوغة، بينما تجاهله لدعوة إيران لقمّة ثلاثية روسية تركية إيرانية في طهران ضمن مسار أستانة، إعلان استمرار في اللعب على حافة الهاوية، ولذلك سيستمرّ العقاب حتى يعود أردوغان إلى بيت الطاعة الروسي في سوتشي، أو يدفع الثمن الأكبر، بعدما تكشّفت له الوعود الأميركية أنها مجرد أوراق مخادعة، فقد ترك وحيداً كما حصل معه من قبل مرتين، مرة بعد إسقاط الطائرة الروسية ومرة بعد بدء معركة حلب الأولى، ولم يحصل من واشنطن إلا على الكلام والبيانات، عساه يؤخر نهاية الجماعات الإرهابية فتشتري واشنطن الوقت بواسطته لترتيب انسحاب هادئ بلا هزيمة مدوّية، من شرق سورية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Kevin Barrett interviews the Saker

February 13, 2020

Dear friends,

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kevin Barrett.  Here is where you can listen to our interview:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/33954379

https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_the-saker-on-our-fundamental-disagreement-about-wwii-hitler-jews-and-race/

I want to use this opportunity to sincerely thank all those Nazis who angrily defended Hitler and the Nazis – they made my case better than I ever could!  Thank you guys for doing exactly what I thought you would do 🙂

Hugs and cheers,

The Saker

Feb 12 at 6:39am

The Saker on “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race”

Western views of Jews, Jewish identity politics, and Zionism are extremely polarized these days. The mainstream world seems enslaved to Zionist propaganda caricatures; while perhaps in reaction to the appalling lies and omissions of the MSM, increasing numbers of alt-right dissidents have gravitated toward severely anti-Jewish views. 

The Saker—one of the anglophone world’s most important voices on Russia-related strategic issues—recently incited a constellation of controversies with his new article “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race.” He wrote me: “Do you know that I never got as much hate mail as for that article about Russia and Jews…I REALLY pissed a lot of people off.”

What are the Saker’s fundamental disagreements with the people sending him angry comments and emails? “First of all, there is my philosophical position: that Jews share common humanity with all of us. I don’t see them as a separate group that has some kind of unique, different quality.” He goes on to assert that Westerners who don’t like Jews “are actually the mirror image of what they accuse Jews of doing. They say Jews are supremacists, and then they say, at the same time, that Jews are somehow fundamentally different. Well, that’s denying our common humanity. And I don’t care who does it. If it’s done by a rabbi or if it’s done by a nazi, the message is the same: ‘There are some people who are better and more important and more valuable than others.'”

Among the many other points raised in this interview:

*The Russian monarchy wasn’t overthrown by Jews or (80% Jewish) Bolsheviks, it was overthrown by freemasonic Russian elites.

*19th century Russian radical movements were not dominated by Jews the way Bolshevism was.

*Historically, Poland and Polish-occupied Ukraine witnessed a much more intense and fraught relationship between Jews and non-Jews than Russia did.

*Many of the nations that fought in World War II committed horrific atrocities; but however we evaluate them, one thing the Nuremburg Tribunals got right was to establish forever the fact that aggression is the worst war crime, the ultimate war crime, the one that includes and entails all of the others.

*Putin’s attendance at the World Holocaust Forum in Occupied Jerusalem was about mourning victims of World War II, not endorsing Zionist ideology.

*But yes, Russia does unfortunately tilt toward Israel more than Palestine, because Russia has a significant and powerful Jewish population but no Palestinian/Arab population.

*Russia perceives NATO, not Israel, as its biggest threat: “Russia has been preparing for a full-scale conventional and/or nuclear war with the West for at least five years now. They hope to avoid it. They will do their utmost to not give (NATO) a pretext (to attack). But they know that this is the ultimate danger. And they’ve bought enough time. Now Russia is basically non-attackable by the United States…so the next level is, what about a local conflict? Iran is the clear example now, with the murder of Gen. Soleimani. The Russians do see that Israel has a hand in that. But I don’t think they think that Israel always is the single explanation for everything the Empire does.”

*”I’m absolutely convinced that everyone in Russia knows that 9/11 was an inside job. But they also realized that saying that openly was absolutely suicidal for them, because they could never prevail, no matter what kind of proof they present, and it would just be dismissed.”

Putin Marks 75th Anniversary of WWII With Speech Warning About Looming Global Conflict!

February 07, 2020

Full Transcript : http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62732

Presentation of foreign ambassadors’ letters of credence

February 5, 202013:45The Kremlin, Moscow

Vladimir Putin received letters of credence from 23 newly-appointed foreign ambassadors. The ceremony was held in the Grand Kremlin Palace’s Alexander Hall.

Letters of credence were presented to the President of Russia by Graeme Leslie Meehan (Australia), Lotfi Bouchaara (Kingdom of Morocco), Zhang Hanhui (People’s Republic of China), Malena Mard (Kingdom of Sweden), Geza Andreas von Geyr (Germany), Brian McElduff (Ireland), Miroslav Lazanski (Republic of Serbia), Sadasivan Premjith (Republic of Singapore), Eat Seyla (Kingdom of Cambodia), Ekaterini Nassika (Hellenic Republic),Abdulrahman Hamid Mohammed Al-Hussaini (Republic of Iraq), Mohamed Sherif Kourta (People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria), Dulamsuren Davaa (Mongolia), Tarak ben Salem (Republic of Tunisia), Kazem Jalali (Islamic Republic of Iran), Kamrul Ahsan (People’s Republic of Bangladesh), Deborah Jane Bronnert (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Si’alei van Toor (New Zealand), Alison LeClaire (Canada), Pierre Levy (French Republic), John J. Sullivan (United States), Efrain Villarreal Arenales (Republic of Panama) and Yermek Kosherbayev (Republic of Kazakhstan).

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to welcome you in the Kremlin at this ceremony to present your credentials and to congratulate you on officially commencing your diplomatic activities here in Russia.

You have an important and serious mission: to promote the development of comprehensive relations between the countries you represent and Russia. We proceed from the fact that you will be responsible for expanding our political dialogue and trade and economic ties as well as deepening cultural exchanges and promoting people-to-people contacts. And we are sincerely interested in making your embassies’ work in these key spheres successful. You can always count on the help of the Russian official agencies as well as businesses and civil circles. All your useful endeavours will definitely be supported.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII. In May we invite foreign leaders and delegations to attend celebrations marking the great Victory in Moscow to commemorate the memory of millions of victims, pay tribute to the veterans and show our committal to the ideals of peace, freedom and justice. The victor countries, members of the anti-Hitler coalition, made these ideals the foundation of the post-war world order embodied in the United Nations Charter 75 years ago.

Unfortunately, nowadays humankind is coming ever closer to a dangerous line. Regional conflicts are multiplying, the threats of terrorism and extremism are growing and the arms control system is being uprooted. The global economy is also unstable.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today’s ceremony is attended by the heads of diplomatic missions of 23 countries of Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Australia. By tradition, I would like to say a few words about our bilateral relations.

Russia favours pragmatic and business-like cooperation with Australia. We are giving support to the business circles of both countries in their effort to implement mutually beneficial joint projects and are facilitating the expansion of humanitarian contacts.

We are satisfied with the present state of collaboration with Morocco. Our states have achieved decent results in mutual trade, agriculture, and deep-sea fisheries. There are opportunities for advanced Russian technologies and R&D results to reach the Moroccan market.

Our relations with the People’s Republic of China are at an unprecedentedly high level. In fact, this is a comprehensive strategic partnership. Bilateral trade is consistently being built up. The Power of Siberia gas pipeline has been put into operation. Ties in the field of defence and military-technical cooperation are developing successfully. In April, we are planning to launch the Russian-Chinese cross Year of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Cooperation. Our two countries coordinate their positions on key global and regional problems and work in unison at international organisations and associations, including the UN, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. China and all of us have come face to face with the threat of the coronavirus. Leaders of the PRC have been taking resolute and energetic measures to halt the epidemic. We are ready to render help and every kind of assistance to the friendly Chinese people.

We are keen to promote cooperation with Sweden in the spirit of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect. Held in St Petersburg last year, our talks with Prime Minister Stefan Löfven have confirmed that our two countries have the capacity for invigorating our economic, cultural and humanitarian contacts and for joint work on matters related to the Baltic Sea and other regional affairs.

Russia attaches much importance to promoting constructive collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany. We regularly discuss with Ms Chancellor Angela Merkel current international and bilateral issues. We have supported the idea to hold a conference on a Libyan settlement in Berlin and participated in it in the most pro-active manner. Russia and the FRG are intensifying their mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, investment, and energy, and we intend to continue this joint positive work.

Russia and Ireland are striving for closer trade and economic cooperation, including in high technology, innovation and agriculture. There are opportunities for bilateral cooperation in education, culture and similar areas.

Russia and Serbia are linked by a strategic partnership that relies on traditions of friendship and the cultural, spiritual and historical affinity of our fraternal peoples. Last December, meaningful talks were held with President Aleksandar Vucic in Sochi. Important agreements were reached on bilateral cooperation in an entire range of areas: the economy, trade, the power industry, culture and coordination on regional matters. Russia is doing much to help maintain the situation in the Balkans stable and safe. We want Belgrade and Pristina to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the Kosovo problem on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Singapore is Russia’s highly promising partner in the Asia-Pacific Region. We appreciate our political dialogue that is actively promoting practical cooperation. The implementation of the free trade agreement signed by the Eurasian Economic Union and Singapore at the end of last year is designed to give an impetus to mutual trade and investment growth. We hope to conclude a Russia-Singapore bilateral agreement on services and investment.

We are friends and partners with the Kingdom of Cambodia. We are interested in further developing our relations in diverse areas, including politics and security, trade and investment, as well as educational and other people-to-people exchanges.

I am convinced that the further development of relations between Russia and the Hellenic Republic meets the interests of our states and certainly aligns with the centuries-old traditions of friendship and mutual affinity between our nations. In addition to our cooperation in politics, the economy and the power industry, there are good opportunities for expanding our contacts in tourism and culture. In this context, I would like to mention the current Cross Year of Language and Literature.

Russia and Iraq have accumulated a wealth of experience of mutually beneficial cooperation in many spheres, including the fuel and energy sector. Russia firmly stands for the preservation of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and has helped to ensure Iraqi security. We believe that efforts towards internal political stability in Iraq should be taken within the framework of a broad national dialogue based on respect for the interests of all citizens, regardless of their ideological beliefs and ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Russia has strong and friendly ties with Algeria. The presidential election held there late last year was a big step towards political and social reform in your country. We support Algeria’s balanced policy in international and regional affairs. We see good possibilities for building up our economic and military technical cooperation and for coordinating our efforts in the interests of stronger stability and security in North Africa and the Sahel-Saharan zone. I recently had a short conversation with your President in Berlin. I hope to see him in Russia soon.

Mongolia is a good neighbour and a tried and tested friend. Last year Russia and Mongolia celebrated the 80th anniversary of victory in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol and signed a termless Treaty on Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. We consider it reasonable to complement our close political interaction with practical projects in trade, investment and humanitarian spheres. We are satisfied with the development of the trilateral Russia-Mongolia-China dialogue. We would like to see Mongolia more actively involved in operations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as well.

We are resolved to further strengthen bilateral cooperation with Tunis, which is among Russia’s traditional partners in the Middle East and North Africa. We are ready to work together on current regional matters, including a settlement in Libya.

Russia enjoys friendly and mutually respectful relations with Iran. Major bilateral projects in the energy sector, including nuclear energy, in railway transport and other sectors of the economy are steadily expanding. An interim agreement to create a free trade area between Iran and the EAEU came into force in 2019 and gave an additional boost to Russian-Iranian trade and investment relations. We plan to promote cooperation with Iran in fighting international terrorism, coordinate our actions as part of the Astana process and facilitate a settlement in Syria. Russia will continue to make efforts to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear programme. We believe this international agreement is critically important for global and regional stability.

Russian-Bangladeshi ties are quite dynamic. Trade is up, and a major project to build Bangladesh’s first nuclear power station, Rooppur, is in progress. Given the proximity of our respective states’ approaches to most pressing regional problems, we look forward to continuing close cooperation at the UN and other multilateral organisations.

The current state of relations between Russia and Great Britain can hardly be considered satisfactory by either side. We are convinced that restoring a mutually respectful political dialogue, strengthening trade and economic exchanges, and building up cultural and people-to-people contacts is in our common interest. We are ready for this.

We stand for promoting Russia-New Zealand ties in trade, investment and culture. We find it useful to interact on international issues, including counterterrorism, climate change and research in the Antarctic.

We are open to cooperation with Canada based on mutual respect for and consideration of each other’s interests. Canada and Russia are neighbours in the Arctic and share common responsibility for ensuring the sustainable development of this vast region, preserving the traditional way of life of the indigenous peoples and taking good care of its fragile ecosystem.

France is one of Russia’s key international partners. We maintain contacts with President Macron, hold regular meetings, discuss issues such as a settlement in Libya, Syria and the Middle East in general, and interact on the Ukraine crisis within the Normandy format. At a bilateral summit held in Fort de Bregancon last August, we agreed to work jointly on ensuring stability and security in Europe. Economic ties between Russia and France, including in industry and energy, continue to expand. On January 16, the Russian Seasons festival opened in France. It is designed to promote friendship and mutual understanding between the peoples of our countries.

Global peace and security largely depend on the state of relations between Russia and the United States, as well as on their stability and predictability. We are convinced that these relations should hinge on the principles of equality, respect for sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs. We are ready for detailed dialogue with the American side, including on arms control and strategic stability, the fight against terrorism and the peaceful resolution of regional crises. For us, it is absolutely obvious that resuming constructive bilateral collaboration meets the interests of Russia, the United States and the entire world.

We advocate the further development of ties with the Republic of Panama, efforts to streamline the legal framework, cooperation and expanded contacts on the economic agenda. We will continue to encourage educational exchanges and help train specialists for Panama.

Relations between Russia and Kazakhstan are an example of reliable strategic partnership and allied cooperation. Bilateral collaboration is based on solid historical, cultural and spiritual bonds between our nations. We appreciate the current level of trust and collaboration with the leaders of Kazakhstan. Last year, we held nine meetings with President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. And, of course, we maintain close contacts with our good friend Nursultan Nazarbayev. Sustainable integration within the Eurasian Economic Union continues to develop largely through joint efforts of Russia and Kazakhstan. Trade and economic relations between our countries are expanding in all areas, including in industry, energy and investment. Russia and Kazakhstan closely coordinate their approaches to matters on the international agenda. It is common knowledge that our Kazakhstani partners provided a venue for launching the Astana negotiating process to achieve a Syrian peace settlement.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Intensive but highly interesting work awaits all of you. I hope that you will be able to get to know Russia better, feel its pulse and watch our country accomplish important and ambitious tasks of political, economic and social development. I also hope that you will provide real assistance in expanding bilateral ties between Russia and the states you represent and will facilitate stronger friendship and mutual understanding between our nations. I wish you every success and all the best.

Thank you.

Our fundamental disagreement about WWII, Hitler, Jews and race

THE SAKER • FEBRUARY 7, 2020

Our fundamental disagreement about WWII, Hitler, Jews and race

The topic of Russians and Jews is clearly a “hot” one. Over the past few years I wrote several articles on this topic including “Putin and Israel A Complex and Multi-Layered Relationship”, “Why Is Putin “Allowing” Israel to Bomb Syria?”, “Russia, Israel and the Values of “Western Civilization” – Where Is the Truth?” and “Debunking the Rumors About Russia Caving in to Israel”. And yet, for a while now I have felt that there is much more which could, and should, be said on this topic.

Recent events (including Putin’s and Zelenskii’s recent trip to Israel or the latest Polish-Ukrainian theory about the USSR being an accomplice to the Holocaust) again gave me that strong feeling that the way Jews are seen in the West is truly very different from how Jews are viewed in Russia. Yet, in the West, this difference is often (almost always, really!) overlooked and assumptions are made about Russia and Russians which are simply not warranted and which end up being highly misleading. This is why I will try to debunk some of these assumptions today.

First, a very quick and very short look into our recent history

The very best book to read on Russian-Jewish relations is “200 Years Together” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The problem with this book is that has never been officially translated into English. Yup, that’s right. A CRUCIAL book by a Nobel Prize winner can be so controversial that nobody in the publishing business has dared to print it. Happily, a number of websites offer unofficial “samizdat” translations, see herehere and here. I cannot vouch for the quality of these translations as I read the book in Russian, not in English. But yeah, in the “land of the free”, the putative “brave” do not get to read a book if that book debunks the western narrative about Russia and Jews. By the way, Solzhenitsyn’s masterpiece is not the only such book which exists only in Russian, there are many more including Andrei Dikii’s “Jews in Russia and the USSR” which can also only be found on the Internet Archive here.

I can’t even begin to try to summarize that most interesting, and controversial history here. All I will say for right now is that when we speak of “Russians” and “Jews” we need to separate these categories into 4 subcategories:

  • Russians from what would be considered Russia today, in other words, “Great-Russians” (here “great” does not indicate a superiority, but only a peripheral place of residence, meaning Russians who don’t live in central Russia). For our purposes I will from now on simply call them “Russians”.
  • Russians from what would be considered the Ukraine today in other words, “Small-Russians” (meaning Russians living near the cradle of the Russian civilization, Kiev). For our purposes, I will from now on refer to them as “Ukrainians”, but only in a geographical sense, not a cultural one.
  • Russian Jews (as opposed to Ukrainian Jews)
  • Ukrainian Jews (as opposed to Russian Jews)

These four subgroups have had a very different historical experience and they need to be considered separately, as lumping them all together really does not allow any analysis.

Besides, and as I have also mentioned it in the past, the Ukrainian nationalist propaganda does, in fact, have some truth to it. Yes, it is a grossly distorted truth, and it is mixed in with an avalanche of lies, but still, not all of it can simply be dismissed. For example, while there never was any “Ukraine” in history, and while what is called today the “Ukrainian language” is not really Ukrainian at all (the “surzhik” would be the real thing), it still remains an undeniable fact that the Polish occupation of southern and eastern Russia (which is what “the Ukraine” is – Russia’s southeastern “borderland” which is what the word “Ukraine” originally meant) left an extremely profound mark on those Russians who lived under the Polish-Latin occupation. I won’t go into historical details today as I already did that hereand here, but I will just say that this tragic history eventually inspired one of the favorite slogans of Ukrainian nationalists: “to drown all the Polaks and the Moskals in Kike blood” (or any variation of these three nationalities).

Charming, no?

The undeniable historical truth is that the centuries long occupation of the Russian eastern frontier lands by the Poles and their Latin masters created so much hatred between all the nationalities involved that it appears that every time they had a chance to try to persecute or kill each other, they immediately did so. Here area few examples of that kind of violence:

  • The (in)famous “pogroms”: these were spontaneous and violent uprisings and subsequent brutal riots against Jews by their resentful neighbors. By the way, during the Civil War, the Reds often were the worst perpetrators of these pogroms because they also saw the comparatively wealthy Jews as class enemies in the Marxist sense of the word.
  • The very high percentage of Jews among the first generation Bolsheviks (80%-85% according to Vladimir Putin; fwiw, I agree with this figure). These Bolshevik Jews were typically concentrated in the secret police organs and they typically spearheaded the massacre of millions of Orthodox Christians (which have since been gloried by the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile and, later, somewhat reluctantly and only partially, by the Moscow Patriarchate, as the “New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia”).
  • A very high percentage of Jews among the Party leaders during the (truly horribly brutal) collectivization and and dekulakization which took place all over the Soviet Union but which the Ukrainian nationalists (and the western propaganda machine) characterize as a deliberate anti-Ukrainian genocide they call the “Holodomor” (yes, I know, Wikipedia entries on all these topics are pure propaganda, but I link to them precisely so you can see what the Ukrainian propaganda writes).
  • A very high percentage of Ukrainians in the post-Stalin Soviet elites, many of whom participated in the bloody purges of the CPSU by Stalin; and since about 80%+ of the top Party officials were Jews, these purges necessarily involved a lot of repressed Jews (whether guilty ones who themselves were covered in innocent blood or innocent ones, who were simply repressed with the rest of them).

I could list more examples, but I think that these are sufficient for our purposes. What we can immediately see is that there are significant differences between what took place in modern Russia and in the modern Ukraine, including:

An example of a crucial geographical difference would be “pogroms” which, contrary to western propaganda, pogroms all took place in what would be the modern Ukraine today, never in Russia.

There is also a difference in time: Russians in the Ukraine were persecuted by Poles and Jews for centuries whereas Russians in what is modern Russia today were primarily persecuted by Bolshevik Jews “only” between 1917 and Stalin’s purges of the party in the late 1930s.

And then, there is the crucial, truly immense, difference which WWII made.

Next, a look at what happened during World War II and the Nazi occupation

When the Nazis launched their attack on the Soviet Union there were a lot of Russians and Ukrainians who welcomed the Nazis, not necessarily because they liked the Nazi ideology but because many of them hated their Bolshevik oppressors even more than they disliked the Germans. After all, the horrors of the Civil War and of the Collectivization were still present in the mind of millions of people both in the (newly created) Ukrainian SSR and in the Russian SSR.

I would like to remind all those who nowadays try very hard to forget it, that the Nazi ideology characterizes both Russians and Ukrainians as subhumans (Untermensch) whose sole purpose would be to serve their Aryan master race overlords (Herrenvolk) in the newly conquered living space (Lebensraum). Simply put: Hitler promised his followers that they would be very happy slave owners! It is no wonder that the prospective slaves felt otherwise…

In the course of the war, however, profound differences began to emerge:

First, in the Ukraine, the Nazi ideology DID inspire a lot of nationalists for the exact same reasons that Nazi ideology inspired nationalist Poles (who were Hitler’s first most loyal allies only to later be betrayed by him). Over the centuries the Papacy not only created the Ukrainian nationalist identity, it then actively fostered it every time Russia was weakened (if that topic is of interest to you, see here). The bitter truth which folks in the West don’t like to be reminded of is that the regimes of Petain, Franco, Pavelic, Pilsudksi, etc. were all created and supported by the Papacy which, of course, also supported Bandera and his Ukronazi deathsquads. As for Hitler himself, he was initially strongly supported by the UK (just as Trotsky was supported by the Jewish bankers in the US). Indeed, russophobia has a long and “distinguished” history in the West: western leaders change, as do their ideological rationalizations, but their hatred and fear of Russia always remains.

In contrast, General Andrei Vlasov, who created the “Russian Liberation Army” (ROA) had exactly zero support in the West, and very little support in Russia proper. The ideology of the ROA was a mix of moderate nationalism with some no less moderate socialism. In hindsight, it never stood a chance of becoming truly popular in Russia simply because the sight of a Russian general wearing a Nazi uniform was not something that most Russians could serenely look at, whereas in the current Nazi-occupied Ukraine, Nazi uniforms and symbols are still very popular. Last, but certainly not least, the demented and outright genocidal policies of the Nazis in occupied Russia resulted in such a blowback that the war to liberate Russia from the Nazis became a war of national survival which the vast majority of Russians fully supported.

It is also interesting how differently the Anglo powers treated the Ukronazis and the Russians of the ROA: the West lovingly imported to the US and Canada all the Ukronazis it could get its hands on, yet at the same time the West forcibly repatriated millions of Russians, including POW and ROA members, with often horrible consequences for the repatriates. As for General Vlasov himself, he was executed along with other officers accused of treason.

For the Ukrainian nationalists, WWII began as a God-sent chance to finally bring about their dream to “drown all the Polaks and the Moskals in Kike blood”, and then this dream was crushed by the Soviet counter-attack and subsequent annihilation of most (about 80%) of the German military machine. And while many Ukrainians (and Poles) did see the Soviets as their liberators from the Nazi horrors, the Ukronazis obviously saw the Soviet Army solely as an occupation force which they resisted for as long as they could (after the end of the war, it still took the Soviets several years to finally crush the Ukronazi underground). And while most Russians felt like they were the real victors of WWII, the Ukronazi nationalists felt that they had been defeated. Again. The same goes for the Poles, by the way (this trauma gave birth to something I refer to as the “Pilban syndrome”).

Now for the self-evident truism about Jews: while many Russians remained acutely aware of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and, especially, in the class terror which followed, they did not see ALL Jews as enemies of Russia, especially not when

  1. There were plenty of patriotic Jews who loved Russia and/or the USSR
  2. That Hitler’s demented racism inevitably had to bring Jews and Russians together, even if only for a while and mostly under the “common enemy” heading.
  3. Many (most?) Russians know for a fact that Nazi concentration/extermination camps did, in fact, exist even if they did not kill 6M Jews, even if they had no gas chambers and no crematoria (except to deal with insect-born diseases). Why? Because it was the Soviet military which liberated most of these camps and because there were plenty of non-Jewish Russians/Soviets in these camps. Finally, besides the camps themselves, most Russians also know about the infamous Einsatzgruppen which probably murdered even more Jews (and non-Jews) than all the concentration/extermination camps combined. The fact is that Nazi atrocities are not seriously challenged by most Russian historians.

The bottom line is this: whatever (at the time very real) hostility history had created between Jews and Russians, World War II had a huge impact on these perceptions. That is not to say that the Russians have forgotten the genocidal policies of Lenin and Trotsky, but only that after WWII, most Russians justly felt that they were victors, not defeated losers.

The Ukrainian nationalists, in contrast, were “multi-defeat” losers: they were defeated by the Germans, the Russians and even the Poles (who rarely attack anybody unless their prospective victim is already agonizing or unless there is some “big guy” protecting them – Churchill was quite right with his “greedy hyena of Europe” comment!). And now, more recently, they were soundly defeated not once, but TWICE, by the Novorussians. That kind of “performance” will often result in a nationalistic reaction.

And that is true not only for the Ukraine, but also very much applies to the West of 2020.

Does the collective West also suffer from the same “multi-defeat” complex?

It seems to me that most people reading these lines already know that the “collective West” aka the “AngloZionist Empire” is in terrible shape. Just look at the political chaos in the US, the UK, France, Germany and all the rest of the NATO/EU countries. The West is not only losing militarily and economically, it is also agonizing culturally, socially, morally and spiritually. Furthermore, that which we all used to think of as “western values” is now being replaced by some insipid “multiculturalism” which seems to pious euphemism for the obvious plan to erase pretty much all of the western historical and cultural legacy. Like all forms of persecution, this one is also resulting in an increasingly powerful case of ideological blowback: a very dangerous and toxic resurgence of both Fascism and National-Socialism.

How could a person (Hitler) and an ideology (National-Socialism) be both declared uniquely evil AND, at the same time, undergo at least a partial rehabilitation in the same society? Simple! The only condition necessary to make that happen is to condition people to accept cognitive dissonances and not to be too troubled when they happen. The average citizen of the Empire has been conditioned to accept, and even embrace, such cognitive dissonances quite literally since birth and he has become very, very good at that. But there is also a historiographical blowback in action here:

Following WWII and, especially, following the 1970s, the Zionists made what I consider to be a disastrous mistake: they decided to present Hitler and his ideology as some kind of special and unique form of evil which supersedes any and all, past or even future, imaginable forms of evil. And just to make sure that this claim would stick, they decided to add some highly specific claims including the “official’” figure of 6 million murdered Jews, the gas chambers and crematoria being the most famous ones, but there were many more (including electrocution pools, human skin lamp shades and human fat soaps – but which had to be ditched after being proven false). Eventually these claims all came under very effective attack by the so-called “revisionist historians” who have since proven beyond reasonable doubt that these specific claims were false. That did not make these historians very popular with the rulers of the Empire who, instead of allowing for of a healthy historical debate, decided to make “revisionism” a criminally punishable thoughtcrime for which historians could be jailed, sometimes for years! The reaction to that kind of abuse of power was inevitable.

One of the most pernicious result of this policy of criminalizing historical investigations into WWII has been the fact that many people in the West concluded that since these specific claims were bunk, then all of the claims about Nazi atrocities were bunk too. Huge logical mistake! The fact that these specific claims have already been debunked in no way implies that OTHER widely reported atrocities did not occur.

For example, the fact that gas chambers were probably not used to kill anybody (at least not in significant amounts) does not at all imply that many hundreds of thousands, or even million of people, were not killed by execution, starvation or disease (typhus, dysentery, etc.). Just look at the death rates in Japanese POW camps, and they had no gas chambers or crematoria. As for the Soviets, they deported “class enemies” from their homes and simply released them in the middle of the Siberian taiga during the winter and with no survival gear: most of them also quickly died, simply from exposure.

The simple truth is that any modern state has the means to murder people on an industrial scale even without the use of such exotic (and, frankly, ill-suited) techniques as gas chambers or crematoria (in Rwanda, they mostly used crude machetes). But western historians are banned from even researching these topics!

This situation resulted in an environment in the West in which one cannot criticize (or even doubt!) Jews or things Jewish without immediately being called an “anti-Semite”. Ditto for anybody daring to present another version of WWII. That this kind of collective brainwashing would inevitably result in a massive blowback was easy to predict but, alas, the Zionists never had the foresight to see this coming. Either that, or they were quite happy to report a “surge in anti-Semitism” in the West to extort even more political power (and money!). Whatever may be the case, it is close to impossible in the current West to freely and openly discuss these topics.

Now a quick comparison with modern Russia

The political environment in Russia is radically different. For one thing, it is not illegal (or even improper) in Russia to criticize Jews, or modern “Judaism” (really a modern form of rabbinical Phariseism) or Israel or the Zionist ideology (which, by the way, the USSR did denounce and oppose as a form of racism). Yes, there are still (pretty bad) laws on the books forbidding the promotion of national hatred and “extremist speech”, but the truth is that as long as you only investigate historical topics (such as the real number of Jews murdered by the Nazis) and you do not advocate (or engage in) violence you will be fine. Not only that, but you can find pretty much any and all anti-Jewish/Zionist books on the Russian Internet for easy and free download. Finally, while a lot of Jews did leave the USSR, those who stayed (or have since returned) did that of their own free will and that strongly suggests that, unlike their brethren in Israel, many (most?) Russian Jews do not have feelings of hatred for Russia, the Russian people or even the Orthodox Church (some do, of course, but this is a minority).

Some near sighted Jews regularly deplore that the political discourse in Russia is not as tightly controlled as the one in the West. I would simply like to remind them that the much more permissive intellectual environment of Russia has NOT resulted in an automatic fusion between patriotism and hostility to Jews, as is sadly the case in the West (unless, of course, we are dealing with what French philosopher and dissident Alain Soral calls “National-Zionism” which is a separate phenomenon which I discussed in some detail here).

True, when patriotism (love for one’s country) turns into nationalism (love of one’s ethnicity), then things typically go south, but that is a danger of which the Kremlin is acutely aware of and that is why Russian nationalists are, after Russian Wahabis, the most frequently jailed people in Russia under anti extremism laws (keep in mind that both Russian nationalists and Russian Wahabis typically not only disseminate “extremist literature” but they also are typically engaged in one form of violence or another, thus they are often jailed on terrorism charges too).

An increasing number of Russia are, however, puzzled by what they see as a slow-motion rehabilitation of Hitler and the Nazi regime. For example, while in the West the official doxa is still that Hitler and the Nazis were the worst evil in history, there is a rapidly growing “alternative” viewpoint, mostly found on the Internet, of course, in which Hitler is viewed as a much more complex person, who has been unjustly demonized and whose actions need to be placed in a “correct” historical context. And, in fact, there is some truth to that – Hitler was a complex personality and the Nazis were demonized beyond way beyond anything reasonable. Finally, the proponents of this “rehabilitation” will always point out that Hitler’s enemies were at least as ruthless and evil has he was. Again, there is also much truth to that. However, when the EU declares in a solemn vote that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both equally responsible for WWII, then a fundamental red line is crossed, one which places an “equal” sign not only between the aggressor and the aggressed but also between those who were defeated and those who were victorious.

As I have often written in the past, under international law the ultimate, most evil, crime is not “genocide” or “crimes against humanity”. It is the “crime of aggression” because, in the words of the US judge who declared this principle, “the crime of aggression contains all the other crimes”, which is only logical. Thus by accusing the USSR of aggression, the EU is basically annulling them findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal, it makes the USSR every bit as guilty of all the atrocities of WWII as the Nazis.

Are the Russians correct when they say that there is a slow-motion rehabilitation of Hitler and his ideology in the West?

Absolutely!

The fact that this slo-mo rehabilitation is still currently and mostly confined to the margins of the political discourse does not change the Russian awareness that no matter how much Hitler and his minions are disliked or even hated in the West, Russia and Russians will always be hated even much more. This is also true of what the West calls “Islamic extremism” which is only “bad” when it is not fully controlled by the West (terrorists!!), and which is “good”, axiomatically so, when directed against Russia or other Orthodox nations (freedom fighters!!).

Under these circumstances, is it really surprising that many (most?) Russians feel like the West is a much bigger danger to the Russian civilizational realm than any anti-Russian plans concocted by Jews, Zionists or the Israelis?

Absolutely not!

Not only do most Russians hate Hitler and everything he stood for, they also truly understand that the vast majority of Jews murdered by the Third Reich were simple, innocent, people whose only crime was to be of the same ethnicity/religion as some other Jews who did, indeed, richly deserved to be hated for their racist messianism (be it religious or secular). That is a fundamental injustice which Russians will never accept because accepting it would be a betrayal of truth (a hugely important concept for the Russian civilization) and no less of a betrayal of the memory of all the innocents murdered by the Nazis.

Conclusion one: history matters, a lot!

Whatever we all may think of Jewish identity politics or whatever our opinion of the Soviet Union, it is undeniable that Hitler’s policies inflicted unspeakable suffering upon both Russians and Jews. Western Alt-Righters, who still delude themselves into thinking that Russians share in their racist delusions, can deny and denounce this, but the fact is that history has forever created a bond between Jews and Russians: their common memory of the mass atrocities perpetuated against them by the Nazis. No amount of political gesticulations will change that.

That does not, of course, mean that Putin, the Kremlin or anybody else is an “ally” of Israel or that Putin and Bibi Netanyahu are working together (or for each other). This utter nonsense is a completely false conclusion resulting from a fundamental and profound misreading of Russian history and Russian culture. But it goes even further than that. I would argue that the history of the Russian culture is also fundamentally incompatible with any racist/racialist ideas.

The ideology of pre-1917 Russia can be described as “Orthodox monarchism”. This is not really correct for a long list of reasons (reality is always more complex than buzz-words and slogans), but by and large you could say that what was considered morally right or morally wrong was defined by the Russian Orthodox Church. Well, it just so happens that while original Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) was very critical of rabbinical “Judaism” (the religion and wordview), that same original Christianity was far less hostile to Jews (the ethnicity) then western Christian demominations. In fact, true Christianity has always been pro-patriotic but anti-nationalistic. This was also the practice in the Eastern Roman Empire (whose political structure Russia inherited). By the way, this is also true for the 2nd religion of Russia, Islam.

Then, after the 1917 Revolution, Russia was initially submitted to two decades of Jewish terror, especially a kind of terror directed against the Russian people and the Orthodox faith. With the coming to power of Stalin, however, major changes took place (and most of those who had drowned Russia in innocent blood were themselves executed during the famous “purges”). And while Stalin never was an “anti-Semite” (this is silly nonsense which both Stalin’s actions and writings directly contradict), his purges (and reforms) did profoundly change the nature of the Soviet regime, including the ethnic composition of the leaders of the CPSU which became much more diverse.

Speaking of the Soviet Union in general, it is also important to remember that the Marxist-Leninist ideology also rejects racial and ethnic differences and, instead, advocates a solidarity of all people against their class oppressors.

Thus neither the pre-1917 nor the post-1917 mainstream Russian ideology/worldview are a viable ground to try to promote racist ideas. And, thankfully, neither is modern (“Putin’s”) Russia.

The truth is that Russia which, as I mentioned above, is the political heir to the East Roman Empire (aka “Byzantium” in western parlance) has ALWAYS been multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and pretty much any and all other “multi-something” you can think of. For all the many sins of the Russian people during their history, racism was never one of them!

For example, this is also why, while most people in the West see Islam (and Muslims) as “aliens”, most Russians are totally used to them and see them as longtime neighbors. That does not mean that Russian’s don’t remember the dozen or so wars Russia fought against the Ottomans, nor does it mean that Russia has forgiven the Wahabi atrocities in Chechnia. It simply and only means that Muslims, and even Turks, are not see as “national enemies” by Russians.

The same is true for Jews. Yes, the Russians do remember what Jews did to them during the early years of the Bolshevik regime, but that memory, that awareness, does NOT typically result into any kind of racism, including any type of anti-Jewish racism. Nor do the horrors committed by Jewish Bolsheviks obfuscate all the very real contributions of various Jews to the Russian culture.

By the way, it is important to remember here that while it is true that most first-generation Bolsheviks were Jews, it is not true that most Jews were Bolsheviks. In fact, Jews were found pretty much everywhere, including amongst Menshevik’s, anarchists, Bundists, etc…

So yes, Jews and Russians mostly lived together for about 200 years, and much of our common history is tragic, painful and even shameful, but at the end of the day, it would be false to think that most Russians either dislike or fear Jews. They do not. Even when they are critical of this or that personality, ideology or religion (original Christianity will always be the ultimate enemy of rabbinical Judaism, just as rabbinical Judaism will always remain the ultimate enemy of original Christianity; we can understand why that is so, or we can deplore it, but we should never forget or deny this!).

If any self-described anti-Semite reads these words and is absolutely outraged by what I just wrote, please also make sure to read “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand” which will show to you that the very notion of “ethnicity” (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) is a modern invention with very little actual basis in history, especially in the history of multi-cultural empires. Simply put: in a culture which does not really believe in the importance of ethnicity no truly racist ideology can develop. It is really that simple!

Yes, I know about Dostoevskii’s and Rozanov’s dislike for Jews (and Poles, by the way), and yes I know about the Pale of Settlement (won’t touch this here, but it sure was not what western historians in the West think it was – just read Solzhenitsyn!). I also know about the “Blood Libel” (won’t touch this one either, but I will recommend you read the 2007 book by Israeli historian Ariel Toaff “Passovers of Blood”) and about all the other myths spread in the West (by Jews and non-Jews) about “Russian anti-Semitism”. But the truth is simple: while there were many instances in history when Jews and Russians clashed (including the 10th century destruction of Khazaria by Russian forces or the 15th century struggle against the “Heresy of the Judaizers” – which, by the way, Wikipedia does a very bad job describing: in reality this was an early attempt by Kabbalists to infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church just as they had successfully infiltrated the Papacy). Yet, these conflicts did not resulted in any major hostility of Russians towards Jews (the inverse is, alas, not nearly as true).

Conclusion two: Putin, Zelenskii and the Israelis

The recent trip of both Zelenskii and Putin to Israel has, again, brought the topic of the Jewish, Russian and Ukrainian “triangle” to the front page news. The Poles also seized the opportunity to make things worse for themselves when they chimed in on it all. You read the stories, so no need to repeat it all here. What was most impressive about this event was that Zelenskii decided that he would travel to Israel, only to then declare that he would not participate in the commemorative events. Why? Clearly, he was terrified that the Ukronazis will denounce him for caving in to Zionist pressure.

Putin did the exact opposite, not only did he travel to Israel and he spoke at the event, he also reminded the (mostly Jewish) audience of the horrors which the Russian people also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Clearly, Putin did not fear that some Russian nationalists would accuse him of caving in to Zionist pressure. Why not?

Why could Putin speak so freely?

For two very simple reasons:

First, and unlike the Ukrainians or the Poles, the Russians have exactly zero guilt about what happened in WWII. In spite of all the lies currently spread in the West, the Soviet Union did not start WWII – the Soviet Union pretty much single-handedly defeated Hitler and ended the war (the entire Anglo effort was worth no more than 20% and only came after the Soviets defeated theWehrmacht and the SS in Stalingrad and elsewhere).

Second, Jewish supremacism was very short lived in the USSR (roughly from 1917 to 1937) and neither Putin nor any other Russian political leader will let claims of exclusive “special” Jewish suffering go unchallenged. And while most Russian politicians don’t feel the need to express any doubts about the “official” 6 million figure, they do like to remind their Jewish friends that the Russian nation suffered anywhere between 20 to 27 million dead people during WWII, thus denying Jewish victims any superior victim status over non-Jewish victims.

Our fundamental disagreement about WWII, Hitler and Jews

Likewise, it is BECAUSE Russians have zero sense of guilt towards Jews, that Putin could mention this figure of 80-85% of Jews in the first Bolshevik regime in front of an assembly of Haredi rabbis (see the video here for yourself:

Can you imagine Merkel or Trump daring to say these things in front of such an audience?

Unthinkable!

Conclusion three:

Ever since Vladimir Putin came to power, Russia has been gradually and steadily separating herself from the collective West. This process is not so much about being “against” the West as it is about being “different” from the West, but unapologetically so! This is especially visible in the nature and quality of the political discourse in Russia which is truly dramatically different from the kind of hyper-controlled (and, of course, hyper-manipulated) political discourse in the West. Simply put, Russians live in a much more open and diverse intellectual landscape than their western neighbors. As a result, it would be a major mistake to assume, for example, that Russian patriots hold views similar to those held by western nationalists. Hence the existence of what we could call “Our fundamental disagreement about WWII, Hitler, Jews and race”.

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: