The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Diana Johnstone Archive
Unipolarism Versus Multipolarism
The Real Russian Interference in U.S. Politics
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Former Russian Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2013
Former Russian Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2013

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.

All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly, but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists, between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined to the two main nuclear powers.

The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain “capitalist manifesto” dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: “Our guiding light is Profit, acquired in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who can lead us to wealth as the norm in life.”

The authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably to Israel.

Loans For Shares

Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using the “loans for shares” trick.

In a 2012 Vanity Fair article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:

“The new oligarchs—a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that money brought—concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money, which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises without parliamentary approval.”

This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization, Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia’s petroleum company Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends, especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily convinced his American partners that he was Russia’s number one champion of democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian resources.

Vladimir Putin didn’t see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from the “open society” model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry. Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined U.S. plans, already underway, to “balkanize” Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.

The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate unanimously adopted Resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev as politically motivated.

Who Influences Whom?

Now let’s take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States. It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in his favor has a certain influence. But when the “deep state” growls about Russian influence, it isn’t talking about Khodorkovsky. It’s talking about a joking response Trump made to a reporter’s snide question during the presidential campaign. In a variation of the classic “when did you stop beating your wife?” the reporter asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to “stay out” of the election.

Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he had “nothing to do with Putin” before adding, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome in American politics as honesty.

When President Trump revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the New York Times.

Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually took Trump’s joking invitation as a genuine request. “By issuing such a statement,” Brennan wrote, “Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent.”

The Russians, Brennan declared, “troll political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters.”

Which Russians do that? And who are those “individuals”?

The Fixer in Chief”

To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him as “the Fixer in Chief”. Winer has long been unknown to the general public, but this may soon change.

Let’s see what the fixer has fixed.

Under the presidency of fellow YalieBill Clinton, Winer served as the State Department’s first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement, from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton’s concern for international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded for “virtually unprecedented achievements”. Later we shall examine one of those important achievements.

At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world’s most powerful PR and lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions: after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into highly paid “consultancy” to sell this insider information and influential contacts to private clients.

APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago lobbying for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.

In 2002, APCO launched something called the “Friends of Science” to promote skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign described its goals and objectives “encouraging the public to question – from the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies.”

While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy was there to “help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements of CGI as a whole.” Considering that only 5% of Clinton Foundation turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.

Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the Observer: “Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.”

This helps explain Hillary Clinton’s panic when she lost in 2016. How in the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors they expected?

As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest of APCO’s many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO’s president and CEO, is a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s son Pavel’s Institute of Modern Russia, devoted to “promoting democratic values” – in other words, to building political opposition to Vladimir Putin.

In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in U.S. and Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.

However, it was Winer’s extracurricular activities at State that finally brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named him as one of a network promoting the notorious “Steele Dossier” which accused Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia. By Winer’s own account, h

he had been friends with former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts. These included the infamous “Steele dossier”. In September 2016, Winer’s old friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton – gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer, repeating the salacious attacks.

All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media before being revealed publicly just before Trump’s inauguration, used to stimulate the “Russiagate” investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited but the investigation goes on and on.

So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from “Russian agents” and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.

Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act

Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the “Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012” (the Magnitsky Act), a measure that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November 16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.

However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov’s (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder’s business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself.

In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky’s alleged persecutors, the U.S. Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.

The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.

It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder’s predicament.

As Winer tells it, “When Browder consulted me, […] I suggested creating a new law to impose economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky. He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act. Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.”

Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing U.S. authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia’s best friend.

But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.

As Winer wrote, “Under that treaty, Russia’s procurator general can ask the U.S. attorney general … to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case.” (My emphasis.)

“I know this”, he wrote, “because I was among those who helped put it there. Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the senior State Department official managing U.S.-Russia law-enforcement relations.”

So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, “No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can’t touch you.”

Winer’s clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn’t apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated.

In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder’s Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the “lobbyists” cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a “former Republican congressman”).

The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: “While lawyers representing foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client.” However, by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was “clearly trying to influence policy” was therefore in violation of FARA filing requirements.”

Catch-22 all over again.

Needless to say, Khodorkovsky’s Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of “Russian interference intended to influence policy” is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.

Conclusion

The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia’s position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries’ politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this.

The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single “democratic” system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs.

So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody’s computer.

U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are “unipolar” like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.

Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public opinion against “multipolar” Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.

 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thank you Diana for a terrific article. We will not see this in the mainstream media.

    Also, your book Queen of Chaos is a gem. I bought several copies and even had a leftist read it but his response was a dry “I guess she doesn’t like Hilary Clinton”. I tried to explain that the author has not liked what Hilary Clinton has done over her lifetime. If Hilary Clinton was not a sociopath and major warmonger then the author may not have been able to write the superb summary that she did.

  2. I’ve highly respected Ms. Johnstone since I read her book on the corruption represented by the Clintons. What is really at stake here is whether or not corruption, represented by the meddling yankee imperium and oligarchs like Khodorovsky, Browder, and those operating in yankeeland like Bezos, Soros and those Winer represents, shall triumph. Unfortunately the bad guys are running the show everywhere the yankee imperium dominates. These are more dangerous times than the past, when, for example, the Nazi regime and Stalinism held sway over broad areas. Technology has become more dangerous and extinction-threatening. The claim of world domination remains the link between those systems and the odious globalist imperium of the present day.

  3. Miro23 says:

    At a basic level the US public doesn’t have any problem with the Russian public (how could they? they hardly know them) – and they don’t have any problem with the people of Iraqi, Libya or Iran (who they have also have never met and likely couldn’t place their countries on a map).

    It would be different if the Russians, Iraqis, Libyans or Iranians were organizing an invasion of the USA – which they’re not. Germany did invade Russia in WW2, and the Russian people legitimately defended themselves in vastly destructive battles.

    So, all that’s left are pre-modern style dynastic struggles where modern kings, princes, families, tribes and factions order around the troops to suit their own personal interests – with Borgia type levels of deception, power-broking, bribery and backstabbing. Current feeble attempts at ersatz Democracy only get in the way, and when they don’t give the desired result, they’re manipulated or ignored (e.g. Trump or Brexit).

    That only seems to leave two avenues for improvement, either an enlightened autocracy (dictatorship) or real democracy.

    An enlightened autocrat has military backing and abolishes tribes factions and special interests (apart from his own – it will be a male) while justifying his power through America First.

    The alternative of real democracy would be the tough but not impossible job of informing the public issue by issue (always presenting opposing views) at the county level (and funding it). Then obliging them to participate (paid time off work) and vote in an informed way on each local and national issue. This implies mostly local taxation and spending and very little role for Washington in a new Confederation of American States.

    If the alternative is WW3, either of these options look OK, with option two clearly preferable in the longer run.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  4. Three cheers for Diana Johnstone! I’m so glad Unz picked her up. It was CounterPurge’s loss …

    Considering that only 5% of Clinton Foundation turnover went to donations …

    Probably a generous estimate.

    The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department …

    And rightly so, being responsible for the deaths of several US servicemen, not to mention attempts against other US officials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Anti-American_campaign

    • Agree: Che Guava, gsjackson
  5. The Cold War obviously was a Stalin, and later the USSR, not willing to dance to the USA tune, as had been FDR’s plan.
    Mao also was unwilling.
    Even in 1946 Bernard Baruch made a plea for a world government.

  6. OT:

    Does anyone know what happened to Michael Scheuer? His website, non-intervention.com, has been down for about two weeks now (“Server Not Found”), and his last tweet is from July 18th.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  7. Here is an interesting look at how the anti-Russian narrative began in the United States and who really rigged the 2016 U.S. election:

    https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-genesis-of-russian-interference.html

    Main Street America is being manipulated into believing that Russia is the enemy, giving Washington a complete pass on how business is done in America’s political capital.

  8. Tom Welsh says:

    That miserable little weasel Winer is absolutely typical of the US system. It should really be renamed “The United States of Hypocrisy”, because they have brought hypocrisy to the level of a fine art.

    On the surface, everything is highly regulated by law: the USA is a nation “ruled by laws, not men”. But then you peer under the surface, and see that it is all a vastly sophisticated cover story. There are so many laws, many of them so obscure, that it is often said every American unwittingly commits at least three felonies a day.

    Then there are the “special” Americans who, quite knowingly, commit serious felonies almost continually. But, oddly enough, they are hardly ever charged with their crimes. How come? Because of a curious feature of the US (and British) legal systems: before a person can be charged and brought to trial, an appointed government prosecutor must decide that it is “in the public interest” to prefer charges.

    It turns out that it hardly ever seems to be judged “in the public interest” to prosecute rich and powerful people like the Clintons. The only people who do get prosecuted – often for absurdly minor pecadilloes – are those whom the establishment dislikes and wants to get rid of – or to use in building a case against more important enemies.

    This excellent article explains how a legal system ought to work: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/12/david-hathaway/that-pesky-napoleonic-code/

  9. I will continue to make the case that is true here. What you are talking about is not capitalism.

  10. Putin wants” to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way”. He is “against interference in other countries’ politics on principle”. Great! When is he going to allow Ukraine to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in its own way? Or Moldova? Or Georgia?

  11. @Miro23

    Hitler attacked Russia because he knew of Stalin’s planned attack:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    The book is based on Russian archives, temporarily available, already closed again.
    The Wehrmacht’s initial sucesses were the result of, probably by chance, attacking three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack.
    The Red Army at the time was a mess, bad planning, officers separated from their men, men separated from weapons and ammunition, and so on, and so forth.
    Musial is a Polish historian, from a Polish-jewish Warsaw institute.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  12. So, the Globalist is still suckling at the humanity’s teat for mother’s milk yet as long as the plump gland isn’t dessicated of gelt, it’ll just have to suffer more pangs to come… poor mankind!

  13. Sean says:

    I feel this article cannot see the wood for the trees. It was May 2016 before CIA reported that a GRU officer boasting their unit had been ordered to get Clinton, it is supposed to had been in retaliation for the 2011 Russian election Snow Revolution demonstrations in Moscow against Putin but was I think the evidence suggests the GRU were ordered to do something to Clinton similar to what had been done to Putin with the Panama Papers, which had revealed a multi billion dollar bank account linked to his inner circle in spring 2016. Advanced persistent threat APT29, believed to belong to the Main Directorate’s (GRU)’s sister/rival agency, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had penetrated the DNC network in July 2015 with tight operations security consistent with an attempt to amass intelligence in the long term.

    While as mentioned above Russian foreign electoral intervention against Hillary Clinton in 2016 has been characterised as “Putin’s Revenge” for the Snow Revolution and the 2014 Ukrainian Euromaidan, Julia Ioffe writing in the Atlantic Magazine quoted Andrei Soldatov (known to have excellent contacts in the Russian deep state) for the thesis that Putin had no such intention until Spring 2016, when organised dissemination of the Panama Papers, interpreted by the Kremlin as a Kompromat operation by serving and former members of the CIA and State Department to target Putin’s image for Russia’s September elections, produced an “emotional” response. According to Soldatov, on April 8, 2016, a special meeting of the national-security council of Russia decided on ad hoc retaliation. Main Directorate Unit 26165 hacked the DNC’s systems on April 18, 2016. The former head of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters noted “The brazen recklessness of it … the fact that they don’t seem to care that it’s attributed to them very publicly, is the biggest change”, it was deliberately blatant in order to sending a message to Clinton and her State department and CIA pals

    Khodorkovsky cut the wages of his oil workers to half what other oil companies were paying. The December 2012 Magnitsky Act was only passed because America needed a replacement for the contemporaneously repealed Jackson–Vanik act. Khodorkovsky and Bill Browder were all about profit and to deliver value to shareholders they drove down the pay and conditions or sacked workers, seen as having no say. New York’s Paul Singer of Elliott Management is a pioneer of a similar vision , he tried to get laws against champerty repealed so his buying of distressed debt solely with a view to bringing legal action would not be inhibited. The laws against usury already are long gone, (as are the immigration restriction measures, but the New Yorker and the BBC won’t touch that aspect of hyper-capitalism).

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/27/paul-singer-doomsday-investor

    It is is back to capitalism but worse, hyper-capitalism, and the people do have a say because if they have a vote they vote for anyone who will stand against it in Russia or the West, in the 30′s or now. Hence you get populism, or fascism if you want to call it that. The masses of what could be called the Deep Nation is but one wing of the nation state, and although the other wing, the Deep State, is a little slower to become disenchanted with globalizing hyper capitalism is

    The US wanted to destroy Russia all right, but hyper-capitalism is only a tool to make the US position stronger in relation to its main enemy which was seen as Russia. The deep state has begun to realise that China is quickly gaining on the US and hyper-capitalism is now doing more harm than good to the hegemony of the US . The old consensus in the US about how to make America too strong for anyone to think of challenging is dying. China is killing it, and in the multi-polar world being loaded for Bear is no longer useful. Kissinger has already articulated this.

    Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way.

    A country that acted on accordance with such a foolishly placid and passive view of the world would be be very lucky to escape unpleasant consequences. Russia has acted no differently in Ukraine than the US did in Nicaragua a few decades ago.

    Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public opinion against “multipolar” Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.

    I agree Russian attempts along those lines are only helping those who want to keep focusing on Russia instead of China as the main threat.

    The way to deal with the Israel lobby is to overheat it. Trump has already made a good start with Jerusalem, once he smashes Iran, it will only remain to encourage Israel to expel the majority of the West Bank Arabs, and Israel will become a true light unto the nations.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  14. Sparkon says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Barbarossa was Stalin’s greatest success. He tricked Hitler into attacking the Soviet Union, an enormous country the Wehrmacht had virtually no chance to defeat.

    Such is a favorite tactic of bullies, who taunt and tease a weakling into taking a swing, whereupon the big man pounds the little guy into the ground.

    Nothing else Stalin could have done would have rallied and united the entire Soviet Union behind the Bolsheviks and their evil dictator, including the Ukrainians, who previously had despised Stalin almost as much as the Germans did.

    If Stalin had initiated hostilities and attacked Germany first, he would have marked himself as the aggressor, woud not have been able to count either on Russian patriotism, nor on support and largesse from the United States via Lend Lease.

    The key to understanding WWII is to recognize that FDR and Stalin were fellow travelers who tricked weaker foes into attacking and starting a world war neither Axis power had a snowman’s chance in hell of winning.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  15. annamaria says:
    @Michael Kenny

    Still playing an innocent babe?
    – Georgia: “A European Union investigation claimed that “open hostilities” began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against Tskhinvali on 7 August [2008]:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-Georgian_War
    – The Kaganat of Nuland (former Ukraine): “What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did:”
    “U.S. President Barack Obama imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup [in 2014], which was the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.” https://off-guardian.org/2017/03/24/what-americas-coup-in-ukraine-did/
    “Israel, is, in fact, arming neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine who have carried out attacks on ethnic or religious minority groups, including the Roma, and also Jews inside Ukraine:” https://therealnews.com/stories/israel-is-arming-ukraines-blatantly-neo-nazi-militia-the-azov-battalion
    “Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman, (Yiddish: וואָלאָדימיר באָריסאָוויטש גרויסמאַן‎), is a Ukrainian politician of Jewish descent who has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Groysman

  16. @Michael Kenny

    Moldova? Are we going to start a war in Moldova next?

  17. edNels says:

    This article is worth reading, well written, informative, a good antidote for the mass media Russia bs and especially helps to understand the way the crooks stole from the Russians through ”Privatization scheming” which is really where the opportunities are anymore.

    Not only in Russia nor Greece, but everywhere it has been Take everything that used to be in the public commons etc. and strip it for the parts and pc’s and Real Estate, not to speak of the private corporations that were taken apart through lapses in merger mania law, much to the loss of all and the future.

    Bad ,money chasing out the good. So overpopulation combined with resource depletion, unbridled technology at the ready look out.

  18. Seraphim says:
    @Sparkon

    Hitler made the same mistakes as Napoleon and the Kaiser and his Staff of conceited generals, to take Russia out of any combination that would imperil their war with England (plus grabbing her vast resources, essential for the war – like of course, oil). Also the gross sub-estimation of Russia’s real capacities. He scorned, as the Kaiser before him, the advise of Bismarck that any attack on Russia would end in failure. Bismarck was a statesman involved in many deals with Russia, who in addition had a first hand in-depth knowledge of Russia (he was ambassador to Russia for four years). He warned that due to the sheer size of Russia, of its climate, of its population and of its vitality, resources and of its Orthodox religion, she would put up a resistance that eventually would worn out any invader. He warned also that Russians would unite in the face of an attack like the ‘drops of mercury’. “Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come – do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play”.
    Now that ‘Mein Kampf’ is readily available (on this site) we learn that Hitler specifically rejected the arguments of Bismarck, on the ground that Russia is no more what she was since she lost its ‘German’ leaders who made it great!
    Stalin certainly would not have attacked. Russia never attacked first unprovoked. He was not sub-estimating his adversary. He knew of the preparations of Germany, possibly every detail of the Barbarossa plan, whereas the Germans were in the dark of Russia’s preparations. As in the time of Napoleon they were preparing for a war of attrition. The speed of the evacuation of all essential industries beyond the reach of the Germans is a proof of Russia’s preparedness. Napoleon and Hitler believed in the Blitzkrieg. And at the end Russians came for their money. Napoleon at Sainte Helene and France reduced to a second rate power, Hitler with a bullet in his head and Germany on the brink of disappearance. Russia thumbing her nose at American twits and twats.

  19. Seraphim says:
    @Michael Kenny

    For all practical purposes Moldova IS a sovereign country and it develops in its own way, good or bad. Moldova is NOT at the doorsteps of Russia, as the fake ‘nation’ of Ukraine is and is NOT a direct threat to Russia’s security. Georgia virtually is. BTW if Moldova has any territorial problems, then it is with Ukraine which detains illegally Moldovan territories. Moldova as it is now does not present any strategical interest to ‘Putin’. Romania maybe, but Romania is not Moldova. BTW, do you know where Romania is?

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  20. @Seraphim

    Well?
    Looks like that if we want to argue with Seraphim we have to get better prepared!!!!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  21. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    “So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. ”

    So that’s it. If a country tries to pursue its own domestic policy, its own foreign policy, its own sovereign interest, that is actually an interference in domestic US policy, as domestic US policy is to have control over all other countries.

    That is, if a country prevents the US from having control over it, that is an interference in domestic US politics. Domestic US policy is, that no nation can have independent foreign policy, domestic policy, development, etc, independent of the US.

    Likewise, when Angel Merkel said “…I argued that a strong civil society must be part of an open, secular society and made clear that we would like to see this strong civil society.” is actually an interference in the domestic affairs of Azerbaijan, because she has a pretension to dictate what is civil society for another country, Azerbaijan. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/28/azerbaijan-mulls-cooperation-with-csto.html Maybe Merkel supports some foreign NGOs’ opinions as to those matters. Azerbaijan may have a different view as to what constitutes civil society, just as Libya had a different view as to what constitutes democracy.

  22. Seraphim says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    This is a compliment. Thank you!

  23. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Sean

    How do you arrive at this:

    The deep state has begun to realise that China is quickly gaining on the US

  24. TomasRose says:

    Mikhail Khodorkovsky was frequently on the Charlie Rose show. Charlie Rose fawned all over his guest – no serious questions, just google eyes. I figured it must have been Mikhail Khodorkovsky that Charlie Rose was walking around naked with when he got me-too’ed.

  25. geokat62 says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    You’re right. I scoured the internet and couldn’t find anything to explain this.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.