Category Archives: Military Doctrine

Russia Intervenes in Syria to Stop ISIS and Al Qaeda, America Enraged


It’s hard to imagine a more depraved, wicked and vile foreign policy than US foreign policy in Syria. The bottom line is that the US, along with Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Canada, is supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government.

Our policy in Syria is also completely insane. We are bombing ISIS, although the bombing does not hurt them very much. But at the same time, the US and its allies have waged all out war on the two main groups that have fought the hardest against Al Qaeda and ISIS – the Kurdish militias and the Syrian state. The greatest successes against ISIS have been by the Syrian government and the Kurdish militias.

So we are:

Bombing ISIS ineffectually.


Waging all out war on ISIS’ biggest adversaries.

Does that bullshit even make sense?

The US spends $1 billion/year supplying advanced weaponry to what amounts to Al Qaeda.

Here is what happens.

  1. US gives weapons to fake “moderate” rebels who don’t even exist.
  2. Vast majority of weapons given to fake moderate rebels end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.
  3. US looks the other way.
  4. Return to Step 1 above.

The US is fully aware that most our weapons are going to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care because US policy in Syria is that we will support anybody, and I mean anybody, to overthrow the Syrian government. The US also gives a lot of weaponry to Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabian representatives in Turkey and to Jordan inside Jordan. Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then give the weapons directly to Al Qaeda with no intermediaries involved.

We know full well that after we give these countries’ reps our weapons, they immediately give them to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care for the above mentioned reason.

Bottom line is the US is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and we have been from Day One. It’s hard to think of a scummy and filthy foreign policy that supporting Al Qaeda, but that’s exactly what we are doing. It is absolutely disgusting.

Turkey, on the other hand, appears to be directly supplying and harboring ISIS. Every day, scores of trucks containing ISIS forces, supplies and weapons head across the Turkish border heading straight for ISIS territory. The Turks simply wave them on through. Furthermore, Turkey serves as a huge rear base for ISIS where they have training camps, de facto bases, rest and recreation areas, medical facilities and supply depots for supplies and weapons. Turkey has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to shut down ISIS’ rear base areas inside Turkey. Bottom line is Turkey is ISIS’ biggest supporter. The US knows this and does nothing whatsoever about it.

So the US is:

Ineffectually bombing ISIS


Waging all out war on ISIS’ worst opponents


Leaving ISIS vast rear base area intact.

So in a roundabout way, we are actually backing ISIS in Syria by allowing our ally to set aside a huge rearguard area for ISIS and winking and looking the other way while our ally allows forces, supplies and weaponry to resupply ISIS across the Turkish border.

I am not sure if we really want ISIS to conquer Syria. I would say we would not want that. Of course, the Israelis, the worst humans on Earth, would be ecstatic if ISIS took power in Syria, but who cares what the Jews think about anything?

Instead, I think we would like to weaken ISIS enough to keep them from conquering Syria, while at the same time not allowing them to be completely defeated so they can remain strong enough to serve as a major opponent to the Syrian regime. Putin says the US does not want to see ISIS defeated in Syria. As usual, Putin is 100% correct.

Now Russia is intervening, quite possibly with a large military force, because it figures there is no way they are going to sit back and let Syria fall to Al Qaeda and ISIS. So Russia is intervening in Syria to try to deliver a massive blow to Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. The US is absolutely enraged that anyone is trying to defeat our jihadi pals who we are arming in a roundabout way.

How dare anyone try to defeat Al Qaeda and ISIS! The American government will not stand for such an outrage!

The US says Russian involvement will fuel the conflict and make peace difficult. But the main fueling of the conflict is coming from the US and our slimy allies Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Turkey.

There is a vast problem with a peace settlement. The US and all the other disgusting countries above say that the armed Syrian rebels have to be guaranteed a position in the Syrian government. But that cannot be allowed to happen because the Syrian rebels are simply Al Qaeda and ISIS. All of the so-called moderate groups are fighting as part of a military unit that is led by Al Qaeda. So all of the moderate rebels are more or less Al Qaeda right now. The plan of the US and its loathsome allies above is apparently to force Assad to share power with what amounts to Al Qaeda. You heard that right. We want Al Qaeda to run Syria. How insane is that?

Al Qaeda and ISIS or anyone associated with them cannot be allowed to share power with Assad in Syria. Assad does have a plan to allow the sane opposition (which is not armed) to share power in the government along with Parliamentary elections in which the sane election is allowed to participate. The US and its partners in crime have nixed this plan because it doesn’t allow Al Qaeda to join the Syrian government.

Sometimes I wonder if reality is even real because actual existing reality seems so crazy that it could only be fiction. It seems too nuts to be real.


Filed under Canada, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, USA, War

US, NATO Causing Chaos and Unrest in Moldova

US and NATO doing the only thing they can ever do, stir up trouble, chaos, war and hatred while promoting fascism, dicatorship, and radical nationalism, This time apparently they are supporting Moldovan Nazis or Romanian Nazis as their shock troops just like NATO used Ukrainian Nazis in the Ukraine.

Moldova has been run by oligarchs ever since the US/NATO got involved and they have stolen every nickel in the country while not doing one damn thing to help the people. America just can’t get over its love for oligarchs, right? All over the world, US foreign policy forever now has been:

Support the rich, the oligarchs and the 1%

Attack the people, all the way up to committing genocide against the ordinary working people.

It’s always pro-rich anti-people, pro-rich anti-people, pro-rich anti-people everywhere the US goes on Earth. If you’re not rich, why would you support US foreign policy which supports your class enemies? I hope you know that the US military is a major of this “support the rich, attack the people” project. Why would anyone who is not rich go join the US military to fight Wars for the Rich? Rich men get workers to fight their thieving wars for them? Why do workers put on uniforms to go fight for their class enemies? I don’t get it.

If you don’t want to fight for the rich, don’t join the US military. That’s all it’s been doing for a long time now.

This Moldova situation is starting to look seriously like Ukraine 2.0. Where is Nazi-loving Jew Victoria Nuland? Shouldn’t she be showing up about now? Where is her Nazi-loving Jew husband, neocon Robert Kagan. The Jews’ performance in US foreign policy has been despicable lately. Here is Jews’ foreign policy in a nutshell:

Support Al Qaeda (in Syria, Turkey and Yemen)

Support ISIS (in Turkey, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon)

Oppose ISIS and Al Qaeda (in Egypt)

Let’s pass around a few more memes, which are 100% factual:

Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda.

Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS.

Pass it around!


Filed under Economics, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Islam, Labor, Military Doctrine, Nazism, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, War

America, a Colony of Israel

Via Debka, a website run by the Mossad:

Obama authorizes air power to defend US-backed Syrian rebels
DEBKAfile August 3, 2015, 8:56 AM (IDT)

President Barack Obama has authorized using air power to defend a US-backed fighting force in Syria if it is attacked by Syrian government forces or other groups. DEBKAfile: This is the first time the US has intervened directly in the four-year old Syrian civil war. The action was authorized by the president after a group of rebels trained by the CIA in Jordan was attacked last week by the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front rebels who took some of them hostage.

I can’t even begin to tell you how insane this is. In a nutshell, America has just declared war in Syria. That statement issued right there, that the US will attack any Syrian government forces that attack our precious “moderate” rebels, is an out and declaration of war on Syria. Of course the media that has absolutely no Jews in it whatsoever will tell us all about this, right? Of course not. The media will not report on this in any way whatsoever.

We should not overplay the role of US Jews in all of this mess. If there is one beef that is perfectly valid against US Jews, it is that they have subverted our sovereignty and turned this country into a colony of Israel. And yes, that is a good reason do dislike Jewish people.


Filed under Democrats, Geopolitics, Israel, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Obama, Politics, Regional, Syria, Terrorism, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War

Glenn Greenwald on Why There Is No Freedom of the Press in the West

Apparently in “free” Australia, this is what happens to dissident journalists:

Any society in which it’s a firing offense for journalists to criticize the military is a sickly and undemocratic one.

They get fired. Then they lie about why they were fired, which the West always does about most anything. We need to acknowledge the incredible amount of lying that goes on in the West all the time, particularly in government and media. It’s not a free country when everybody’s lying all the time. There’s nothing free about that except freedom to lie.

The excuses offered by SBS for McIntyre’s firing are so insulting as to be laughable. Minister Turnball denies that he made the decision even as he admits that, beyond his public denunciation, he “drew [McIntyre’s comments] to the attention of SBS’ managing director Michael Ebeid.”

The Minister also issued a statement endorsing McIntyre’s firing, saying that “in his capacity as a reporter employed by SBS he has to comply with and face the consequences of ignoring the SBS social media protocol.” For its part, SBS laughably claims McIntyre wasn’t fired for his views, but, rather, because his “actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy”

The lying, the lying. Obviously Turnbull is the one who got this reporter fired, but as always in the West, he denies doing what he obviously did.

Then they lied about why he was fired, which also happens all the time in the West.

Notably, McIntyre’s firing had nothing to do with any claimed factual inaccuracies of anything he said. As The Washington Post’s Adam Taylor noted, historians and even a former prime minister have long questioned the appropriateness of this holiday given the realities of Anzac’s conduct and the war itself.

As Australian history professor Philip Dwyer documented, McIntyre’s factual assertions are simply true. Whatever else one might say, the issues raised by McIntyre are the subject of entirely legitimate political debate, and they should be. Making it a firing offense for a journalist to weigh in on one side of that debate but not the other is tyrannical.

Exactly. In the West, it’s illegal to tell the truth. Journalists who tell the truth will be fired and they all know it, so they all figure out what lies they are supposed to tell and then they stick to their phony scripts. Government or corporate workers who tell the truth are often fired. As I said, in the West, telling the truth is a fireable offense.

Part of this is driven by the dangers of state-funded media, which typically neuters itself at the altar of orthodoxy. In the U.S. the “liberal” NPR is, not coincidentally, the most extreme media outlet for prohibiting any expressions of views that deviate from convention, even firing two journalists for the crime of appearing at an Occupy Wall Street event.

Identically, NPR refused (and still refuses) to use the word “torture” for Bush interrogation programs because the U.S. government denied that it was; its ombudsman justified this choice by arguing that “the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed.” We can’t have a media outlet doing anything that might have “political and social implications” for high government officials!

In other words, they lied. The government lied and said they were not torturing anyone even when they were, the corrupt American Psychological Association, the organization of all American psychologists, went along with the torture and wrote up lengthy lying reports on why the torture wasn’t torture, in other words, why something was not what it was.

And the corrupt media, especially NPR, went along with it, all because they get government funding. A public radio station that is so rightwing that it won’t call torture torture is not liberal in any true meaning of the word. NPR is just another conservative media outlet, albeit one of the least conservative in the country. That the NPR is regarded as only prominent Left dissident or opposition media in the US is stunning.

But his reasoning shows how neutered state-funded media inevitably becomes. Here’s one of the biggest stories in journalism of the last decade, one that sparked a worldwide debate about a huge range of issues, spawned movements for legislative reform, ruptured diplomatic relationships, changed global Internet behavior, and won almost every major journalism award in the West.

And the director of news and current affairs of BBC says they likely would not have reported the story, one that — in addition to all those other achievements — happened to have enraged the British government to which the BBC must maintain fealty.

Exactly. All state media must suck to the state or lose its funding and get its staff fired. So state media is generally made up of state propaganda outlets in most countries, a major dilemma.

A different aspect of what the Australia firing shows is the scam of establishment journalists in defining “objectivity” to mean: “affirming societal orthodoxies.” Journalists are guilty of “opinionating” and “activism” only when they challenge and deviate from popular opinion, not when they embrace and echo it (that’s called “objectivity”).

Yep, in the West, journalists are fired for defying popular opinion. The reason given is that when you become a dissident journalist in the West, you are no longer objective! Incredible. And in the West, the term “objectivity” is defined as being an echo chamber for public opinion and rich and the powerful. As long as you are sucking up to these entities, you are “objective.” Unbelievable.

That’s because, as practiced, “journalistic objectivity” is compelled obeisance to the pieties of the powerful dressed up as something noble.

Then Greenwald gets down the real meat of his argument: the West’s omnipresent exceptionalism and high horse riding.

But what is at the heart of McIntyre’s firing is the real religion of the supposedly “secular West”: mandated worship not just of its military but of its wars. The central dogma of this religion is tribal superiority: Our Side is more civilized, more peaceful, superior to Their Side.

I am so glad he said this because I have been thinking this for so long now but I have never been able to put it into words. Finally, after 57 years, someone does it for me. This is so true. To be an American means you must worship all of America’s wars. Most importantly, you must support an entity called “the troops.” There is nothing special about American soldiers. They are trained and hired killers, just like all military men. An army is only as good as the government commanding it. Lousy governments have lousy armies because the governments are always compelling the military to engage in lousy, sleazy conflicts. A good government has a good army. It will only enter into conflicts when it feels it is on the side of justice.

The American notion is that there is something inherently noble about American servicemen. This is nonsense. A US soldier is only as decent as his commander in chief. Soldiers are bad soldiers when they are fighting on the wrong side of a conflict or for evil objectives. Soldiers are good soldiers when they are ordered to relatively obey the rules of war and to engage in conflicts on the side of justice. So the US serviceman is simply an automaton who follows whatever orders he is given. When he is fighting for evil, which is a lot of the time, he’s a bad guy. When he’s fighting for good, he’s a good guy. He has no inherent positive, decent or moral essence.

When US soldiers fight for the bad guys, one should certainly not “support the troops.” Probably the best thing to do in that case would be to campaign to bring the troops home. Yet in America you always have to “support the troops.” That means that whatever conflict the military is involved in any on Earth, all Americans have to support it! Why? In order to “support the troops,” that’s why. So you see that America has elements of a totalitarian country.

This is the religion — of militarism and tribalism — that is the one thriving and pervasive in the West. The vast, vast majority of political discourse about foreign policy — especially from U.S. and British media commentators — consists of little more than various declarations of tribal superiority: we are better and our violence is thus justified.

Exactly. Nail, meet hammer. Once again, I have been thinking this most of my life, but no one has ever articulated it in quite those words.


Filed under Australia, Britain, Conservatism, Europe, Government, History, Journalism, Liberalism, Military Doctrine, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA, War, World War 1

“The Trouble With Henry Cabot Lodge,” by Nominay

This article is by Nominay, a veteran commentator at Beyond Highbrow. He has his own site where he posts mainly about the JFK assassination but also on current events and in defense of liberalism generally. His blog is called The Endangered Left. This piece originally appeared there.

Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved. As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.

What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government.

He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup however, which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.

As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best action to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire.

These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.

Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders was the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle to his vision of some kind of victory.

But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. At the end of 1962, just when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out his ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro.

This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, along with hair-brained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.

Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served as Ambassador to the United Nations in Eisenhower’s cabinet for 7 years.

Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:

…Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action.

When the Government was overthrown, the United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”

Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.

Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working in concert with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.

Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.

In Stone’s best selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, he recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:

In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.

His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

In his renowned book JFK and the Unspeakable, author James Douglass adds content confirming what Kennedy’s intentions were on this issue from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:

JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.

Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions:

“The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”

According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”

President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.

It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.

Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:

“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63…shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost…yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone…

Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…the others stayed in the military quarters.” *

Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book Not In Your Lifetime, he quotes former UN Ambassador Atwood, as saying:

“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba]…they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”

What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing…and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge,   A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge, A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Britain, Caribbean, Cold War, Cuba, Democrats, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Government, History, Latin America, Military Doctrine, Modern, Politics, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, SE Asian, The Americas, US, US Politics, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Why America Is Cancer


George Friedman, Jew, psychopath, explains the psychopathic foreign policy goals of the Dictator of the World, America. Mr. Freeman is one of the men who run our foreign policy. Freeman is for all intents and purposes the voice of the CIA or better yet, the voice of the Deep State. Note the rank cynicism and viciousness of this man. The fact that he is a Jew is not surprising. There is no longer discrimination against Jews in America. On the contrary, Jews run the whole damn country.


Filed under Afghanistan, Antiquity, Asia, Britain, Colonialism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, History, Imperialism, India, Iraq War, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Roman Empire, Russia, South Asia, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, USSR, War

Netanyahu’s Disgusting Speech

I note that Netanyahu the leader of the Jewish National Socialist state of Israel received 20 standing ovations by the US Congress. That seems unprecedented. Why didn’t they all just take off their clothes and start masturbating in the isles if they were that in love with him? I almost would have expected something like that.
Bottom line is Netanyahu is lying through his teeth. Iran has no nuclear weapons program that I am aware of. They have a nuclear energy program. The problem is that a nuclear energy program and a nuclear weapons program both look the same and both involve the same tech. So these idiots are saying that Iran cannot have a nuclear energy program.

Beyond that, Netanyahu is playing into some very deep seated Sunni racism and bigotry against the Shia which is almost genocidal in nature. He is playing into the “Sunni-Nazis” and supporting them against the “Shia-Jews.” Like his mentor Adolf Hitler, the Jewish National Socialist Netanyahu is accusing the Shia victims of aggressing against the Sunni aggressors. He paints victims as aggressors and aggressors as victims and he promotes genocidal thinking against a persecuted religious group. He’s a Jewish fascist more or less.

Israel owns Congress. We don’t even have two countries. We have one country called “USreal.” According to one view, the US is a colony of Israel. I support a decolonization project.

Actually, that is only one view. Another view is that Israel is not colonizing the US at all and instead there is one Jewish country called “USreal.” There is a small Jewish National Socialist country in the Levant called “Israel” which is the homeland of the Jews. However, there is also a very large nation called America that is also a Jewish country. There are over 300 million people living here and almost all of them are Jews in spirit if not in name. A Judaized Gentile is just a Jew with his sideburns shaved off.

Looking at it this way, it makes more sense. Most members of Congress are clearly Jewish in spirit. In fact, I would gather that US Congressmen are some of the biggest Jews in this entire Jewish country. So that the leader of the Jewish state was treated to an unprecedented welcome by 500 Jewish members of a Jewish Congress should hardly be surprising. After all, Netanyahu is the leader of their people. I am certain that 95% of US Congressmen see Netanyahu as their leader instead of Obama.

This country went Jewish long ago. I don’t see much hope anymore. We might as well all just convert already.


Filed under Asia, Fascism, Government, Iran, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Nuclear Weapons, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Religion, Shiism, Sunnism, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA

I Bring Good News of Freedom and Democracy


Click to enlarge. Hello, my name is America. Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great freedom and democracy, which shall be to all people.


Leave a comment

Filed under Geopolitics, Imperialism, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Regional, USA, War

Ukraine/ Russia Crisis: 2014 End of Year Report and a Look into What 2015 Might Bring

A superb analysis from the Saker. I pretty much agree with most every single thing he says here. In other words, what he is writing is just true. You will notice that his version is utterly at odds with the standard Western press version. That is because the Western press is pretty much lying to you and selling you a twisted, biased Cold War propaganda style version of the truth. It looks like next year is going to be pretty scary north of the Black Sea.

This piece underwent a considerable edit on my part. It is pretty long, but if I can get through it, you can too. The concepts discussed are not too difficult to understand.

2014 “End of Year” Report and a Look into What 2015 Might Bring


By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don’t think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude.

I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) “moved” this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the “vectors” of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of “unknown unknowns” (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

The Main Event and the Main Actors

A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world’s only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other.

And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don’t think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

  1. The USA
  2. The Ukrainian Junta
  3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
  4. Russia
  5. The EU
  6. NATO
  7. China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial.  So let’s take them one by one:

1 – The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine – bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(…)  the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietize the region (…) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (…) But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US “Deep Staters” have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that.  Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony”
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:

Achieved – black 
Still possible – too early to call – blue
Compromised – pink
Failed – red

Current “score card”: 1 “achieved”, 5 “possible, 2 “compromised” and 3 “failed”.

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony”
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

New score card: 6 “achieved”, 1 “possible”, 1 “compromised” and 3 “failed”

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of “failed” is very good for such a short period of time.  However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia.  Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again.  This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia “needed” the Ukraine.  Russia does not, and she knows that.  As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: “victory” in the Ukraine, “victory” in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia.  Worse, these “victories” came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold.  But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).

Can the US stay the course next year?  That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same.  It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious.  Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different.

Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others.  Finally, just as some banks are considered “too big to fail” the US policy towards the Ukraine is “too crazy to correct” thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now.

Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to “declare victory and leave” (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess.  There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause.  This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it’s last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.

Why would the US want to do that?  Imagine this:

A Full Scale War between Russia and the Ukraine

The Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again.  This time, they are more numerous, better equipped, and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American “advisers” and retired US Army officers.  Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack.  Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded.

At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene.  The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would “solve” nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia.  Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea.

Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.

If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don’t stand a chance and everybody knows that.  The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces.  Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian “invasion” and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea).

Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further.  In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could.  They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).

Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA.  The Americans would have their ‘proof’ of Russian imperial “aggression” and declare that the EU needs “protection” from the “Russian bear”.  The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a “wonderful” arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time.

Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the “aggressor”.  Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against “Russian agents” (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as “saboteurs” and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.

In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that “the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian” and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA.  For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.

Now let’s look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.

2 – The Ukrainian Junta

For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the “holes in the dam” harder and harder to plug.  An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable.  Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable.  So what can the junta do?

Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov.  The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief.  These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests.

As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire.  They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power.

Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible “surprises” ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border).  We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass.

These are the folks who spoke a “barbecue of insects” in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video).  In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.

Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters.  If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the worldview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

Russians don’t get to speak.


All together we will stop Russian terrorism.


God’s speaks through the people’s voice.


Fuck off Eurasian bastard!


May each slave wake up in a coffin.


Getting a Russian passport makes you a Eurasian faggot. Fuck Putin – Stay Ukrainian!


Don’t pass by – kill!

I have to explain the last one: what you see is a  “Colorado beetle” (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon.  In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him.  Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God’s voice, the Russians are “Eurasians” who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as “Nazi” is perfectly justified).

But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.

The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada.  It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter).  For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort.  Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!).

Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a “return on investment”?  When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war – is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?

As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community’s “indicators and warnings” should be “flashing red” and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later).  But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.

3 – The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them.  It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta’s death squads.  And yet this miracle happened.  How much did Russia really help?  I would argue that not that much at all.

Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town. Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias.  It never happened.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian “zag” left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to “sell out” Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev).

Here is how this version goes:  Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts.  Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect.  The Kremlin’s policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.

Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this “Kremlin sells out Novorussia” does explain a lot.  But it fails in many crucial aspects:

  • It fails to explain why following Strelkov’s removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.
  • It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.
  • It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.
  • It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it’s leaders if she intended to trade it away.

But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career.  Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin.  I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that.  I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let’s just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.

For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a “let’s not stop before we win” party.  These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back.  This party of what I could also call “let the strength of arms decide” has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin’s demands.  Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).

I won’t even bother discussing the “shoulda, coulda, woulda” about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities.  What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one – Russia – imposes her will.  In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion.  They tried, and they failed.

So what’s next?

The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as “their” war is but a minor skirmish for the big players.  Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough.

Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already).  Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).

For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a “spokesman for Novorussia” in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason).  In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion.  I don’t think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.

As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck.  They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back.  Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all.  This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options.  Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.

4 – Russia

So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either.  In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her.

Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America.

Third, Russia is trying to defang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system.

Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power.

Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable.  That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely.  You think I am exaggerating?

You will clearly see that nobody in Russia has any illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war).  And to leave no doubt in anybody’s mind, Russia has also revised her 2010 military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to protect her.

When in March of this year I wrote that Russia was ready for war I got a lot of replies accusing me of being over-the-top.  Today the writing is all over the wall: Russia does not want war, but she is definitely preparing for it.

I would, however, argue that the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external.  Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call the “Atlantic Integrationists” and which Putin even called the “5th column”.  And make no mistake here, we are not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalny in the streets of Moscow.  We are talking about powerful, rich, influential people who for decades (since Gorbachev’s times, or even before) have infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in the government of Prime Minister Medvedev.

True, these pro-Anglo-Zionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks and they have been weakened by Putin’s relentless assault on their power, but what does “weaker” really mean in our context?  According to Mikhail Khazin, the Eurasian Sovereignists and the Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power. That’s right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers, especially in her economy.  Putin knows that and he is therefore in a race against time to decouple Russia from the economic and financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to hurt Russia.

How much does this 5th column account for the apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?

I honestly don’t know. Neither does anybody else who is not a true Kremlin insider. In some cases, such as the Minsk agreements, I think that this apparent “zag” was an true expression of Russian political goals. But when I see that Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!) I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian national interests.  But we will never know for sure.  All we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the control of the helm.

In practical terms this means that next year Russia will mostly stay the course. Why? Because time is on Russia’s side. For Russia every month, week or day which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West is one day won for preparation internal reform. It is also one more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial policies.

The single most important political development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance (RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of Russia. I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.

5 – The EU

2014 was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States. From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland’s famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the political and economic seppuku against South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the murderers of the passengers of MH17 – the EU has proven to all that it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United States.

There is no EU to speak of. It is a US controlled territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power all the EU nations have bowed.  And in this system, countries such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in subservience to the USA.

From the latest statements of Putin and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nuland’s opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of “geopolitical Conchita Wurst” not worthy of any respect or credibility.

Truly, the EU and its Euro-bureaucratic elites have passed a point of no return. If in the past they could still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter. As a system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further expected of it until it collapses.

The riots which have taken place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both. In a way, we could say that the EU is run by a Soviet-style nomenklatura which lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people.  Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and revolutions. I am personally convinced that an explosion of anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering the Mediterranean. But unlike the Russians, the Europeans prefer their revolution in the warm weather. So maybe next summer?

6 -NATO 

The Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my reasons for stating that, please see here).  I recently explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth repeating this once more today:

One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they – correctly – interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat.

As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by “anybody” Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20).

As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10,000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36,000 to 72,000.

This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction “spearhead” force of 10,000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72,000.  And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multinational (28 countries) Euro-force of 5,000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US control over Europe.

As early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO’s true goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” (notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites, Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in 1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian ethnic groups).

Little has changed since, except that with the “Soviet threat” gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that it now wants to find it in the “need to protect European democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear”. In other words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one notch below a full-scale war.

In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence. Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the “interception” of Russian aircraft in international airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia wanted to do that in the first place!).

NATO will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that. The flow of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire’s corporate media will report them as if they had a factual connection to reality.  Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don’t want in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe, and the Americans are already fully in charge.

7 – China

It is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the Ukrainian war. Anybody doubting this claim should read the Vineyard of the Saker White Paper written by Larchmonter 445 entitled The Russia-China Double Helix. To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep their own “hands” (their armed forces) and their own “heads” (their political leadership) but to share a common “torso” (their economies, natural and human resources, their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which allows a society to prosper).

I call this the Russia-China Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then that – it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take the risk to become inseparable. An alliance, a treaty, can be broken or withdrawn from. But once your “internal organs” are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or for worse. What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining sovereign and independent. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course of history by this monumental decision.

The two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs and vice versa. China needs Russian raw materials, especially energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants, etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the ICBM).  Russia needs two things from China: money and “Walmart” (consumer goods). Together these two giants not only have immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on the planet. And, to make things even better, Russia and China are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO. Taken together these two countries are already far more powerful than the AngloZionist Empire and that trend will only grow.

A Russian, Russian Asian, and Chinese soldier on drill together.

Of course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine.  Remember – each country keeps its own “hands” so long as the other is not directly threatened. But in the Pacific Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even creating joint command centers.In the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and restructure the Russian economy.  The Chinese have now officially declared that. It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution – Russia will sell Siberia’s riches to China while China will protect Russia from the West.  Again, this is truly a historic development whose importance cannot be overstated.Adding up All These VectorsSo let’s add it all up now. In summary:The USA now has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet. China uniting with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to back down now or even to change course. The Americans probably realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their Nazi “Banderastan” is just a matter of time.  In other words, the Empire is now in a “use them or lose them” situation and “fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian” is now the best option for the US 1%’ers.The Ukrainian Junta members are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the US bidding and trigger a huge crisis.The Novorussians are stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in the middle.Russia needs to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as possible.The EU will remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever.NATO will play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much tensions as possible without triggering an actual conflict.China will do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged against her.ConclusionsFrom the above I conclude that unless some major development substantially alters the current dynamic the resulting vector clearly points at the inevitability of a full-scale war between Russia and the Ukraine along the scenario outlined above (“A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine”). There is no reason whatsoever to expect the US, the Nazi junta, NATO or the EU to begin acting in a responsible or constructive manner.  For these reasons, Russia will be alone in trying to avoid an intervention the Donbass and the inevitable war with the Ukraine following it. The best way for Russia to achieve this goal is to arm Novorussia to the teeth, to provide much more humanitarian support then now, to try re-launch as much of the Novorussian economy as possible (preferably by investments and contracts, not just grants) and generally help to make Novorussia as viable as possible under the current conditions. If the Novorussian could repeat their amazing feat once more and repel or, even better, deter the future Ukrainian attack this would be a crushing defeat not only for the junta in Kiev, but also for all its supporters in the AngloZionist Empire. The “equation” is simple: if Novorussia can stand up to the Ukrainians and Russia is not forced to intervene the Nazi regime in Kiev is finished along with the entire Neocon plan against Russia. If Russia is forced to intervene, Novorussia will be saved and the junta finished, but the Neocons plan will have succeeded and Russia will suffer a major geostrategic setback. Russia desperately needs more time and I expect the Russian diplomacy to try every possible delaying tactic imaginable to buy as much time as possible before the inevitable Ukrainian attack on Novorussia. I am even willing to consider that the recent sale (really, a gift) of coal to Kiev might be such a delaying tactic, I don’t know.What is clear for me that most of these delaying tactics will look like “appeasement” to the external observer and that, in the end, our perception of these moves will depend on our assumptions and, basically, our take on the person of Vladimir Putin. I might be wrong, but I personally trust him and short of very strong evidence I will never believe that he will “sell out” Novorussia or anybody else in the Ukraine.  Not only do I believe that he is way too smart to do such a stupid and self-defeating thing, but I have also come to the conclusion that he is a highly principled person who will never betray the people he took an oath to defend.My Very TentativeGuesstimates” for 20152014 has been a historic year and so will be 2015, if only because 2014 set a great deal of things in motion, but resolved none of them. I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part of the year. My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses. The Russian economy will continue to suffer and appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it will gradually start reversing that trend. The EU economy will enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social unrest. As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in history. What the US will be unable to do is to prevent the gradual but inexorable de-dollarization of more and more of the world economy, lead by China and Russia. The true and final collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is inevitable, but not for the next couple of years.I wish you all the very best for 2015 and above all, I wish you peace. May God protect us all from war! The Saker


Filed under Asia, China, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Military Doctrine, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USA, War

The Answer to the Problems of Imperialism/Militarism Is Much More Imperialism/Militarism

Wow, the Deep State is actually this insane.

Truth is the ultra-militaristic USA is hated and of course feared all over the world due to the fact that the US is Dictator of the World, and we have the whole world by the balls via the ultraviolent military of the US World Dictatorship which is called the Pentagon. Of course this makes sense. The only resistance against Emperor Obama’s ultraviolent miltarism and imperialism comes from Republicans DINO’s who say he isn’t a violent enough emperor! In other words, the only opposition to US imperialism in the US comes from a group that says US imperialism needs to be dramatically ramped up! Amazing, what a lunatic country we live in.

From here:

During a discussion of the Gaza War, ABC pundit Cokie Roberts (7/13/14) argued that the problem with US foreign policy was that no one fears the United States.

You know, we just haven’t made a strong enough presence in that region to have people be afraid of this country. And so I think there’s a sense that, you know, they can get away with anything they want to get away with.

So the problem with the Iraq invasion, which killed roughly half a million people, along with a 13-year occupation of Afghanistan, the destruction of the Libyan government and drone strikes that have killed thousands in Pakistan and elsewhere – is that they don’t instill enough fear.

Cokie Roberts is nothing less than the voice of the Deep State. Here she is just channeling the CIA like she always does. I wonder how much they pay this slatternly whore?

Yeah, so we simply haven’t slaughtered enough people yet in the Middle East, so they whole region thinks we are a bunch of pussy faggots. 1.4 million in Iraq wasn’t enough. Only fags would slaughter such a tiny number of people. They laugh at America, a nation of small-dicked Frenchmen who wet their pants when asked to pull a trigger.

I can’t believe this actually passes for political discussion in this surreal country. America is insane.


Filed under Africa, Democrats, Government, Imperialism, Iraq War, Journalism, Libya, Military Doctrine, North Africa, Obama, Pakistan, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South Asia, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, War