The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Saed Teymuri | The Stalinist Katyusha
Dateline: October 7, 2018
REPOSTED DUE TO INTENSIFIED WESTERN ATTACKS ON RUSSIA

Introduction

Aleksandr Solhenitsyn, a misguided patriot and unapologetic reactionary was used for many years by the West as a propaganda battering ram against the USSR, and communism in general.

"Humanitarian" lies serve to brainwash the population into supporting imperialist wars. Fed by far-right propaganda, and funded by the CIA, the mainstream “news” outlets describe the Soviet labour camps – also known as the “the Gulags” – as Stalin’s means to repress pro-democracy dissidents and to enslave the Soviet masses. However, the same CIA that, through Operation Mockingbird, gave the US military almost-total control over mainstream press in order to foster anti-Soviet disinformation (Tracy 2018), has recently released declassified documents that invalidate the slanders surrounding the Gulags.

The CIA which conducted various anti-Soviet operations for almost five decades, and whose staff strived to obtain accurate intelligence about the USSR, cannot be said to have any bias in favor of the USSR. Therefore, the following declassified CIA files that surprisingly “confess” in favor of the Soviet Union are particularly valuable.

While acknowledging the harsh conditions that existed in the Gulags – as with any prison system in the world – the goal of this article is to shed light on the following facts: (1) the harshness of the prisons has been exaggerated by the Western press, with numerous lies being made up, (2) the statistics in regards to the Gulag population have been exaggerated, (3) there was a genuine effort at improving the prison conditions when given the chance, and (4) the prison standards were much higher than those of many capitalist countries.

The Conditions of the Prisons

A 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:

1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas

2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon "economic accountability" such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.

3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.

4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners' food supplies.

5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.

6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals.

7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the "ordinary criminals" of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.

The following are excerpts of the CIA document, underlined and put together for the reader:

According to bourgeois fantasies, the Soviet “regime” sought to deliberately starve the Gulag populations. However, as a matter of fact, there indeed were Soviet efforts to increase the food supply of prisoners, after World War II.

The fact that the working day was only two hours more than that of the free workers until 1954, and equal to that of the free worker from 1954 onward is a clear demonstration of the egalitarian tendencies of the Soviet State.

Let’s compare the Soviet system to that of the United States. The 13th amendment permits prison slavery, with many prisoners victimized by racial profiling. Even the Clinton Dynasty had slaves in the Arkansas Province (News 2017).

The Numbers

According to page four of another CIA (1989) document titled “The Soviet Labour System: An Update,” the number of Gulag prisoners “grew to about 2 million” during Stalin’s time.

These figures match Soviet statistics as well, from declassified Soviet achieves. The following is a 1954 declassified Soviet archival document (Pyakhov), an excerpt of which is translated into English:

“During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the conent in the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.

"Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.

"It should be noted… that established by Decree … on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people…

Attorney General R. Rudenko

Interior Minister S. Kruglov

Justice Minister K. Gorshenin"

The Soviet archives remained declassified for decades, only to be released near or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, after Stalin died, the pro-Stalin head of the NKVD (Soviet interior ministry) Lavrenty Beria had already been executed by Khrushchev, a staunch anti-Stalinist (History in an hour 2010). These facts make it very unlikely that the Soviet intelligence would have a pro-Stalin bias.

The Italian-American historian Michael Parenti (1997, pp. 79-80) further analyzes the data provided by the Soviet archives:

"In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. At about that time, there began a purge of the purgers, including many intelligence and secret police (NKVD) officials and members of the judiciary and other investigative committees, who were suddenly held responsible for the excesses of the terror despite their protestations of fidelity to the regime.

"Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies…. [T]he great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as 'the largest system of death camps in modern history'.

"Almost a million gulag prisoners were released during World War II to serve in the military. The archives reveal that more than half of all gulag deaths for the 1934-53 period occurred during the war years (1941-45), mostly from malnutrition, when severe privation was the common lot of the entire Soviet population. (Some 22 million Soviet citizens perished in the war.) In 1944, for instance, the labor-camp death rate was 92 per 1000. By 1953, with the postwar recovery, camp deaths had declined to 3 per 1000.

"Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes ('counterrevolutionary offenses') numbered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpolitical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society."

Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, whereas according to declassified Soviet archives, 2,369,220 up until 1954. When compared to the population of the USSR at the time, as well as the statistics of a country like the United States, the Gulag percent population in the USSR throughout its history was lower than that of the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, based on Sousa's (1998)research, there was a larger percentage of prisoners (relative to the whole population) in the US, than there ever was in the USSR:

“In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice…. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.”

Conclusion

Seeing the USSR as a major ideological challenge, the Western imperial bourgeoisie demonized Stalin and the Soviet Union. Yet after decades of propaganda, declassified archives from both the US and USSR together debunk these anti-Soviet slanders. Worth our attention is the fact that the CIA – a fiercely anti-Soviet source – has published declassified documents debunking the very anti-Soviet myths it promoted and continues to promote in the mainstream media. Together with declassified Soviet archives, the CIA files have demonstrated that the bourgeois press has lied about the Gulags.

Notes

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (1989). THE SOVIET FORCED LABOR SYSTEM: AN UPDATE (GI-M 87-20081). Retrieved February 12, 2018, fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000500615.pdf

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2010, February 22). 1. FORCED LABOR CAMPS IN THE USSR 2. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN CAMPS 3. DECREES ON RELEASE FROM FORCED LABOR 4. ATTITUDE OF SOVIET PRISON OFFICIALS TOWARD SUSPECTS 1945 TO THE END OF 1955. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf

Hillary and Bill used 'slave labour'. (2017, June 08). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/hillary-and-bill-clinton-used-black-prisoners-for-forced-slave-labour-in-the-arkansas-governors-mansion/news-story/9af23848a5d44770b538c931c62460fe

Игорь, П. (n.d.). Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли «жертвы репрессий»? Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/1008874/Pyhalov_-_Za_chto_sazhali_pri_Staline._Nevinny_li_zhertvy_repressiy.html

Parenti, M. (1997). Blackshirts and reds: Rational fascism and the overthrow of communism. San Francisco, Calif: City Lights Books.

Sousa, M. (1998, June 15). Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

The Death of Lavrenty Beria. (2015, December 23). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/23/lavrenty-beria-summary

Tracy, J. F. (2018, January 30). The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know. Retrieved August 28, 2018, fromhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956

Everything you know about Russia and the USSR is a lie. Dr. Grover Furr interviews on China Rising Radio Sinoland

Everything you know about Russia and the USSR is a lie. Dr. Grover Furr interviews on China Rising Radio Sinoland 180818

Pictured above: Dr. Grover Furr contemplating his incredible body of work on Russia and the USSR.

Downloadable SoundCloud podcast (also at the bottom of this page), YouTube video, as well as being syndicated on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, RUvid and Ivoox (links below).

Introduction

As the China editor for The Greanville Post (www.greanvillepost.com), I get copied on a lot of emails concerning ongoing conversations with other members of the editorial team, about articles in the pipeline to be published. About a year ago, one of those exchanges was with Dr. Grover Furr, about the book he was publishing at the time, Yezhov vs. Stalin. I was intrigued, ordered and read the book and came away fascinated and feeling that for the first time in my life, a bright light shined on the history of the USSR and Russia, with Joseph Stalin front and center.

Over the course of the last year, Grover and I exchanged a few emails ourselves and I decided it was time to interview this scholar, who is undoubtedly the preeminent authority on Joseph Stalin in particular, and post 1917 Russia-USSR in general.

I gave Grover the choice of an audio or written interview and he chose the latter. So, enjoy a very informative and enlightening lesson about the real Stalin and the real Russia-USSR.

Afterwards, like me, I recommend reading his books. They are available here (http://www.erythrospress.com/) and on Amazon.

He also has a number of videos on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grover+furr).

You can learn more about Grover here (https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Furr). He has a great story to tell and has led a very accomplished life.

Questions and answers. My questions are in plain blue font. Grover’s answers are in black. He wrote that he intentionally kept his answers brief and to the point, so the interview would not drag out.

Grover, you and I have a lot in common, except your story is set in Russia and mine in China. You stand up loud and clear to shout at the world that much, if not most of the accepted Western stories about post-revolution USSR/Russia are blatant Big Lie anti-communist-socialist propaganda. On my side of the planet, I offer a similar message about post-liberation China, with Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. At times I wonder if I am having any significant impact, beyond a slowly growing number of fans and followers on my blog. It can get very discouraging. We and other truth seekers want to make the world a better place, remembering George Orwell’s elliptical passage from 1984, Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Do you feel that your work has made a difference?
Do you think you have changed any minds?
Individuals?
Organizations?
Have you had any impact in mainstream thought?
Academic circles?

ANSWER
My books and articles are based on primary-source research and an objective analysis of evidence. It’s the only way to discover the truth.

Many people around the world have assured me that my work is valuable to them. Especially people who are supportive of the goals of socialism and communism.

Mainstream and academic history of the Soviet Union is dominated by what I call “the Anti-Stalin Paradigm.” Stalin is virtually demonized, accused of being a dictator, a mass murderer, and so on. No deviation from this framework is permitted. There is no sign so far that this is changing. Certainly, some mainstream academic historians know about my work. But they ignore it, in service to perpetuating the “anti-Stalin paradigm.”

When I go back to the US this fall to visit my family, I will be ordering more of your books, especially Khrushchev Lied and The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre: The Evidence, The Solution. I could probably ask 10,000 Americans and maybe one might know something about Katyn, possibly one in a 1,000 in Europe. Being a fellow author, I know how much work goes into writing and publishing a book.

Please tell us about the Katyn Massacre, the controversy surrounding it and why you think it was important enough to write a book about it.

ANSWER
The Katyn Massacre is simply the best documented “crime of Stalin.” The only viewpoint about it that is tolerated is that the Soviets were guilty of shooting the 14,800 – 22,000 Polish POWs. Anyone who suggests otherwise is condemned as immoral. And yet, this is all wrong! An objective study of the evidence now available permits only one conclusion: that the Soviets were not guilty, and therefore that the Germans were guilty. This is an important instance of just how false “the anti-Stalin paradigm” is.

Grover’s latest book is available here (http://www.erythrospress.com/store/grover-furr-katyn.html).

Please describe to us about the now celebrated Soviet archives. They have had a huge impact on research, academia, media and even global geopolitics. Most people know little about them, so please fill us in,

What is their official name in English?
What is their origin?
- The KGB?
- The Kremlin?
How far back do they go?
What is their time range?
Are the archives centralized, or are there repositories in other cities?
Are they freely available online, or do you have to go to Russia to access them?
Are there various levels of security clearance?
- If so, do you have one?
Are there still archives that have not been released?
Is there a statute of limitation, like FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 20, 30, 50 years?
Are they like FOIA CIA and FBI documents, often heavily redacted and marked up?
Given how much Nikita Khrushchev was such a pernicious anti-Stalinist, how much do you think they were tampered with during his administration?
- After that, do you think succeeding Soviet administrations kept their hands-off?
- What happened after the fall of the USSR and the archives were released?
- Did neocon revisionists go on the attack to add, delete and modify them?
Depending on your above answers, how do you separate the grain from the chaff, the truth from propaganda?

ANSWER
An archive is simply a place where documents originating in or ending up at some official office are stored. The fact that a document is in an archive says nothing about the truth or untruth of statements made in that document.

The Soviet government had lots of archives. I don’t go there and use them myself. Rather, I study the collections of documents from Soviet archives that have been published, mainly in book form and almost exclusively in Russia.

Archives have certainly been tampered with. There’s good testimony that Khrushchev did so. My Moscow colleague Vladimir L. Bobrov and I have discovered a few other examples of such tampering, for political purposes.

All documents – all evidence – from any source, require “source criticism,” careful examination in order to determine how reliable they are (or are not).

I read your book, Yezhov vs. Stalin and I was blown away about what I learned. It was a revelation to read how vast the conspiracy was to destroy the Russian revolution, Lenin and Stalin himself. It started right after the end of World War I, where, to quote Luciana Bohne,

ANSWER
…In 1919, when over 17 “democracies” (US, UK, et al) militarily invaded Revolutionary Russia, linked up with Russian counter-revolutionaries (nobility, bourgeoisie), destroyed industries, infrastructure, millions of lives, and practically annihilated the proletariat as few industries survived to employ it (https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/07/28/luciana-bohne-talk-to-me-about-russiagate-ha/).

I was shocked to learn how much Leon Trotsky and his gang of counter-revolutionaries were cooperating with fascist Germany and Japan. After reading about what an horrific traitor Leon Trotsky was, collaborating hand-in-hand with these same enemies that millions of his countrymen were dying on the battlefields to defeat.

How do you explain Trotsky’s continued popularity among communists, socialists and Marxists?
The World Socialist Website (wsws.org) can’t seem to write an article without singing the praises of the man. Do they not know what a criminal he really was?
Or, are they and all the other Trotskyists living in denial, cherry picking what they want?

ANSWER
Trotskyism was dying when Khrushchev made his infamous “Secret Speech” in 1956. Khrushchev’s accusations made Trotsky’s accusations appear prophetic. To many people Trotskyism seemed to be “pure” communist idealism. This process was repeated when Gorbachev & Co. carried out a redoubled attack on Stalin in 1987-1991.

The opening to researchers of the Harvard Trotsky Archive in 1980, and then the publication of a great many documents from former Soviet archives after the end of the USSR in 1991, makes it possible to see that, like Khrushchev, Trotsky was lying.

I think that most Trotskyists do not know about Trotsky’s lies and conspiracies. They believe that these are “Stalinist lies”. They are told this by leaders of Trotskyist groups, and in most works by mainstream anticommunist academics.

Recently I have come to suspect another reason. There are a lot of Trotskyists in academia. Trotskyists are clannish. They will try hard to help the careers of other Trotskyists, while doing what they can do prevent the truth about Trotsky and Stalin from coming out. So, if you are a Marxist or socialist, being a Trotskyist or close to Trotskyism can help your academic career. Being perceived as a “Stalinist” certain will harm your career!

Grover Furr’s book that exposes Leon Trotsky of having been a total turncoat against his people, supporting fascist Germany and Japan.

Based on the smoking gun, ironclad proof in your book, Khrushchev Lied, he was not only an enemy of the revolution, but he betrayed his party, nation and people. Maybe we can say that the beginning of the end of the USSR started when Stalin died and Mr. K became premier.

How was this allowed to happen?
Were there so many turncoats in the government that they were able to get him elected, which would refute Western propaganda that Stalin purged and massacred millions?
Or, was he a consummate actor who fooled everyone and was badly misjudged?
Or, did Mr. K become corrupted by the drunkenness of great power and fell into the abyss of megalomania?
Where were Stalin’s backers to get a man or woman with the right stuff to keep the revolution and the USSR moving in the right direction?
Or was it just bad luck and a simple twist of fate, to quote a Bob Dylan song?

ANSWER
Khrushchev certainly knew that he was lying! Many others in the Soviet leadership had to have known too that Khrushchev was lying, at least about many things. Or they must have suspected it.

At Stalin’s deathbed, evidently on March 5, 1953, the leading members of the old Politburo gathered and decided to do away with the decisions of the 19^th Party Congress which had just taken place in October, 1952. This was really a coup d’etat.

Then there was the murder, judicial or otherwise, of Lavrentii Beria, and the judicial murder of any number of NKVD men who had worked under him. This was, in effect, yet another coup d’etat.

It’s clear that Stalin was isolated when he died, and no doubt for some years before that. Comparisons with Mao suggest themselves.

Note from Jeff: Deng Xiaoping famously said that the Chinese will never do to Mao Zedong what the Russians did to Stalin!

On a scale of 1-10, with one meaning Stalin absolutely died from natural causes, to 10, that he was certainly murdered,

What do you think?
Have you written about this, or has anyone else who has done good research?
Has evidence surfaced from the archives, do you think it is buried somewhere in its bowels, or has it been destroyed?

ANSWER
There have been lively discussions of just this question in Russia. I read a bit of it, and then gave up.

Stalin had not been well for a long time. Whether Stalin was murdered; fell ill and was denied swift and appropriate medical treatment; or simply died, seems impossible to say with certainty, given the evidence now available.

What is important is that Stalin was “killed politically” – his policies were abandoned, then attacked, and his legacy was slandered. That’s true regardless of how he died.

7. You talk about the West’s pervasive anti-Stalin paradigm. I can say the same thing about Mao. Nothing good can be written and said about them, even in “serious” discussions and publications. They can only be portrayed as depraved, genocidal maniacs hellbent on slaughtering as many of their citizens as possible. I understand the hatred and hysteria of the anti-communist-socialist angle.

But, how much do you think anti-Slav racism has to do with it, something I have researched and written about, which goes back to the Great Schism in 1054 AD (http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2018/01/06/slavs-and-the-yellow-peril-are-niggers-brutes-and-beasts-in-the-eyes-of-western-empire-china-rising-radio-sinoland/).

ANSWER
I don’t think anti-Slav racism is an important factor here except in the case of a few writers, not specialists in Soviet history, who do write about the “passivity” of the Soviet masses. But this is normally described as a product of “totalitarianism” rather than of racial inferiority. At least, from what I have seen.

Michael Parenti wrote a scathing book about the Big Lie propaganda of Eurangloland’s vaunted “academic freedom”, Academic Repression: Reflections from the Academic Industrial Complex (https://www.akpress.org/academic-repression-reflections-from-the-academic-industrial-complex.html). Professors with anti-establishment, anti-empire, anti-capitalism ideas start out at Harvard or Yale, get fired; then they get a job at a well-known state university, get fired, and keep on moving down the ladder until they are accepted at a small, private college and mostly left in peace.

Did this happen to you?
Not wanting to get you trouble at Montclair, your employer, but do they leave you alone, or do you get called in once in a while for a cup of Russian tea and some frank discussion?

ANSWER
My academic field is medieval European literature. I have been teaching in an English department since 1970. “Bumps” in my academic career because of my Stalin-era Soviet research have been minimal.

But if I were in the field of history, I simply could not write what I write and remain employed. My research would not be published, and I’d soon be out of a job.

This is not true of Trotskyist scholars, who are pretty common in academia. Their form of anticommunism – anti-Stalinism – is convenient to mainstream anticommunism, and so is acceptable in academia. There are a number of self-described Trotskyist journals. Publication of articles in them is acceptable academically. Mine would not be.

Three years ago, in order to show my total renunciation of Western capitalism and empire, I joined the Communist Party of France (PCF), since I’m a dual national, and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, the Wobblies) and have been a dues-paying member ever since.

Again, not wanting to get you in hot water, but are you a member of a communist or socialist party?
If not and if you did, would Montclair be forced to fire you for joining, with the mantra of, Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?, playing in the background?

ANSWER

No, I’m not a member of any communist party. I have thought about it many times.

In New Jersey, at this point, mere membership in a communist organization can’t legally be used as grounds for dismissal.

This question is more of an encouragement to our fans out there to learn a second language. Anglophones and Francophones have a terrible reputation for being linguistic chauvinists. You are a professor of Medieval European Literature, but you previously learning Russian has had an obviously huge impact on your professional life, and seems to have provided you with enormous satisfaction and accomplishment. I got a minor in Portuguese at grad school. Plans to move to Brazil and become a corn and soybean farmer fell through and moving back to Oklahoma, my skills started to atrophy and since then, I’ve completely lost it. But then, I joined the Peace Corps in Tunisia for two years and fell in love with the Arabic language, really applying myself to total fluency and literacy. As a result, it launched my international professional career and I’ve never looked back.

What do you tell your students about the importance of learning a second language?
How receptive are they to spending the time and effort to learn one?
What are the most popular foreign languages they want to learn these days?

ANSWER
You are right about the importance of learning foreign languages! That is especially important in studying the history of the communist movement.

In today’s world English is de facto the world language. People all over the world are eager to study English. This may serve as a disincentive to Americans to study foreign languages.

Also, the USA is geographically isolated from the rest of the world, except for the Spanish-speaking world (Latin America) and, to a lesser extent, the francophone world (Quebec, Canada). It’s natural that Spanish and French are the foreign languages most studied.

A common misconception about studying languages is that it is “harder” than other subjects; that you need to be “talented” or “good at it” from birth. None of that is true. It just takes time and energy, like any skill. And, of course, you have to be motivated.

I hope my answers are helpful. Thank you for asking them!

Sincerely,

Grover Furr

###

Postscript: Mr. Eric Arnow, a regular visitor to China Rising Radio Sinoland commented below that Dr. Furr’s overwhelming evidence is corroborated by a number of other researched sources. Here are two for starters:

https://espressostalinist.com/

https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/great-conspiracy-against-russia.pdf

If you find China Rising Radio Sinoland‘s work useful and appreciate its quality, please consider making a donation. Money is spent to pay for Internet costs, maintenance, the upgrade of our computer network, and development of the site.

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

ABOUT JEFF BROWN

Punto Press released China Rising - Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations (2016); and for Badak Merah, Jeff authored China Is Communist, Dammit! – Dawn of the Red Dynasty (2017).

The Greanville Post, where he keeps a column, Dispatch from Beijing. He also writes a column for The Saker, called the Moscow-Beijing Express. Jeff interviews and podcasts on his own program, China Rising Radio Sinoland, which is also available on SoundCloud, YouTube, Stitcher Radio and iTunes.
In China, he has been a speaker at TEDx, the Bookworm and Capital M Literary Festivals, the Hutong, as well as being featured in an 18-part series of interviews on Radio Beijing AM774, with former BBC journalist, Bruce Connolly. He has guest lectured at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences and various international schools and universities. Jeff grew up in the heartland of the United States, Oklahoma, much of it on a family farm, and graduated from Oklahoma State University. He went to Brazil while in graduate school at Purdue University, to seek his fortune, which whetted his appetite for traveling the globe. This helped inspire him to be a Peace Corps Volunteer in Tunisia in 1980 and he lived and worked in Africa, the Middle East, China and Europe for the next 21 years. All the while, he mastered Portuguese, Arabic, French and Mandarin, while traveling to over 85 countries. He then returned to America for nine years, whereupon he moved back to China in 2010. He lives in China with his wife. Jeff is a dual national French-American, being a member of the Communist Party of France (PCF) and the International Workers of the World (IWW).

Jeff can be reached at China Rising, jeff@brownlanglois.com, Facebook, Twitter and Wechat/Whatsapp: +86-13823544196.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

CHINA RISING BOOKS & OUTLETS CLICK HERE

BOOKS
• China Is Communist, Dammit! Dawn of the Red Dynasty

• "China Rising, Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations" by Jeff J. Brown on Ganxy!function(d,s,i){var j,e=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(i)){j=d.createElement(s);j.id=i;j.async=true;j.src="https://ganxy.com/b.js";e.parentNode.insertBefore(j,e);}}(document,"script","ganxy-js-2");

• "44 Days Backpacking in China- The Middle Kingdom in the 21st Century, with the United States, Europe and the Fate of the World in Its Looking Glass" by Jeff J. Brown @ www.44days.net on Ganxy!function(d,s,i){var j,e=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(i)){j=d.createElement(s);j.id=i;j.async=true;j.src="https://ganxy.com/b.js";e.parentNode.insertBefore(j,e);}}(document,"script","ganxy-js-2");

RADIO
Sound Cloud: https://soundcloud.com/44-days
Stitcher Radio: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/44-days-publishing-jeff-j-brown/radio-sinoland?refid=stpr
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/cn/podcast/44-days-radio-sinoland/id1018764065?l=en
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS4h04KASXUQdMLQObRSCNA

SOCIAL MEDIA

Digg: http://digg.com/u/00bdf33170ad4160b4b1fdf2bb86d846/deeper
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/44DaysPublishing
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/113187076@N05/
Google+: https://plus.google.com/110361195277784155542
Linkedin: https://cn.linkedin.com/in/jeff-j-brown-0517477
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/jeffjb/
Sinaweibo (for Jeff’s ongoing photos and comments on daily life in China, in both English and Chinese): http://weibo.com/u/5859194018
Stumbleupon: http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/jjbzaibeijing
Tumblr: http://jjbzaibeijing.tumblr.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/44_Days
Website: http://www.chinarising.puntopress.com
Wechat group: search the phone number +8618618144837, friend request and ask Jeff to join the China Rising Radio Sinoland Wechat group. He will add you as a member, so you can join in the ongoing discussion.

[premium_newsticker id=”218306″]

The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics

US FORCES LEAVING AL-TANF…AND SYRIA. Russia remains in the Levant

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

Originally posted on 05/07/2018 by Elijah J Magnier

Good-bye and good riddance. US troops really leaving? The author claims it's happening or likely to happen soon. But the empire has a record of biting into a territory and never letting go—unless booted out (cf Vietnam). Is this then just wishful thinking?

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ussian advisors visiting the Syrian capital Damascus are confident that the US forces will pull out of al-Tanf and will also aim to completely withdraw from north of Syria (al-Hasaka and Deir-Ezzour) in the next six months.

According to top decision makers based in Damascus, US President Donald Trump is pushing his administration to approve an already prepared total withdrawal plan. Despite Trump’s limited knowledge of foreign policy and being unaware of the consequences of his decisions in the international arena, however, he found no convincing elements – said the sources, who asked to remain anonymous – in the presentation by his administration where US forces could benefit from the continuation of their presence in such a hostile environment and without suffering hits in the future. Trump’s biggest fear [is] to see the US special forces deployed in the north of Syria and in Iraq returning to the country “in plastic bags”. He would certainly find it hard to offer any explanation for the US occupation of the Levant after the defeat of ISIS (the “Islamic State” group) or what remained of it in Syria and Iraq.

Moreover, Trump noticed that the hostility against its forces in Iraq was growing: Iraqi security forces (Hashd al-Sha’bi) vowed revenge on the US following the destruction by unknown jets (believed to be Israeli) of their command and control position on the Iraqi-Syrian borders with specific orders to stop and destroy ISIS terrorist groups crossing into Iraq.

The sources believe president Trump is not ready – despite his passionate support of Israel – to see US forces paying the price of a game Israel has excelled in playing for decades. Israel is used to accepting hits in exchange for the consequences of its action against its neighbours.

Russian sources involved in the preparation of the Putin-Trump summit, expected this month in Europe, believe the Russian President can offer enough guarantees to the US president to leave the Levant before the US gets caught in the Syrian-Iraqi quagmire. The key to attaining this objective is for Trump to hold enough elements to guarantee the safety of Israel – to his mind – with no Iranian or Hezbollah forces deployed on the disengagement line of 1974. But of course Russia cannot offer any guarantee that Syria will not claim back its occupied territory in the Golan Heights.

Actually, Damascus is not concerned with offering any guarantees to Israel. Nevertheless, since the central government doesn’t need friendly foreign units deployed in the country once all of the Syrian territory occupied after 2011 is liberated (including the north), Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can guarantee the control of the Syrian army throughout his country. The only exception remains on the borders between Lebanon and Syria, where close collaboration with the de facto forces on the ground is needed by both sides to prevent the smuggling of weapons and the passage of jihadists across the borders.

Russia considers that the US and Israel have accepted the defeat of the “regime change” goal in Syria and that this failed attempt, after over 7 years of war, strengthens the “Axis of the Resistance” despite billions of dollars invested to break off Syria from this “axis”. Moreover, it is aware that it was the Obama administration that allowed ISIS to grow without timely intervention to stop it, creating a local force, in Iraq hostile to the US.

The American establishment fears that its presence in Syria on the borders with Iraq will create more damage to the US-Iraqi relationship which is still “under control” with Prime Minister Haidar Abadi in power. The threat launched by Kataeb-Hizballah Iraq against the US forces and mentioned by Lebanese Hezbollah leader Sayed Hasan Nasrallah has created serious concern among US military personnel and within the political leadership, whose objective is to avoid the 2003-2011 experience (being attacked by both Sunni and Shia during the US occupation of Iraq).

On the other hand, the US establishment is asking Russia’s support for the “deal of the century” initiative related to the Palestinians. Russia believes this is a US-Israeli manoeuvre to exchange Syria for Palestine, and that it is unrealistic. Russia has no power to impose on the Palestinians a stillborn deal. Moreover, if the Russians deploy regular forces in Syria and put Assad out of the “Axis”, the Russians will be holding a dead card. The importance of Syria is due to its borders with Israel, its connections with the Palestinians and to both Iran and Hezbollah. If Russia takes away this privileged position of Syria in the Middle East, Moscow would be controlling a country with no leverage.

Both the US and Russia know that Trump is impatiently waiting for his establishment to agree the pullout of his forces from Syria. Therefore, there is no need for any concessions that Russia is not in a position to fulfil. Moscow wants to keep a good relationship with Washington – as many Russian officials have conveyed to both Damascus and Tehran. Moreover, both Russia and the US are aware that Syrian and Iraqi resistance forces need only one objective to pursue in the coming years: attack the US forces.

Proofread by: Maurice Brasher

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

ABOUT ELIJAH MAGNIER

Veteran War Zone Correspondent and Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years' experience covering the Middle East and acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Specialised in terrorism and counter-terrorism, intelligence, political assessments, strategic planning and thorough insight in political networks in the region. Covered on the ground the Israeli invasion to Lebanon (1st war 1982), the Iraq-Iran war, the Lebanese civil war, the Gulf war (1991), the war in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1996), the US invasion to Iraq (2003 to date), the second war in Lebanon (2006), the war in Libya and Syria (2011 to date). Lived for many years in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

Sabre-Rattling With Russia

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Gen. Dunford: Is everybody bluffing on the US side, to pad the insatiable coffers of the military contractors, or are they for real? If the latter, the world is in deep trouble.

“My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.” —General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I would consider the principle threats to start with Russia.”—General James Mattis, US Defense Secretary.

“The United States continues to have the highest military expenditure in the world. In 2017 the USA spent more on its military [$610 billion] than the next seven highest-spending countries combined. . . . at $66.3 billion, Russia’s military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016.”— Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, World Report May 2018.

The Trump Administration is ramping up confrontation and rattling sabers all over the globe, from the South China Sea to the Baltic via the Persian Gulf. The countries of the US-NATO military alliance have vastly increased their military spending and are boosting deployment of their forces in Europe in accordance with the policy of Enhanced Forward Presence — the positioning of strike aircraft, missile-armed ships and armored formations along the frontiers of Russia.

In March 2018 NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, the former US Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, spoke at Warsaw’s military airport and was effusive about the forward movement of US-NATO troops. She “wanted to say what an honor it was to visit the battlegroup that is deployed here in Poland today . . .”

It is hugely expensive to move and maintain military forces in foreign countries, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) records that in 2016 “NATO’s collective military expenditure rose to $881 billion” while “European NATO members spent $254 billion in 2016 — over 3 times more than Russia.”

In January 2018 the US Department of Defence published its National Defence Strategy which stated that “the central challenge to US prosperity and security is re-emergence of long-term strategic competition” from Russia and China who are “revisionist powers” and a “growing threat” requiring a vast surge in US military expenditure. The Pentagon’s Mission involves “restoring America’s competitive military advantage to deter Russia and China from challenging the United States, its allies or seeking to overturn the international order that has served so well since the end of World War II.”

That is the US-enforced “international order” that since 1945 has included its disastrous war in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq that propelled the Middle East to its current state of chaos, a continuing, sixteen-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, and a savage blitz that reduced Libya to ungovernable chaos. In all these ferocious forays by the self-appointed global gendarme there was colossal destruction and the deaths of uncountable numbers of innocent citizens.

And now the US has some 1.3 million people in its army, navy, air force and Marine Corps, with about 200,000 of them stationed in about 800 overseas military bases, in order to continue enforcement of “international order.”

The Nuclear Posture Review published on February 2, 2018, two weeks after the defense strategy paper, also makes it clear who the Pentagon considers to be its enemies, mentioning China 47 times, Iran 39 times and Russia 127 times, which makes nonsense of the claim by the State Department that “we do not want to consider Russia an adversary . . . This not a Russia-centric NPR.” Then on February 12 the Pentagon announced that “today President Donald Trump sent Congress a proposed Fiscal Year 2019 budget request of $716 billion for national security, $686 billion of which is for the Department of Defense.” That’s about 70 billion dollars more than the previous year.

Trump’s “America First” policy has alienated longtime US allies and increased distrust by the many countries being confronted militarily (and economically — ask the Europeans). The irony about this drum-thumping slogan is the US claim that “It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model, gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions,” because this is precisely what “America First” is all about : military domination and total ascendancy over the economies of the world.

The Western media’s reporting of President Putin’s speech to Russia’s Federal Assembly on March 1 was intriguing. It concentrated almost entirely on Russian weapons’ developments, with the New York Times, for example, reporting that the President “used the speech to reassure Russians that the military buildup was taking place.” The 1500 words of the NYT report were almost entirely devoted to Putin’s description of Russian weapons designed to deter US-NATO adventurism, and a mere 65 words covered the social improvement programs he described.

In outlining his priorities the President declared that “the main, key development factor is the well-being of the people and the prosperity of Russian families. Let me remind you that in 2000, 42 million people lived below the poverty line, which amounted to nearly 30 percent – 29 percent of the population. In 2012, this indicator fell to 10 percent. Poverty has increased slightly against the backdrop of the economic crisis. Today, 20 million Russian nationals live in poverty. Of course, this is much fewer than the 42 million people in 2000, but it is still way too many.”

Russia wants to improve the lives of its citizens, and intends to do this, no matter the size of the US-NATO military buildup round its borders. But it isn’t going to stand back and do nothing while the US-NATO military bloc expands and accelerates towards conflict. There has been a massive reduction in Russia’s defense budget, while the US and the rest of NATO are vastly increasing military expenditure, but it remains necessary for Russia to maintain its defense capabilities to counter the saber-rattling of the US-NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence.

As noted by the US Veterans Today, President Putin stated that “American submarines are on permanent alert off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?”

Yes, they do, in spite of all the belligerence being displayed by US-NATO military deployments and maneuvers in eastern Europe.

For example, Exercise Siil 2018 was held in Estonia from May 2-13, 2018, involving over 15,000 troops from 10 NATO countries — the UK, US, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland — and from the five supposedly neutral countries of Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Sweden and Ukraine.

Then on June 4 CNN reported that “A massive US-led military exercise involving 18,000 soldiers from 19 nations, primarily NATO members, kicked off Sunday [June 3] along the alliance’s eastern border. Saber Strike 18 will take place until June 15 in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The exercise will be conducted amid heightened tensions with Moscow, which views any NATO military activities along its border negatively, maintaining that it increases ‘mutual distrust’.”

That exercise couldn’t have been more fittingly named, because there is no doubt that all these US-NATO saber-rattling fandangos increase Russia’s “distrust” of the nations that move thousands of troops so close to its borders. While Russia reduces its defense spending and tries to engage in trade with the world in order to better the living conditions of its citizens, 18,000 US-NATO troops have gathered to rattle sabers on its borders.

There could not be plainer signals that the Pentagon and its sub-branch in Brussels are escalating to conflict.

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

Paul Craig Roberts: The Trump Regime Is Insane / Ten Days Before The End Of The World / latest dispatches.

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Dateline: April 13, 2018

Like many neocons and unrepentant imperialists, Bolton comes from the working class, but saw his future in rosier terms simply serving his class exploiters.

Is it insane to push for war with Russia, a major nuclear power?
Is it insane to threaten Russia and bring false charges against her?
Is it insane to brag about killing “hundreds of Russians”?
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/12/pompeo-russians-met-their-match-us-killed-hundreds-of-them/

A normal person would answer “yes” to the three questions. So what does this tell us about Trump’s government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump’s government?

Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?

Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?

Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?

Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who foment war with a nuclear power?

Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?

These are honest questions.

Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?

The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime, the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.

People such as Stephen Cohn and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0&t=54s

The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.

Ten Days Before The End Of The World

Dateline: April 12, 2018

The criminally insane governments of the US, UK, and France are sending a flotilla of missile ships, submarines, and an aircraft carrier to attack Syria in the face of Russian warnings. What is the likely outcome of this outrageous act of aggression based entirely on an orchestrated and transparent lie, an act of reckless aggression that is more irresponsible and more dangerous than anything done by the demonized Nazi regime in Germany?

There are no protests from European governments. There are no protesters in the streets of European and US cities. Congress has not reminded Trump that he has been given no authority by Congress to launch a military attack on a sovereign country that is likely to ignite a war, possibly World War 3. Everyone seems content with the prospect of the end of the world. The moronic American presstitutes are egging it on.

Here are possible outcomes:

(1) The Russians, trapped in the deluded belief that facts and evidence matter to the West and that common sense will prevail, accept the attacks. This outcome is the most dangerous of all, because this outcome will encourage more attacks until Russia is backed into a corner and has no alternative to a direct nuclear attack on the US.

(2) Russia takes the initiative in the brewing conflict and escorts the US missile ship, USS Donald Cook, out of attack range of Syria before the attack flotilla arrives and declares a perimeter line beyond which the Western flotilla becomes target for attack. This should force a showdown between Trump’s warmonger government and the US Congress that would challenge Trump’s ability to unilaterally commit the US to war.

(3) Russia escorts the Donald Cook away from the scene and simultaneously wipes out the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia and Israel, removing Washington’s ground-based allies in its attack on Syria, thus loading the odds in Russia’s favor, and making it clear that Russia is going to pre-empt attack, not respond to one.

(4) Russia, in the deluded belief that it must prove itself in the right, accepts the attack and its unpredictable damage before responding. This outcome is almost as bad as the first, as this lets the war start in contrast to options (2) and (3) which have some possibility of preventing a US/Russian confrontation by forcing common sense on the Americans.

(5) Senior German politicians inform Merkel that Britain and France’s support of the US strike on Syria could commit NATO to a war with Russia. Germany has had one devastating experience with the Russian military and does not need another. They could pressure Merkel to withdraw Germany from NATO. The resulting consternation/confusion would likely halt the US attack on Syria/Russia.

(6) The US Joint Chiefs of Staff could easily and honestly conclude that in the event of a Russian response to an attack on Syria, the entire flotilla could be lost, carrier included, inflicting a humiliating defeat on US arms, and that in view of this possibility, the Joint Chiefs recommend against the announced attack. Possibly this has occurred and explains Trump’s latest tweets, which suggest that doubts might have entered Trump’s mind.

Even if a hopeful outcome such as (5) and (6) occurs, we are left with the dangerous situation that some elements in the US and UK governments were able to orchestrate two events—the alleged Skripal poisoning and the alleged Assad chemical attack—and use the events to leverage unsupported accusations against Russia and Syria as justifications for an illegal military attack on a sovereign country. That such an outrageous orchestration is possible proves that there is no democracy or constraint on government in the US and UK.

American Officials Continue to Make Laughing Stocks of Themselves

Dateline: April 12, 2018

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]ere is “Mad Dog” Mattis, the US Secretary of War, stating that he has no evidence that there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria last week, but that he personally believes that there was one.

I remember when a person who claimed to believe something for which there was no evidence was either a religious fanatic or an ideologue. No serious person would express a conviction when there was no evidence to support it.

This raises questions as to Mattis’ fitness for office. He is prepared to lead the US into war with Russia based on nothing but his belief. This is insanity.

Even a low grade moron, which appears to be above the intelligence level of the current US Secretary of War, understands that Syria would not, within a few hours of its liberation of the Syrian people of Douma, have used chemical weapons against the civilian population for which its soldiers were dying in order to liberate.

According to RT, the Organization for the prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is on its way to inspect the site. I had read that the US had vetoed allowing an investigation. According to RT, the OPCW is only permitted by Washinton to determine whether any chemical weapons were used, not, if they were, by who. If the OPCW can be pressured to say evidence of chemical weapons use was found, Washington will seize on that as proof that Syria did it.

Bolton: A bully and a mafioso, to boot. The new style of government. He should be prosecuted and tossed out, but of course he won't, as this is a government of criminals.

As the former head of the OPCW has made clear, the organization is not independent of Washington’s control. It is supposed to be independent but is not. Jose Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was Director-General of the OPCW reports that he was ordered to resign by John Bolton, the dangerous neoconservative warmonger who is currently National Secruity Adviser to President Trump. Bustani pointed out to Bolton that he was appointed by the OPCW member states, not by the US, and refused to resign. Here is Bolton’s reply: “OK, so there will be retaliation. Prepare to accept the consequences. We know where your kids are.” https://www.rt.com/usa/423477-bolton-threat-opcw-iraq/

This is American diplomacy at work. It is based entirely on lies, bribes, threats, coercion, murder. Remember the State Department official who told the president of Pakistan, do as I say now or we will bomb you into the stone age?

Bolton had Bustani voted out. The members of the OPCW preferred their Washington subsidies to being an honest organization.

It makes no sense for Russia to rely on “international organizations” that are under Washington’s control.

It makes no sense for Russia to rely on common sense in the West. There is no common sense anywhere in the West. If the West had common sense, the West would not be sending a flotilla to attack Russian and Syrian forces.

It makes no sense for Russia to speak about their “American partners.” No such partner exists. Russia has only American enemies.

The neoconservatives who control US foreign policy have stated it clearly in their declaration that the principle goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of Russia and any other country that could serve as a constraint on US unilateralism. The neoconservatives have made it abundantly clear that Russia has to go. It is dangerous for Russia to disregard such a clear warning. Yet when I am interviewed by Russian media, the journalists are perplexed by “neoconservative.” What is that, they ask.

How can it be that Russian journalists are unaware that the powerful interest group whose most warmonger member, John Bolton, sits as Trump’s right-hand man, has marked Russia for vassalage, conquest, or annihilation? A country this uninformed hasn’t much survival potential.

PCR with feline children.

About the Author

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found