The Myth of Syria’s Moderate Rebels

isis-SyriamilitantsandObama

Stephen Gowans

[P]olitical Islam has a long history of cooperating with Western imperialism at certain times and in certain places, and of turning against it at other times and in other places. For example, Osama bin Laden cooperated with the United States to overthrow a progressive pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, and then launched a jihad against the domination of the Middle East by the United States. Many Palestinians were sent to Afghanistan in the 1980s by the Muslim Brotherhood to struggle against the atheists in Kabul (much to the delight of Israel) only to return to join a Palestinian national liberation struggle against Israel in the ranks of Hamas.

What separates the rebels in Syria that the United States and its allies arm, train, fund and direct from those it seeks to degrade and ultimately destroy is not a secular vs. Islamist orientation. Even the so-called “moderate” rebels are under the sway of Islamist thinking. Instead the dividing line between the good “moderate” rebels and the bad “extremist” rebels is willingness to cooperate with the United States and the region’s former colonial powers. The “good” ones are under the control of the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, or aren’t, but are working in directions that comport with Western foreign policy goals, while the “bad” ones are working in ways that frustrate the attainment of the foreign policy objectives of the West. In other words, one set of rebels is cooperating with Western imperialism while the other frustrates it.

The “moderate” Syrian rebels who US officials are counting on to battle the Islamic State as part of the Obama administration’s plan to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS comprise dozens of groups which report directly to the CIA [1] and are under the sway of Islamist thinking. [2] According to General Abdul-Ilah al Bashir, who led the Free Syrian Army before its collapse at the end of last year, the CIA has taken over direction of the rebel force and FSA groups now report directly to US intelligence. [3]

The groups are run from military command centers in Turkey and Jordan, staffed by intelligence agents of the United States and the Friends of Syria, a collection of former colonial powers and Sunni crowned dictatorships. The command centers furnish the rebels with arms, training, and salaries. The United States provides overall guidance, while Turkey manages the flow of rebels over its border into Syria, and Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states provide much of the funding. [4]

The centerpiece of the CIA-directed rebel grouping is the Hazm Movement, formerly known as Harakat Zaman Mohamed, or Movement of the Time of Muhammad. It is strongly backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and by key Muslim Brotherhood supporters, Qatar and Turkey. [5]

The US-backed rebels cooperate with the Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda operating in Syria, [6] which the UN Security Council denounced this summer along with ISIS for their “gross, systematic and widespread abuse of human rights” [7] but which the United States has left out of its war on the Islamic State, even though its origins and methods are the same as those of ISIS, and its goals similar. Accordingly, the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria will continue to coordinate operations with CIA-directed rebels, unhindered by US strikes.

The “moderate rebels” —whose distinction from ISIL is their willingness to do America’s bidding—are run from military command centers in Turkey and Jordan, staffed by intelligence agents of the United States and the Friends of Syria, a collection of former colonial powers and Sunni crowned dictatorships.

Aron Lund, a Syria analyst who edits the Syria in Crisis blog for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, deems the idea of the moderate secular rebel a myth. “You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights…because they don’t exist.” [8]

Andrew J. Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who follows Syrian events, points out that most of the rebels backed by the United States come from “rural, Sunni areas where Islamist thinking has long held sway and often colors their thinking.” [9] They are not moderate fighters for secular liberal democratic values.

Veteran foreign correspondent Patrick Cockburn echoes these views. In his new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising (OR Books), Cockburn observes that there is “no dividing wall” between “America’s supposedly moderate opposition allies” and ISIS and the Nusra Front. [10]

While US officials and Western mass media promote a false narrative of two sets of rebels occupying opposite ends of two different axes—Islamist vs. secular and extremist vs. moderate—the most relevant axis may be one defining the groups’ orientation toward the West.

Reflecting the ideology of their al-Qaeda progenitor, the Nusra Front and ISIS seek to bring historically Islamic regions under Sunni Islamist political control, which means the ejection of the United States and its local marionettes, the destruction of secular regimes, and the elimination of local “heresies”, including Shia Islam and its heterodox Alawi offshoot, to which Syrian president Bashar al-Assad belongs.

The CIA-directed rebels, in contrast, appear to have a more moderate attitude to the United States, and are open to working with Washington and its Arab and NATO allies. Hassan al-Hamada, a leader of one of the CIA-directed rebel groups says, “We want to be hand in hand with the West, and for the future of Syria to be with the West.” [11]

The word “moderate,” then, appears to have but one meaning—a willingness to work with the United States, under the direction of the CIA, and in cooperation with Western imperialism…at least for now.

1. Patrick Cockburn, “Syria and Iraq: Why US policy is fraught with danger,” The Independent, September 9, 2014.
2. Ben Hubbard, “U.S. goal is to make Syrian rebels viable,” The New York times, September 18, 2014.
3. Cockburn.
4. Hubbard.
5. Suhaib Anjarini, “Harakat Hazm: America’s new favourite jihadist group”, Al Akhbar English, May 22, 2014.
6. Hubbard.
7. UN Security Council Resolution 2170 (2014). http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/sc11520.doc.htm
8. Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. pins hope on Syrian rebels with loyalties all over the map”, The New York Times, September 11, 2014.
9. Hubbard.
10. Belen Fernandez, “Book review: The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising,” The Middle East Eye, September 3, 2014.
11. Hubbard.

Responses & related materials

ajmacdonaldjr

September 19, 2014 at 11:06 pm

Reply
The Arab factions are playing a game with the USA that the ancient Irish played with the English – constantly changing allegiances, a kind of divide and rule of the underdog. I am not very conversant with the history of the region but my guess would be that is the template for tribal warfare. It disables any power group getting power and staying in power for long.

prayerwarriorpsychicnot

September 20, 2014 at 3:46 am

Reply
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb has substantially the same view. Quoting from her blog post “What Obama Means by “Moderate Rebels”:

[M]oderation basically [means] being moderate on Israel and imperialism, rather than any secular liberal ideals related to democracy, women’s rights, the treatment of minorities and openness to other religions. And even when US policy wonks called for engagement with “moderate Islamists” like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, this had far less to do with their participation in democratic elections and inherent liberalism than their “nonviolence” vis-à-vis the West and of course, Israel, which explains why a progressive movement like Hizbullah has consistently been labeled “terrorist” and “extremist”.

When the US refers to “moderate rebels” it doesn’t even allude to oxymorons like moderately genocidal groups who execute in moderate numbers, are only moderately ideologically sectarian, and pursue a transnational Caliphate in moderation, but rather, groups which the US hopes are more co-optable and cooperative with its grander strategic aims than ISIS has proven to be.

what’s left

September 20, 2014 at 3:38 pm

Reply
On the subject of anti-Syria, pro-America ‘moderates’, long standing NATO member, Turkey, has miraculously(?) negotiated the release of 46 Turkish and 3 Iraqi consular staff taken hostage when its embassy in Mosul was overrun by ISIS in June. We are told, by almost every report in the media, that this triumph of negotiation over extremism was accomplished “without paying ransom” – insinuating that no cash changed hands.

Unfortunately, the habitually incurious, self-censoring MSM doesn’t even allow itself to speculate on what, exactly, Turkey did sacrifice during ~3 months of intensive negotiations. But, with Turkey being a NATO member, it’s a pretty safe bet that the sacrificial surrender of a big slice of Turkey’s integrity was central to the deal.

The Russian response to a double declaration of war

A dispatch from The Saker
The context: a double declaration of war

Vladimir-PutinPR-TV

[L]istening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia. Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate. Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia’s policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine. What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.

First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world’s policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia. Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world. This is not so. Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world’s biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.

Sniping at Putin and missing the point

Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia. If that is really the case, this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening? Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does. Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!

Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.

RUSSIA DESK
The Saker

And what was Putin supposed to do?! Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border? What about Assad? Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb “them” not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it? Most obviously the latter.

In fact, Putin and Assad have exactly the same position: protest the unilateral nature of the strikes, demand a UN Resolution while quietly watching how Uncle Sam turned on his own progeny and now tries to destroy them.

I would add that Lavrov quite logically stated that there are no “good terrorists”. He knows that ISIL is nothing but a continuation of the US-created Syrian insurgency, itself a continuation of the US-created al-Qaeda. From a Russian point of view, the choice is simple: what is better, for the US to use its forces and men to kill crazed Wahabis or have Assad do it? And if ISIL is successful in Iraq, how long before they come back to Chechnia? Or Crimea? Or Tatarstan? Why should any Russian or Syria soldier risk death when the USAF is willing to do that for them?

While there is a sweet irony in the fact that the US now has to bomb it’s own creation, let them do that. Even Assad was clearly forewarned and he obviously is quite happy about that.

Finally, UN or no UN, the US had already taken the decision to bomb ISIL. So what is the point of blocking a perfectly good UN Resolution? That would be self-defeating. In fact, this Resolution can even be used by Russia to prevent the US and UK from serving as a rear base for Wahabi extremists (this resolution bans that, and we are talking about a mandatory, Chapter VII, UNSC Resolution).

And yet, some still say that Putin threw Assad under the bus. How crazy and stupid can one get to have that kind of notion about warfare or politics? And if Putin wanted to toss Assad under the bus, why did he not do that last year?

Sincere frustration or intellectual dishonesty?

But that kind of nonsense about the Syria is absolutely dwarfed by the kind of truly crazy stuff some people post about Novorussia. Here are my favorite ones. The author begins by quoting me:

“This war has never been about Novorussia or about the Ukraine.”

and then continues:

That statement is too vacuous and convenient as a copout. Do you really mean to say that the thousands of people murdered by shelling, the thousands of young Ukrainian conscripts put through the meat grinder, the thousands of homes destroyed, the more than 1 million people who have turned into refugees… NONE of that has anything to do with Novorussia and Ukraine? That this is only about Russia? Really, one would wish you’d refrain from making silly statements like that.

The only problem being, of course, that I never made it in the first place 🙂

Of course, it is rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality. Again, the words “do you really mean to say that” clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).

I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But I don’t want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals. There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia’s apparent passivity. Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:

I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn’t Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing.

In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.

In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:

1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.

The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).

Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy

In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian. Thus, for the Empire, “success” can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine. For the Empire “success” is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change. Let’s us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.

The original plan was simplistic in a typically US Neocon way: overthrow Yanukovich, get the Ukraine into the EU and NATO, politically move NATO to the Russian border and militarily move it into Crimea. That plan failed. Russia accepted Crimea and the Ukraine collapsed into a vicious civil war combined with a terminal economic crisis. Then the US Neocons fell-back to plan B.

usMilitaryLibertyarmed

Plan B was also simple: get Russia to intervene militarily in the Donbass and use that as a pretext for a full-scale Cold War v2 which would create 1950’s style tensions between East and West, justify fear-induced policies in the West, and completely sever the growing economic ties between Russia and the EU. Except that plan also failed – Russia did not take the bait and instead of intervening directly in the Donbass, she began a massive covert operation to support the anti-Nazi forces in Novorussia. The Russian plan worked, and the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) were soundly defeated by the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) even though the latter was suffering a huge deficit in firepower, armor, specialists and men (gradually, Russian covert aid turned all these around).

At this point in time the AngloZionist plutocracy truly freaked out under the combined realization that their plan was falling apart and that there was nothing they could really do to rescue it (a military option was totally impossible as I explained it in the past). They did try economic sanctions, but that only helped Putin to engage in long overdue reforms. But the worst part of it all was that each time the West expected Putin to do something, he did the exact opposite:

Nobody expected that Putin would use military force in Crimea in a lightening-fast take-over operation which will go down in history as at least as amazing as Storm-333.
Everybody (including myself) expected Putin to send forces into Novorussia. He did not.
Nobody expected Russian counter-sanctions to hit the EU agricultural sector.
Everybody expected that Putin would retaliate after the latest round of sanctions. He did not.

There is a pattern here and it is one basic to all martial arts: first, never signal your intentions, second use feints and third, hit when and where your opponent doesn’t expect it.

Conversely, there are two things which are deeply ingrained in the western political mindset which Putin never does: he never threatens and he never postures. For example, while the US is basically at war with Russia, Russia will gladly support a US resolution on ISIL if it is to Russia’s advantage. And Russian diplomats will speak of “our American partners” or “our American friends” while, at the same time, doing more than the rest of the planet combined to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.

Imperatives Russia cannot ignore

First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:

First, Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her. What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.

Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev. The Ukrainian nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of – hypothetical – nuclear weapons against Russia). Therefore,

Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives.

Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It’s not even the future of the Ukraine. What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which I fully agree with). The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:

For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost. Forever. Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukrainians know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population. If fact, I am convinced that the so-called “random” or “wanton” destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev’s sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If not de jure, then de facto, Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev’s rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.

US military power is still enormous. (click to enlarge)

What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?

No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU; full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence; locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukrainian flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like “regional security force” or even “police force”) and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble – along with the Dollar and Euro – will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible). This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.

This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine. For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals. But what about Russia?

What if you were in Putin’s place?

Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:

it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national media.
it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kinds) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like “wall” or barrier on some geographical marker.
it removes the accusation that Russia wants to partition the Ukraine.

In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure, nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power. In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:

Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition. Continue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU “axis of kindness”
Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially

In other words – give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.

What is the alternative anyway?

I already hear the chorus of indignant “hurray-patriots” (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the following:

Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!

In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short on any kind of mid or long term vision. Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.

The sad reality is that the mindset behind such “simple” solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.

But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time. Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful “victory”. Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again, the answer is that yes – but at what cost?

A good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called “Kaskad” (which later was renamed “Vympel”). One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years! It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents. Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat such policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?

Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialists or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused.

By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war – how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully – but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?

And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukrainian forces. Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?

It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well known and respected Russian patriot and journalist – Maksim Shevchenko – had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise. Or, maybe, no surprise at all?

For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense. Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power. I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin. What the pretext for the anger is does not matter – for Navalnyi it’s “stolen elections” for Dugin it’s “back-stabbed Novorussia”. And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just “useful idiots” – God be their judge – but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.

In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it’s Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes. There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia (Yuri Baranchik) and abroad (M. K. Bhadrakumar).

But what about the oligarchs?

I already addressed this issue in a recent post, but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life. This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account. The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin. The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.

Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.

Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only “country” is wherever their assets happen to be. As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them. Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money. From Putin’s point of view, Rinat Akhmetov, for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200,000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty to Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.

I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies. With a friendly smile. This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia’s advantage.

What I am trying to explain here is the following:

There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials. Some say that Khodakovski is involved. Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.

One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been “persuaded” (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say “Putin is boss”. Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never. All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukrainian oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.

But is there a 5th column in Russia?

Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration. Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the “big money” component (what I call the “Atlantic Integrationists”) they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge. The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the “Eurasian Sovereignists”) and the 5th column now is in the open, but it if far from over. And we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc. They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).

Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA’s bidding, there is no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.

The real danger for Russia

So now we have the full picture. Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with

and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.
3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of the first two groups to promote their own interests.
4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.
6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de facto and de jure) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.

It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia’s official (declaratory) policy and Russia’s real actions. The covert help to Novorussia – the Voentorg – is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite. It is in Russia’s strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:

1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov’s assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough “firepower” to keep the oligarch under control.
3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine’s Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international system not centered on the USA or the Dollar.

As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program. What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.

Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?

Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After all, US Presidents from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western “diplomacy” from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL.

Russia and China have a diametrically opposite tradition. For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: “we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partners and we want to turn partners into friends“. The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it. Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them. It is therefore no wonder at all the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to say “comply or else”. Any petty street thug knows how to do that. Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialists or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.

Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was). Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev. To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force. In other words:

Russia’s long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis Empire. Russia’s mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev. Russia’s short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia. Russia’s preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved.

A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial “deep state” fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)

As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.

It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another “false flag”, possibly a nuclear one. I think that Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.

I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society were most “thoughts” are expressed as “tweets” and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60,000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.

My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia’s apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.

Kind regards to all,

—The Saker

Obama’s Bourgeois Presidency

When Words Fail obamaSanctions8765

ANDREW LEVINE, Counterpunch

[I]n the Age of Obama, inequality is on the rise and austerity politics rages on.

Obama could do more to improve the lot of those made worse off by these developments. But he really can’t be blamed for them – much.

Enriching the “one percent” at everyone else’s expense is what late (overripe, irrational) capitalism does. The main job of the state in capitalist societies — and therefore of those who lead states — is to make capitalism flourish.

Within the confines of “normal” politics in the early twenty-first century, it was therefore inevitable that Obama would preside over a regime in which inequality would become worse, and in which austerity would be the order of the day.

Increasing inequality is a worldwide phenomenon – afflicting all developed capitalist countries. The labor movement and the welfare state are under attack everywhere; and everywhere people are worse off as a result.

Palliative measures are still possible within the confines of the present system, and they can sometimes do a lot to make peoples’ lives better. But, until the basic economic structure is transformed, the underlying causes of the problems affecting us will remain – and so will the problems themselves.

To dig up the hackneyed slogan of James Carville, the Clinton family functionary: “it’s the economy, stupid.” More precisely, it’s the entire regime contemporary capitalism sustains.

Therefore the only solution, as progressives used to say (but now seldom dare even to think), is revolution.

Or, since the solution need not – and probably can no longer – resemble the revolutions of old, we might better say that the solution is “regime change.” Too bad that neoconservatives and liberal imperialists have taken over and debased that otherwise useful expression.

This side of regime change, there is nothing to do but make the best of an increasingly bad situation. Obama has done precious little of that, perhaps because he has internalized the values of the beneficiaries of the status quo. But no one could have done a whole lot better; the constraints are too formidable.

In the United States, with mid-term elections just two months away and a presidential election coming in another two years, liberals and others who are tempted to cast their lot with “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” should bear this in mind.

It was therefore inevitable that Obama would preside over a regime in which inequality would become worse, and in which austerity would be the order of the day.

We can certainly do worse than, say, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders; just imagine Hillary Clinton back in the White House or some whacked-out Republican.

But no matter who is next elected President, the most those who care about equality and the wellbeing of the vast majority can hope for are a few woefully inadequate changes at the margins.

In becoming President, Obama stepped into a current that he could have done more to resist. But he could not have turned the current back. Only the great sleeping giant that “we, the people” have become can do that.

This is not to say, however, that our Commander-in-Chief gets a pass. There are far too many other things for which he deserves all the blame we can muster.

Acquiescing to the demands of unreconstructed Cold Warriors who want the United States and Europe to court catastrophe by encircling and humiliating Russia, is a prime example.

So too is letting clueless imperialists take charge of American meddling in the Middle East. His “humanitarian” interveners may seem kinder and gentler than Bush’s and Cheney’s neoconservatives, but they are just as dangerous. They have already done incalculable harm, and are presently about to do much more.

Obama also deserves blame for not moving forward more aggressively to halt global warming, and for not putting world energy policy on a less insane footing. Lately, even some billionaires have come around to the view that there is money to be made in “green” energy. They are way ahead of Obama; all he can do is muster a few weasel words.

Not only has he done almost nothing to limit carbon emissions; his “all of the above” support for the nuclear power industry has put the world at ever-greater risk of potential catastrophes.

Obama deserves blame too for a host of other noxiously wrong-headed policies – for trashing privacy rights and due process, for example.

High on the list too is his grudging, but nevertheless steadfast, support for the great American tradition of enabling Israel to do whatever it wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the Occupied Territories of Palestinians, descendants of peoples who have lived from time immemorial on lands diehard Zionists covet.

In capitalist societies, nearly everything governments do has economic consequences. But the constraints Obama, or any American President, has to contend with in these areas, and others like them, are primarily political.

The Obama way is to take the path of least resistance. When the constraints are mainly economic, he cannot be blamed too much for this – there is not much else he could do. But when they are mainly political, he has more freedom of action, at least in principle. Then the more reprehensible what he actually does becomes.

A leader with more vision and backbone than Obama – one genuinely moved by “the audacity of hope” — could surely have done better. Even after Obama, that prospect is not foreclosed.

But neither are the prospects encouraging.

Fans of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders should realize that the views that they advance that make them look good, compared to Obama, pertain to issues about which Presidents can do very little. In areas where a President actually could do a lot of good, Warren and Sanders seem no better than the rest.

***

We no longer have a good way to account for, or even describe, the difference between those things for which Obama should not be severely blamed because no one, not even someone better at governance and more “progressive” than he, could have done much better, and those that a more able leader, operating within the confines of normal politics, could have much improved.

This was not always the case, but the words – and the thinking behind them — have fallen into disuse.

In the not too distant past, it would have been natural, for people on the left, to call Obama – along with other practitioners of what I have been calling normal politics – bourgeois politicians; and to call the politics they practice bourgeois politics.

This terminology nowadays seems irremediably quaint.

This is unfortunate, but it is also understandable; it is even justifiable.

For one thing, these words harken back to a time when it could be said, with some plausibility, that there really was a full-fledged bourgeoisie, and that it functioned as a ruling class.

To the extent this was ever the case, that time is long gone.

The word “bourgeois” has a complicated history. At first, it designated town and city-dwellers, particularly those involved in commerce. In early modern Europe, the bourgeoisie was a “middle class” – with aristocrats above them in wealth and influence, and with peasants, shopkeepers, tradesmen and others below.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, in socialist circles especially, the term came to denote owners of capital, “capitalists.” The Marxist tradition adopted this usage.

Even in the Marxist view, however, bourgeois politics was more of an ideal type than an empirical reality.

Part of the problem was that aristocratic power proved more resilient in the face of capitalist development than most Marxists and other socialists expected. It was not until well into the twentieth century that the old aristocracy’s hold over society definitively expired – thanks mainly to the declining economic importance of land ownership and the devastating effects of two World Wars.

By then, however, the bourgeoisie had largely disappeared as well.

Being bourgeois, in the fullest sense of the term, involved more than just occupying a defined niche in a capitalist economic structure. There was a cultural component to it too.

Bourgeois culture developed in opposition both to the aristocracy above and the popular masses below, but there was nothing intermediate about it. The bourgeoisie was the bearer of a new from of civilization.

Even so, it was seldom the case anywhere that a bourgeoisie, so conceived, genuinely ruled. At most, there were periods in the history of post-Revolutionary France, and in a few other Western European countries, where this was very nearly the case.

Nevertheless, the broad contours of the civilization the bourgeoisie created are still with us. The social class that gave rise to it is gone, but the civilization it produced survived its demise. Indeed, bourgeois society – in many of its several aspects — has actually flourished in the decades since the last remnants of the classical bourgeoisie went missing.

In North America, there never was a real aristocracy (except perhaps in the pre-Civil War South), much less an aristocratic ruling class, and neither was there a genuine peasantry. Much the same was true in Australia and New Zealand.

Therefore, in these places, a full-fledged bourgeoisie never emerged either – despite the nearly universal prevalence of capitalist economic relations.

The United States has had capitalists galore since even before its inception, and they have run the country to their advantage from the beginning. But culturally they never quite comprised a genuine bourgeoisie; they never made the grade.

It is hardly the least of their shortcomings, but, compared to the genuine article, they never had enough couth. This is even truer of the fraction of the one percent who nowadays own almost all there is to own; and truer still of the politicians who serve them.

Nevertheless, an attenuated approximation of bourgeois civilization became established in the United States and throughout Britain’s White Dominions – and, in due course, nearly everywhere else.

And now that American-style consumerism has become globally hegemonic, the process of worldwide embourgeoisement is nearly complete.

Thus, even in the absence of a real bourgeoisie, it still makes sense to speak of “bourgeois society” and “bourgeois culture” – and “bourgeois politics.”

Credit for keeping the notion alive must go to those who subscribed to the view of world history that Marxists and others took more or less as given.

For them, the French Revolution, though carried forward mainly by the popular classes, resulted in the demise (for a while) of the power of the old aristocracy and its assumption by a rising bourgeoisie.

In their view, in the next (all but inevitable) revolution, the working class, conceived as a proletariat – “in society but not of it,” and with “nothing to lose but its chains” – would do to society’s new masters what they had done to the aristocrats of old.

This idea provided yet another reason to keep on talking about bourgeois politics, even in the absence of a genuinely bourgeois ruling class.

But as it became increasingly clear that the proletariat of Marxist theory had long ago gone missing, this rationale eventually lost its appeal.

Nevertheless, as long as Marxist politics survived in one or another form, “bourgeois politics” remained in the political lexicon. This was especially true in Maoist quarters, where the word “bourgeois” came to be used, with scant concern for its stricter meanings, as a general term of disapprobation.

Well into the twentieth century, this usage was common in the West as well, including the United States. Remember Lead Belly’s “Bourgeois Blues,” written in 1937. It indicts racial segregation in the nation’s capital. Washington, Lead Belly famously sang, is a “bourgeois town.” He got that right; more right than he probably realized. He hit all the bases.

Politically disparaging words are like that – often, they have strict meanings that can expand into new domains without much regard for what they meant historically.

Then, as circumstances change, they sometimes retract back into more historically correct usages.

“Fascist” is an example. It is like “bourgeois” in some respects, and different in others. The similarities and differences are instructive.

Strictly speaking, “fascism” refers to a political tendency that emerged in Europe, and areas influenced by developments in Europe, during the inter-war years of the twentieth century. Fascism arose in response to conditions peculiar to that historical period.

By the end of World War II, the fascist moments of the twenties, thirties, and forties had suffered an historic defeat. The remnants that survived – in southern Europe and, more ambiguously, in Latin America — were pale shadows of what once had been.

However, in countries where fascism had been defeated, and in the countries that fought against fascism in the Second World War, the word lived on – mainly as an epithet, an insult.

Typically, public officials and the police bore the brunt. Officials who were more than usually authoritarian, and police who were more than usually brutal called it upon themselves; often, they deserved the abuse.

But however reprehensible they were – and however much their behavior resembled behaviors characteristic of bona fide fascists — they were not themselves fascist in any significant respect. The usage had become so expansive that the term’s original meaning was effectively lost.

However, fascist or, better, neo-fascist groups never entirely died out – neither in regions where genuine fascism once flourished nor in liberal democracies, where fascist movements had never thrived.

And so, they have remained at the ready to spring back to life. The surge in anti-immigrant feeling in many European countries has had this effect. So has the rise of Islamophobia.

Even more saliently, Western machinations in Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics and in regions close to the former Soviet Union have made the idea descriptively useful again.

These developments make the less careful uses that were once so common more than usually misleading. Now that the term again has more legitimate referents, these uses, not surprisingly, have fallen off.

Careless uses of “bourgeois” have subsided too, though for different reasons.

“Fascist,” in something like its original meaning is back, because fascists are back. The bourgeoisie is gone, and will not return.

But this is not why the word has passed out of general currency.

That happened because political traditions, Marxist and otherwise, that found the term useful have themselves passed into desuetude.

But the term is useful still. In the Age of Obama, it is more useful than ever – because it calls attention to what normal politics does its best to obscure: the class character of the politics of our time.

When “bourgeois” was still in wide use, there was a class antagonist with which it contrasted. For Marxists, that was the proletariat.

However, even before Marxism fully took shape, it was plain that the proletariat as such no longer existed. What was left in its stead, the working class, was, however, a real world approximation. Its existence was indisputable and, for decades, its power was on the rise.

In most capitalist countries, working class parties formed and sometimes even ruled.

Nevertheless, with the arguable exception of the Socialist Party in the years preceding World War I, the United States never had a working class party of any significance.

For many reasons – some structural, some not — the American labor movement backed Democrats instead. They are still at it, despite a decades long legacy of betrayals.

Even in these coming elections, organized labor continues to offer the Democratic Party money and foot soldiers, demanding little or nothing in return. When it is over, workers will find that, as usual, they will have gotten back even less.

In recent decades, it has even become rare for a Democrat to utter the words “working class.” “Middle class” is the accepted euphemism.

How fitting that a bourgeois party would deny the very existence of the bourgeoisie’s historical antagonist! And how ironic inasmuch as the bourgeoisie was once, genuinely, a middle class!

In having a party system that effectively excluded direct working class representation, the United States truly was, for many decades, “exceptional.” It no longer is. In other developed countries, political parties with historical ties to the socialist movements of the past and to the labor movements of their respective countries survive. But, under the skin, they are all Democrats now.

Or what comes to the same thing, they are all bourgeois – in just the way that the Obama presidency is; not literally, but in effect.

Words fail; the language is inadequate. But there is no concise way to say it better; and therefore no better way to grasp the nature of the constraints politicians today confront. There is certainly no more illuminating way to mark the difference between those things Obama does for which he deserves a lot of blame, and those for which he deserves not so much.

Inevitably, Obama’s has been a bourgeois presidency. As such, it could have been worse and it could have been better. Indeed, it could have been much better, at least in principle, in areas that don’t directly impinge upon the functioning of the economic system as a whole.

But it could not have been fundamentally better, and neither can the presidencies of Obama’s successors, until the class character of American – and world – politics is radically transformed.

This is not a task that even the best (least bad) Democratic Party politicians currently vying for office are equipped to perform. Like their counterparts in other countries, they cannot do much good – especially not with respect to inequality and austerity — because what needs to be done exceeds the practical and theoretical limitations of normal politics in our time.

They could do better in foreign and military affairs, and in countless other ways where the constraints are mainly political. Perhaps they could even do more to keep impending ecological catastrophes at bay.

How much better off we then would be! But one has to wonder whether even this is too much to expect from bourgeois politicians in bourgeois societies, superintending capitalist economies in which ever fewer numbers of people own ever more of all that there is.

Perhaps all we can reasonably expect, in these circumstances, is to be led by Obama-like dunces, pursuing Obama-like policies that edge us closer to disaster.

The only solution… well, we’ve known about that forever. But how do we get from here to there? That, not who wins this or that paltry electoral contest, is the basic question of our time.

ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Britain: Washington’s Convenient Pawn

Stephen Lendman

“Getting most people to believe Big Lies. Mindless of Washington’s imperial objectives. Its plan to redraw the region’s map. Divide, conquer, colonize, plunder, exploit and control. Create instability, chaos, and dystopian harshness. It’s longstanding US policy…”

Obama and the UK's Cameron: Bosom buddies in war planning. An age of repugnant hypocrisy. Where the Nuremberg tribunal now that we need it?

It bears repeating what other articles stressed. ISIL is the pretext. Syria is the target. Regime change is the objective.

Getting most people to believe Big Lies. Mindless of Washington’s imperial objectives. Its plan to redraw the region’s map. Divide, conquer, colonize, plunder, exploit and control. Create instability, chaos, and dystopian harshness. It’s longstanding US policy.

Advancing America’s imperium matters most. So does supporting powerful monied interests.

George Galloway is one of Parliament’s few profiles in courage. He was outnumbered, outgunned and ignored. He was up against hundreds of hawkish MPs.

“What a tangled web we have woven is abundantly clear,” he said. “The mission creep hasn’t even waited for the end of the debate.” Is Syria next, he asked? “There is consensus here there will be boots on the ground. The only question is who’s boots are they?”

“This debate has been characterized by members of Parliament moving around imaginary armies. The Free Syrian Army is a fiction.”

“ISIL itself is an imaginary army…They don’t have any bases” to bomb. “ISIL is a (US created) death cult. It’s a gang of terrorist murderers…It’s not an army. And it’s certainly not (one) that will be destroyed by aerial bombardments.”

“We’ve been bombing Iraqis for 100 years…We dropped the first chemical bombs on them in the 1920s. We helped the Ba’ath party into power. We bombed them again throughout the 90s. Every matter will be made worse” now, Galloway stressed. “Extremism will spread further and deeper around the world just like it did after (Bush/Blair’s) Iraq war.”

“The last people who should be returning to the scene of their former crimes are Britain, France and the United States of America.”

Cameron warned against “rushing to join a conflict without a clear plan.” Cockburn quoted boxer Mike Tyson saying “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Cameron lied claiming lessons learned from past failures won’t be repeated. Uncontrollable chaos is ignored. So is guaranteed failure.

Activist Larry Pinkney was this writer’s September 25 Progressive Radio News Hour guest. He said history doesn’t repeat. People repeat history. They compound past mistakes with new ones. They make bad situations worse.

Mission creep follows interventions. One quagmire follows others. Billions of dollars are spent waging wars. Vital homeland needs go begging.

“John Kerry’s rhetoric on ISIS insults our intelligence,” saidRobert Fisk. He ignores reality. He substitutes fantasy for facts. His “attempts to explain America’s crusade against its latest evil enemy are so awful, they are addictive.”

His lame explanation reflects “sheer infantilisme (infantalism),” said Fisk. “(T)he French word captures it best.” Fisk dared readers to wade through Kerry’s “claptrap (below) without a snort of disbelief.”

“The last people who should be returning to the scene of their former crimes are Britain, France and the United States of America.”

It’s painful reading. Kerry finds new ways to embarrass himself.

To disgrace the office he holds. To display his incompetence. His sheer arrogance. His lawlessness.

In testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, he said “I want to make sure that by the time we’re done here today, I’ve heard from you.”

“I know what you’re thinking, and you’ve heard from me and you know what we’re thinking, what the administration is thinking, and that you have a clear understanding of what it is that we have done so far, of how we see this and how, hopefully, we can come to see it together, what we’re doing now and of where we go next.”

“It was all very complex, (and will) be remembered for a very long time.”

Kerry represents Obama’s fantasy world, said Fisk. He does so in a “clod-hopping, schoolboy way…” Anyone familiar with Syria knows so-called anti-Assad “moderate” elements don’t exist. The Free Syrian Army is more fantasy than real. Syrian soldiers say they’re happy to fight FSA elements because they always run away.

In contrast, Islamic State/Nusra Front/Al Qaeda et al extremists “fight to the death,” said Fisk. “Kerry is an ornate chateau of his own imagination,” Fisk stressed. So is Cameron. Both officials reflect false self-confidence, lawlessness, might over right, and contempt for humanity.

Big Lies dot their rhetoric. Cameron prepared a laundry list. It includes four measures. He lied claiming intervening in Iraq again will avoid past failures. They’re “ragbag” notions, said Cockburn.

They’re “high on (false) moral tone.” They’re “short on specificity.” They’re warmed over Blair failures. They blame others for Western crimes. They commit Britain to war without end. They ignore resolving conflicts diplomatically. They assure mission creep, quagmire and failure.

They guarantee enormous human suffering. Civilians suffer most in all wars. Hundreds of thousands may perish before current Middle East conflicts end. Maybe millions. This time won’t be different. Don’t expect Cameron to explain. Or Obama. Or Kerry. Or others supporting America’s killing machine.

On September 24, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovaddressed Security Council members. He did so regarding terrorism threatening international peace and security, saying:

It’s “been growing stronger ideologically and financially and expanding through a connection with transnational organized crime, support from the drug business, seized oil deposits and extremist ideas, including ideas on religious and ethnic grounds.”

It’s “becoming an indivisible part of regional conflicts.” IS and likeminded groups infest Middle East countries. They threaten “the future of whole nations, as evidenced by the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The next targets are Lebanon, Yemen, Mali and the Central African Republic.”

Russia “consistently advocate(s) closer international cooperation” against them. Washington’s regional interventions assure worse than ever ahead.

Russia “propose(d) convening a representative UN-sponsored forum of all countries in the region, the African Union, the Arab League, the permanent UN Security Council members and other concerned parties.”

Agenda issues should include older conflicts,” said Lavrov. Key is resolving Israel’s longstanding war on Palestine responsibly. Failure to do so “is one of the main reasons why terrorists continue to receive ‘moral support’ and recruit new members,” Lavrov stressed.

Russia urges examining “the deep roots of regional problems rather than deal(ing) only with their symptoms.”

“We are willing to cooperate on an equal basis, starting with an honest cooperative analysis to identify the reasons behind the problems and to find a way out of this chaos.” Washington consistently blocks diplomatic conflict resolution efforts. Doing so advances its imperial objectives.

They require inventing enemies when none exist. Permanent wars. Ones without mercy. Mass slaughter and destruction.

Turning nations into rubble. Instability. Insecurity. Chaos. Mayhem. Devastation. Unconscionable human misery. US-led Western crusaders are at it again. Millions of lost lives don’t matter. Twisted logic gets most Americans to support what’s vital to stop.

Washington supports some of the world’s most ruthless despots. It wages war on independent nations. Against any opposing its agenda. Iraq’s Al-Malaki wasn’t convenient stooge enough. His refusal to join Obama’s war on Syria alone sealed his fate. His ties to Iran. Other policies he pursued opposite America’s regional agenda. He had to go. Fuad Masum replaced him.

He’s Washington’s man in Baghdad. He’ll remain so as long as he remembers who’s boss. The same goes for other regional leaders. They’re some of the world’s most ruthless regimes. Saudi Arabia is Exhibit A. James Petras calls it “a repugnant kingdom…”

It “routinely decapitates its prisoners in public without any judicial process” whatever. Torture is official policy. So is ruthlessness writ large. Atrocities are commonplace. Corporal punishment is longstanding policy. Whipping police flog anyone outside during prayer times. IS decapitations pale in comparison to Saudi ones. In August alone, “Riyadh beheaded fourteen prisoners,” said Petras.

“Since the beginning of the year, the Saudi monarchy has decapitated more than 46 prisoners and chopped off the arms and limbs of many more.”

During Obama and Kerry’s recent Riyadh visit, “horrendous decapitations were displayed in public.” Media scoundrels ignore KIngdom atrocities. Washington’s regional agenda alone matters. Bombing Syria conceals its real objectives. Hype substitutes for reality. IS, Nusra Front, Al Qaeda and likeminded groups are America’s shock troops against Assad.

Bombing began Monday night local time. It continues intensely daily. Targets include vital Syrian infrastructure, its northern oil fields, and empty buildings. CNN said IS fighters may have been tipped off days in advance. They evacuated buildings they occupied.

They dispersed. They’re largely unscathed. Washington planned it this way. Expect nothing different going forward. Official reports feature Big Lies. Media Scoundrels repeat them. Their information is polar opposite truth. World leaders know what’s going on. So can anyone taking the trouble to find out.

Britain joined Washington’s crusade. So did Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. So far they’re confining their belligerence to Iraq. London and Paris don’t rule out attacking Syria. On Friday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said Obama may establish a no-fly zone over Northeastern Syria.

To protect civilians from Syrian airstrikes, they said. Security Council authorization is required. It’s not forthcoming. Russia and China will block it. It doesn’t matter. Washington operates lawlessly. Its bombing campaign aims to oust Assad. Expect Britain, France and other NATO allies to join its crusade. Expect war winds to reach gale force.

Rogue states operate this way. State terrorism is official US policy. So is war on humanity. World peace hangs by a thread.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

The Great Balts: The Russian factor, NATO, European “prosperity”

A personal assessment.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE BAR BELOW TO READ A SPECIAL PREFATORY NOTE BY THE MANAGING EDITOR OF THE RUSSIA DESK
[learn_more caption=”PREFATORY NOTE”] The saga of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on the shores of the Baltic Sea is an ancient story, intersecting at various historical moments of what we refer to in a general way as “Europe”. Since 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, those small states—formerly part of both the Russian Empire and the USSR —have been independent. “Back in the European fold,” delighted Western spokesmen declared in 1991. “Back in the heart of Europe.” During the Cold War, the question of the Baltic States was one of the most disputed and controversial issues between East and West.

Unlike Ukraine today, the Baltic States then exited apparently easily from a Russia in disarray. They joined both the European Union and NATO and today even host NATO military bases right on Russia’s borders, even though remaining dependent on Russia for energy and despite their large ethnic Russian populations who do not want to leave their homes and move to Russia.

Approximately 30% of the six million total population of the three states are ethnic Russian. Although Russian economic sanctions have hit the Balts hard, Latvia for example asks for an even greater NATO/EU/US presence. On the one hand, the USA promises more military presence there, while on the other, Russia continually issues warnings against increased NATO presence in East Europe. Though there is a tendency to generalize and toss all three Baltic states into the same pot, they are in fact very diverse one from the other. Estonian is a Finnic language and the country’s people consider themselves Nordic. Latvian and Lithuanian are Indo-European languages, though the countries’ histories are vastly different: Lithuania was part of a major European empire for many centuries, while Latvia and Estonia farther north were united for many centuries. The three countries became part of the Russian empire in the 18th century, then became independent after WWI. They were occupied (according to the Baltic States) or voluntarily joined the USSR in the 1940s. They have again existed as sovereign states for now fifty years. But they are poor, while the diaspora of these peoples is worldwide, from Poland and Sweden to the USA and also to neighboring Russia. —Gaither Stewart [/learn_more]

The Great Balts: The Russian factor, NATO, European “prosperity”
A personal assessment.

By Alevtina Rea

estonia1

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he subject of Russia in the Baltic countries is definitely a sore one. The ghost of former co-existence and lingering insecurity still haunts Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, even if they became independent entities 23 years ago, in September 1991. And even, as experts note, they left the USSR on very favorable terms: no debts and keeping ownership of companies that were part of all-Union property. Despite this noble gesture on the part of Russia, as far as I heard, these three states are obsessed with their Soviet past and hostile to their former partner.

In fact, the question of the so-called Soviet occupation has been elevated in the Baltic countries to the status of one of the main principles of construction of a new national identity. As a result, discrimination toward ethnic Russians and paranoid Russophobia are a common practice in all three. What’s more, egged on by the West, they have turned into barking mongrels attacking an imposingly serene giant bear, who quietly goes about his business without paying much attention to these small and occasionally mean attacks.

SIDEBAR

Screen Shot 2014-09-27 at 3.25.44 PM

Obama reassures the Baltics of protection against “Russian aggression.”

(Continued from above the sidebar)

After joining the European Union, the Baltic countries began to receive substantial financial assistance for the development of certain areas of their economy within the Brussels framework of leveling regional development. Thus, in 2004-2006 Lithuania received from various European funds 1.7 billion Euros, Latvia – 1 billion Euros, and Estonia – 800 million Euros. The planned allocation for 2007-2013 was, respectively, 6.8 billion Euros, 4.6 billion Euros, and 3.4 billion Euros.

Thus, these three overgrown “kids” were never weaned from the accustomed donation/external support scheme, with the only difference that now they began to receive subsidies not from Moscow but from Brussels. However, there was and is a very significant difference between the Soviet Union and the European Union. EU membership not only provides a multimillion dollar infusion; it also imposes severe restrictions on the economies of the member states, which led to the destruction of many of the competitive enterprises in the Baltic States. This same pattern is currently being imposed on Ukraine, with the EU calling for a virtual dismantlement of the nation’s industrial base. In the Balts, a well-developed sugar industry in Latvia has been eliminated, in keeping with the onset of 2006 EU reforms – under the pretext of opening the market to third countries and declining sugar prices.

RUSSIA DESK
Gaither Stewart Managing Editor
Alevtina Rea Deputy Editor • Paul Carline Deputy Editor

ANTI-RUSSIAN PARANOIA

Being so paranoid about anything Russian, the Baltic States turned their backs on their comfortable past in the former Soviet Union, snubbed Russia on the way to their supposedly prosperous European development “future”, ruined their industrial base and agriculture at the first order of the EU brass, and, basically, found themselves in the demeaning position of cheap laborers of their idol – western capitalism. Deceived and manipulated!

Discrimination of the Russians as a linguistic minority in the Baltic countries—a silly, self-wounding notion catering to cheap chauvinism— is expressed in a gradual narrowing of the scope of the Russian language. According to Wikipedia, “As of 2011, there are 1,052,520 ethnic Russians in the Baltic States (Latvia 556,422, Estonia 321,198, Lithuania 174,900), having declined from 1,726,000 in 1989.” Although the Russians and Russian-speakers make up a large part of Baltic States population, they are deprived of the right to appeal in Russian through the administrative channels, they have limited opportunities for education in Russian, and they are denied the right to receive official information in Russian. According to historian W. Shnirelman, Latvia and Estonia especially are guilty of political discrimination. Most of the ethnic Russians didn’t receive respective citizenship of these countries and have been excluded from the political process.

Russia, once again, is being forced to divert precious income to defense expenditures. Fortunately, the nation has a strong scientific and technological base to build on and remains highly original in its weapons designs.

CLICK TO EXPAND IMAGE

Given the latest demonization of Russia by Western media scoundrels, I was curious to investigate the Russian barometer as far as the Baltic States are concerned. I was interested in three simple questions: 1. What do the Balts think about Russia nowadays? 2. What is their relationship toward ethnic Russians who live in Baltic States? 3. What is their relationship toward NATO? Olga, our source in Moscow, has the following to report:

“The Baltic countries present a very complex question. I communicate with the Lithuanians and Latvians who live and work in Moscow. But I have not been there myself for a while, and there are less and less of my friends who stay in these countries. Some of them went to Europe, but the majority went to Russia.
“The positions of those who came to live in Russia are diametrically different. Some people, quite successfully, combine their work with volunteering at the embassy and with the Diaspora, but, at the same time, they harbor a negative attitude toward the country where they found shelter and a loaf of bread, so to speak. One such friend has a farm in Lithuania; she goes there to sow, plow and harvest, but right now she cannot do anything with the fruits of her labor. According to EU legal restrictions, she has no right to sell her produce in (Western) European countries. Hence, her harvest is rotting. As she says, mice are eating it.

Position of the Balts in Europe

“Many Balts who live in Russia are obsessed with a strange feeling that they are spied on by the KGB all the time (KGB is long gone, but they are still paranoid about it), and, basically, they look ridiculous and pathetic. Of course, we do not say anything to them – and what could you say, really, when they open their eyes wide and whisper that someone is shadowing them? Who instilled this paranoia in them? Because of this nonsense, we try to cut our communication with them to a minimum.

“Once upon a time, in the Soviet Union, the Baltic republics were considered almost an island of Europe and freedom, and now they are some poor excuse … There are, of course, some very successful people from over there who are internally free and totally adapted to their life in Russia, and they have tons of friends! These people are of what one might call “a normal psychology.” But those who, for whatever reasons, are easily influenced and clearly manipulated – ended up zombified to such a degree that even many years of residence in Russia cannot teach them anything. Sometimes I think that they are secretly gathering in some undisclosed hangout and singing either Lithuanian or Latvian songs. Who needs them with their fears and hatred?

“Occasionally, I ask those zombified, ‘Why did you come here, if you hate Russia so much?’ They say, ‘And where could we go?’ So strange! For example, if I hate America, never in my life will I go there! Some double standards are at play, nothing else! In my opinion, having double standards is immoral.

“The situation with NATO is definitely a tricky question. It is not just black and white … On the one hand, some people welcome them but complain that the country should feed them. Quite often, NATO officials behave impudently toward the local residents. The situation has sort of calmed down a bit, but still, they are disliked because of their rudeness and arrogance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CounterPunch, a leading left journal of fact and opinion. Ms. Rea is currently a deputy editor with The Greanville Post’s Russia Desk, and a contributing author to CounterPunch, Cyrano’s Journal Today, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the International Journal of Baudrillard Studies. She can be reached at rea.alya@gmail.com.