The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Michael T. Klare Archive
Russia vs. China
The Conflict in Washington Over Who Should Lead America’s Enemies List
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

America’s grand strategy, its long-term blueprint for advancing national interests and countering major adversaries, is in total disarray. Top officials lurch from crisis to crisis, improvising strategies as they go, but rarely pursuing a consistent set of policies. Some blame this indecisiveness on a lack of resolve at the White House, but the real reason lies deeper. It lurks in a disagreement among foreign policy elites over whether Russia or China constitutes America’s principal great-power adversary.

Knowing one’s enemy is usually considered the essence of strategic planning. During the Cold War, enemy number one was, of course, unquestioned: it was the Soviet Union, and everything Washington did was aimed at diminishing Moscow’s reach and power. When the USSR imploded and disappeared, all that was left to challenge U.S. dominance were a few “rogue states.” In the wake of 9/11, however, President Bush declared a “global war on terror,” envisioning a decades-long campaign against Islamic extremists and their allies everywhere on the planet. From then on, with every country said to be either with us or against us, the chaos set in. Invasions, occupations, raids, drone wars ensued — all of it, in the end, disastrous — while China used its economic clout to gain new influence abroad and Russia began to menace its neighbors.

Among Obama administration policymakers and their Republican opponents, the disarray in strategic thinking is striking. There is general agreement on the need to crush the Islamic State (ISIS), deny Iran the bomb, and give Israel all the weapons it wants, but not much else. There is certainly no agreement on how to allocate America’s strategic resources, including its military ones, even in relation to ISIS and Iran. Most crucially, there is no agreement on the question of whether a resurgent Russia or an ever more self-assured China should head Washington’s enemies list. Lacking such a consensus, it has become increasingly difficult to forge long-term strategic plans. And yet, while it is easy to decry the current lack of consensus on this point, there is no reason to assume that the anointment of a common enemy — a new Soviet Union — will make this country and the world any safer than it is today.

Choosing the Enemy

For some Washington strategists, including many prominent Republicans, Russia under the helm of Vladimir Putin represents the single most potent threat to America’s global interests, and so deserves the focus of U.S. attention. “Who can doubt that Russia will do what it pleases if its aggression goes unanswered?” Jeb Bush asserted on June 9th in Berlin during his first trip abroad as a potential presidential contender. In countering Putin, he noted, “our alliance [NATO], our solidarity, and our actions are essential if we want to preserve the fundamental principles of our international order, an order that free nations have sacrificed so much to build.”

For many in the Obama administration, however, it is not Russia but China that poses the greatest threat to American interests. They feel that its containment should take priority over other considerations. If the U.S. fails to enact a new trade pact with its Pacific allies, Obama declared in April, “China, the 800-pound gorilla in Asia, will create its own set of rules,” further enriching Chinese companies and reducing U.S. access “in the fastest-growing, most dynamic economic part of the world.”

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the military strategists of a seemingly all-powerful United States — the unchallenged “hyperpower” of the immediate post-Cold War era — imagined the country being capable of fighting full-scale conflicts on two (or even three fronts) at once. The shock of the twenty-first century in Washington has been the discovery that the U.S. is not all-powerful and that it can’t successfully take on two major adversaries simultaneously (if it ever could). It can, of course, take relatively modest steps to parry the initiatives of both Moscow and Beijing while also fighting ISIS and other localized threats, as the Obama administration is indeed attempting to do. However, it cannot also pursue a consistent, long-range strategy aimed at neutralizing a major adversary as in the Cold War. Hence a decision to focus on either Russia or China as enemy number one would have significant implications for U.S. policy and the general tenor of world affairs.

Choosing Russia as the primary enemy, for example, would inevitably result in a further buildup of NATO forces in Eastern Europe and the delivery of major weapons systems to Ukraine. The Obama administration has consistently opposed such deliveries, claiming that they would only inflame the ongoing conflict and sabotage peace talks. For those who view Russia as the greatest threat, however, such reluctance only encourages Putin to escalate his Ukrainian intervention and poses a long-term threat to U.S. interests. In light of Putin’s ruthlessness, said Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a major advocate of a Russia-centric posture, the president’s unwillingness to better arm the Ukrainians “is one of the most shameful and dishonorable acts I have seen in my life.”

On the other hand, choosing China as America’s principal adversary means a relatively restrained stance on the Ukrainian front coupled with a more vigorous response to Chinese claims and base building in the South China Sea. This was the message delivered to Chinese leaders by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter in late May at U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Honolulu. Claiming that Chinese efforts to establish bases in the South China Sea were “out of step” with international norms, he warned of military action in response to any Chinese efforts to impede U.S. operations in the region. “There should be… no mistake about this — the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.”

If you happen to be a Republican (other than Rand Paul) running for president, it’s easy enough to pursue an all-of-the-above strategy, calling for full-throttle campaigns against China, Russia, Iran, Syria, ISIS, and any other adversary that comes to mind. This, however, is rhetoric, not strategy. Eventually, one or another approach is likely to emerge as the winner and the course of history will be set.

The “Pivot” to Asia

The Obama administration’s fixation on the “800-pound gorilla” that is China came into focus sometime in 2010-2011. Plans were then being made for what was assumed to be the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the winding down of the American military presence in Afghanistan. At the time, the administration’s top officials conducted a systematic review of America’s long-term strategic interests and came to a consensus that could be summed up in three points: Asia and the Pacific Ocean had become the key global theater of international competition; China had taken advantage of a U.S. preoccupation with Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster its presence there; and to remain the world’s number one power, the United States would have to prevent China from gaining more ground.

This posture, spelled out in a series of statements by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other top administration officials, was initially called the “pivot to Asia” and has since been relabeled a “rebalancing” to that region. Laying out the new strategy in 2011, Clinton noted, “The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas… it boasts almost half of the world’s population [and] includes many of the key engines of the global economy.” As the U.S. withdrew from its wars in the Middle East, “one of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.”

This strategy, administration officials claimed then and still insist, was never specifically aimed at containing the rise of China, but that, of course, was a diplomatic fig leaf on what was meant to be a full-scale challenge to a rising power. It was obvious that any strengthened American presence in the Pacific would indeed pose a direct challenge to Beijing’s regional aspirations. “My guidance is clear,” Obama told the Australian parliament that same November. “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace.”

Implementation of the pivot, Obama and Clinton explained, would include support for or cooperation with a set of countries that ring China, including increased military aid to Japan and the Philippines, diplomatic outreach to Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other nations in Beijing’s economic orbit, military overtures to India, and the conclusion of a major trade arrangement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that would conveniently include most countries in the region but exclude China.

Many in Washington have commented on how much more limited the administration’s actions in the Pacific have proven to be than the initial publicity suggested. Of course, Washington soon found itself re-embroiled in the Greater Middle East and shuttling many of its military resources back into that region, leaving less than expected available for a rebalancing to Asia. Still, the White House continues to pursue a strategic blueprint aimed at bolstering America’s encirclement of China. “No matter how many hotspots emerge elsewhere, we will continue to deepen our enduring commitment to this critical region,” National Security Adviser Susan Rice declared in November 2013.

For Obama and his top officials, despite the challenge of ISIS and of disintegrating states like Yemen and Libya wracked with extremist violence, China remains the sole adversary capable of taking over as the world’s top power. (Its economy already officially has.) To them, this translates into a simple message: China must be restrained through all means available. This does not mean, they claim, ignoring Russia and other potential foes. The White House has, for example, signaled that it will begin storing heavy weaponry, including tanks, in Eastern Europe for future use by any U.S. troops rotated into the region to counter Russian pressure against countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. And, of course, the Obama administration is continuing to up the ante against ISIS, most recently dispatching yet more U.S. military advisers to Iraq. They insist, however, that none of these concerns will deflect the administration from the primary task of containing China.

Countering the Resurgent Russian Bear

Not everyone in Washington shares this China-centric outlook. While most policymakers agree that China poses a potential long-term challenge to U.S. interests, an oppositional crew of them sees that threat as neither acute nor immediate. After all, China remains America’s second-leading trading partner (after Canada) and its largest supplier of imported goods. Many U.S. companies do extensive business in China, and so favor a cooperative relationship. Though the leadership in Beijing is clearly trying to secure what it sees as its interests in Asian waters, its focus remains primarily economic and its leaders seek to maintain friendly relations with the U.S., while regularly engaging in high-level diplomatic exchanges. Its president, Xi Jinping, is expected to visit Washington in September.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, looks far more threatening to many U.S. strategists. Its annexation of Crimea and its ongoing support for separatist forces in eastern Ukraine are viewed as direct and visceral threats on the Eurasian mainland to what they see as a U.S.-dominated world order. President Putin, moreover, has made no secret of his contempt for the West and his determination to pursue Russian national interests wherever they might lead. For many who remember the Cold War era — and that includes most senior U.S. policymakers — this looks a lot like the menacing behavior of the former Soviet Union; for them, Russia appears to be posing an existential threat to the U.S. in a way that China does not.

Among those who are most representative of this dark, eerily familiar, and retrograde outlook is Senator McCain. Recently, offering an overview of the threats facing America and the West, he put Russia at the top of the list:

“In the heart of Europe, we see Russia emboldened by a significant modernization of its military, resurrecting old imperial ambitions, and intent on conquest once again. For the first time in seven decades on this continent, a sovereign nation has been invaded and its territory annexed by force. Worse still, from central Europe to the Caucuses, people sense Russia’s shadow looming larger, and in the darkness, liberal values, democratic sovereignty, and open economies are being undermined.”

For McCain and others who share his approach, there is no question about how the U.S. should respond: by bolstering NATO, providing major weapons systems to the Ukrainians, and countering Putin in every conceivable venue. In addition, like many Republicans, McCain favors increased production via hydro-fracking of domestic shale gas for export as liquefied natural gas to reduce the European Union’s reliance on Russian gas supplies.

McCain’s views are shared by many of the Republican candidates for president. Jeb Bush, for instance, described Putin as “a ruthless pragmatist who will push until someone pushes back.” Senator Ted Cruz, when asked on Fox News what he would do to counter Putin, typically replied, “One, we need vigorous sanctions… Two, we should immediately reinstate the antiballistic missile batteries in Eastern Europe that President Obama canceled in 2009 in an effort to appease Russia. And three, we need to open up the export of liquid natural gas, which will help liberate Ukraine and Eastern Europe.” Similar comments from other candidates and potential candidates are commonplace.

As the 2016 election season looms, expect the anti-Russian rhetoric to heat up. Many of the Republican candidates are likely to attack Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, for her role in the Obama administration’s 2009 “reset” of ties with Moscow, an attempted warming of relations that is now largely considered a failure. “She’s the one that literally brought the reset button to the Kremlin,” said former Texas Governor Rick Perry in April.

If any of the Republican candidates other than Paul prevails in 2016, anti-Russianism is likely to become the centerpiece of foreign policy with far-reaching consequences. “No leader abroad draws more Republican criticism than Putin does,” a conservative website noted in June. “The candidates’ message is clear: If any of them are elected president, U.S. relations with Russia will turn even more negative.”

The Long View

Whoever wins in 2016, what Yale historian Paul Kennedy has termed “imperial overstretch” will surely continue to be an overwhelming reality for Washington. Nonetheless, count on a greater focus of attention and resources on one of those two contenders for the top place on Washington’s enemies list. A Democratic victory spearheaded by Hillary Clinton is likely to result in a more effectively focused emphasis on China as the country’s greatest long-term threat, while a Republican victory would undoubtedly sanctify Russia as enemy number one.

For those of us residing outside Washington, this choice may appear to have few immediate consequences. The defense budget will rise in either case; troops will, as now, be shuttled desperately around the hot spots of the planet, and so on. Over the long run, however, don’t think for a second that the choice won’t matter.

A stepped-up drive to counter Russia will inevitably produce a grim, unpredictable Cold War-like atmosphere of suspicion, muscle-flexing, and periodic crises. More U.S. troops will be deployed to Europe; American nuclear weapons may return there; and saber rattling, nuclear or otherwise, will increase. (Note that Moscow recently announced a decision to add another 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles to its already impressive nuclear arsenal and recall Senator Cruz’s proposal for deploying U.S. anti-missile batteries in Eastern Europe.) For those of us who can remember the actual Cold War, this is hardly an appealing prospect.

A renewed focus on China would undoubtedly prove no less unnerving. It would involve the deployment of additional U.S. naval and air forces to the Pacific and an attendant risk of armed confrontation over China’s expanded military presence in the East and South China Seas. Cooperation on trade and the climate would be imperiled, along with the health of the global economy, while the flow of ideas and people between East and West would be further constricted. (In a sign of the times, China recently announced new curbs on the operations of foreign nongovernmental organizations.) Although that country possesses far fewer nuclear weapons than Russia, it is modernizing its arsenal and the risk of nuclear confrontation would undoubtedly increase as well.

In short, the options for American global policy, post-2016, might be characterized as either grim and chaotic or even grimmer, if more focused. Most of us will fare equally badly under either of those outcomes, though defense contractors and others in what President Dwight Eisenhower first dubbed the “military-industrial complex” will have a field day. Domestic needs like health, education, infrastructure, and the environment will suffer either way, while prospects for peace and climate stability will recede.

A country without a coherent plan for advancing its national interests is a sorry thing. Worse yet, however, as we may find out in the years to come, would be a country forever on the brink of crisis and conflict with a beleaguered, nuclear-armed rival.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Russia 
Hide 114 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Russia began to menace its neighbors.

    The history of post Soviet times actually shows Russia reacting to threats from its neighbours not menacing them eg Georgia where Tbilisi’s troops attacked Russians in the autonomous republics that didn’t want to be part of post soviet Georgia hoping that Uncle Sam and his foreign l;egion NATO would help out. Now in Ukraine, the clear threat to expel it from its longtern warmwater port and a particualrlyt naty anti Russian coup in Kiev saw it support the Eastern Ukrainians and allow a referendum by the Crimeans. Note if the p[redominat proapaganda narrative of big bad Putin was real, why have the refugees from the fighting in East Ukraine and dissatisfied Crimeans headed West instead of where they have wound up – in Russia? Kind of difficult to sustain the current narrative in the light of this inconvenient fact.

    • Replies: @Realist
  2. “For the first time in seven decades on this continent, a sovereign nation has been invaded and its territory annexed by force.”

    I guess when the USA invades sovereign nations (Iraq, 2003) and dismembers them by force (Serbia/Kosovo, 1999) it doesn’t count.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    , @HA
  3. None of these “national interests” seem to be ones that have anything to with the actual interests of 300 million Americans.

    • Replies: @Realist
  4. Considering that USA will never be able to free itself from the tar-baby wars of the Middle East, the truth really is clear: that USA is unable creditably to project power in Europe through the old neocon plan to divide up Russia as the old USSR has been divided, and simultaneously, to project power in Asia, particularly in the western Pacific. As this article (and many comments by myself) have pointed out, there is no way out of the strategic imperative to lay off on either Russia or China. The choice had to be made, and it was made in 2014. The choice was made by the old Eurocentric neocons, while still the primary influence on NSC policy – to prioritize the Ukraine misadventure and basically to scrap the pivot to Asia. This became clear early in 2014 when the Vietnam opportunity was let go, when the USA basically rejected the pivot by rejecting rather than embracing Vietnam as an ally of the USA.

    NB: US Navy was conspicuously absent in May 2014 as PLA ships drove out Vietnamese coast guard – “police boats” – and then deliberately rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat. And subsequently US Navy for the first time invited the PRC into RIMCON 2014, even allowing in an uninvited PLA spy ship as well!

    So let’s stop pretending: the old Eurocentric neocons – long (since 1971) allied with the Standing Committee government of the People’s Republic of China – were, in 2014, still dominating enough in USA’s NSC, to force the choice of the Ukraine project over the pivot. The pivot, in effect, had to be called off. Since then, yes, things have been changing, but too little too late – as signified by the appointment of Ashton Carter to Secretary of Defense. So far, all that Carter has been able to do is to pretend to strongly support the old Eurocentric Ukraine idiocy by playing up minor deployments (a showcase of tanks, etc., scattered around Eastern Europe), and, in the western Pacific, a few puny “drills” for the nations that are being bullied by the PRC since 2014 (“littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth, diving and salvage ship USNS Safeguard and a P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft and at least one Philippine frigate”) – all lying safely outside of any areas of the western Pacific to which the PRC seriously has laid claim.

    That is, so far, Carter has been able to implement one of the chief rules of warfare according to Sun Tzu: “When weak, appear strong!” The moment of truth was in May 2014. The moment was lost. But it ain’t over til it’s over, right?

  5. neutral says:

    In this PC age I would say the answer is obvious, it has to be Russia. Its a white country which still has a strong Christian presence in society, what greater villain can the USA have than that ?

    • Replies: @Realist
  6. Marian says:

    My worthless vote – neither. The real enemy of the U.S. is the federal government and its corporate and fanatic Zionist overlords. They sold out American national interests when they recreated China with industrialization, and the U.S. became a third world dumping ground.

  7. @Simon in London

    I guess when the USA invades sovereign nations (Iraq, 2003) and dismembers them by force (Serbia/Kosovo, 1999) it doesn’t count.

    Quite correct, Simon. That’s what means to be ‘exceptional’.

  8. Realist says:
    @Anonymous

    My exact thoughts. This article seems to be written by an American hegemonist.

  9. Realist says:
    @Fran Macadam

    “None of these “national interests” seem to be ones that have anything to with the actual interests of 300 million Americans.”

    Indeed and half way around the planet.

  10. Realist says:
    @neutral

    Don’t forget they have nationalist pride.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  11. I know! Let’s get Russia and China to ally against us! That seems like a good idea! Then we’ll be able to treat both of them as enemies! Yay!

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  12. @Patrick Armstrong

    ahhahahaa. right? russia? pfft, it is nothing. china? please! lets combine them!!! now that is an enemy worth making!

  13. HA says:
    @Simon in London

    “I guess when the USA invades sovereign nations (Iraq, 2003) and dismembers them by force (Serbia/Kosovo, 1999) it doesn’t count.”

    No, and it shouldn’t. Kosovo’s recognition was on genocide-prevention grounds, in response to an ideological campaign by Serbia that was fairly explicit in its goals. As misguided as the recognition was, one should keep the context in mind, given that Kosovo has yet to become the 51st state of the United States or the 17th state of Germany. In other words, good luck trying to match that up with what Russia did to Crimea.

    Moscow did try to draw parallels by raising the spectre of bloodthirsty Bandera-ites annihilating all Russian speakers, but the only people falling for that are those eager to fall for anything.

    A more apt analogue to Kosovo’s situation is to be found in the case of South Sudan, which also coasted to recognition on genocide-prevention grounds in the wake of the something-must-be-done panic that struck because of what was happening in Darfur, even though the two situations are distinct.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @schmenz
    , @Bill
  14. Mulegino1 says:

    America’s greatest enemy is neither Russia or China; it is the mindless triumphalist and hegemonic mindset which dominates the elites in Washington, D.C. It appears to be infectious and percolates down to the broader masses of infotainment consumers who like to think that the U.S. military is invincible, when in reality the U.S. has NEVER defeated a first rate foreign power without allies, and has not engaged in a conflict with an adversary possessing even rough conventional parity with the U.S. since facing the Chinese in Korea.

    Mediocre minds such as those of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ash Carter, Hillary Clinton, and Jeb Bush (a particularly dim bulb) believe that they can just magically summon U.S. power projection and Putin and China will just wilt before it – don’t they have a sense of history? Their rants about “Russian aggression”, their total ignorance about the conflict in Ukraine, and their childish, predictable trite invocations of Munich, Hitler, and “appeasement” betray their utter unsuitability as responsible leaders.

    The U.S. – or rather the Atlanticist-Zionist Empire has reached its imperial limits. Americans ought to be tired of war and the spreading of chaos and destruction in their name and under the utterly cynical and ludicrous banner of “freedom” and “democracy”. Americans must look to the development of our own Great American Space and give up our dreams of perpetual thalassocratic dominance of the world.

  15. Terminal stupidity from the
    Idiocracy.

    The psychosis,echoed by a compliant MSM, results in blowback a non-GMO brain-addled onlooker could predict:

    http://thesaker.is/the-wests-brawndo-journalism/#comment-118211

    Critical thinking? Who needs that..

  16. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @HA

    There is zero proof that there was a “genocide” perpetrated by Serbia, I challenge anyone to show proof.

    A Finnish forensic team debunked the alleged “civilian mass graves”, and proved that deaths were of a military nature and not the excuse as offered by Bill Clinton at the behest of his Zionist masters of “genocide of civilians”.
    see:
    http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=110941
    and:
    http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/jhatton.htm
    “The Observer, one of Britain’s most highly respected Sunday papers on June 4, 2000, that at all these sites, only 2,100 bodies have been found. The London Sunday Times said in December 1999, “Many of the victims died during the fighting or from U.S./NATO air strikes. Neither would qualify as Serb atrocities.” Another newspaper states that little investigation has been done into whether the bodies are Serb or Albanian.”

    Stop reciting what the supremacist Jew dominate media manufactures.

    • Replies: @HA
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  17. @Realist

    Yes, the media and social justice warriors of “our” countries in the West would have a mental and physical breakdown if our military ran a recruiting ad like this:

    Look at the straight, White, heterosexual patriarchy of that thing!

    • Replies: @Realist
  18. HA says:
    @Wally

    “There is zero proof that there was a “genocide” perpetrated by Serbia,”

    I’m not sure it makes sense to argue with a lunatic (or else a paid provocateur whose mission is to make Holocaust denial an even shadier enterprise), but I said that Kosovo’s recognition was inextricably linked to fears of genocide, not on any verdict that a genocide had actually taken place.

    Right or wrong, those concerns were based not only on longstanding documentation such as is evidenced by my previous link to Cubrilovic’s memorandum, but also by the report of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace on the Balkan War early in the previous century, and behavior by Serb Chetnik and other nationalist militias in most any other conflict there that has taken place since. (And yes, should anyone wish to add, the Serbs were hardly alone in acting the way they did, and were in many cases on the receiving end.)

    Again, whether all that amounts to genocide is a separate matter from whether one is concerned that genocide (or at least expulsion) is imminent. In your rush to denounce “what the supremacist Jew dominate media manufactures”, do try and refrain from setting up straw men. You’ll seem a little less insane that way, though in your case, you’ll still have a ways to go.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
  19. @Wally

    There is zero proof that there was a “genocide” perpetrated by Serbia, I challenge anyone to show proof.

    Translation: There is no proof that I will accept. When asked to state a standard of evidence that I will accept, I will dodge. When challenged that I apply a double standard, I will run away.

    A Finnish forensic team debunked the alleged “civilian mass graves”, and proved that deaths were of a military nature

    See below on this point.

    and not the excuse as offered by Bill Clinton at the behest of his Zionist masters of “genocide of civilians”.

    I have no idea what Zionists have to do with this…

    see:

    http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=110941

    Well, there’s an unbiased source: some Serbian guy posting on a neo-Nazi forum.

    and:

    http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/jhatton.htm

    “The Observer, one of Britain’s most highly respected Sunday papers on June 4, 2000, that at all these sites, only 2,100 bodies have been found. The London Sunday Times said in December 1999, “Many of the victims died during the fighting or from U.S./NATO air strikes. Neither would qualify as Serb atrocities.” Another newspaper states that little investigation has been done into whether the bodies are Serb or Albanian.”

    Part of the responsible taking of a side in an issue has to do with examining the totality of the available evidence. The evidence that BobbyBeGood has offered here in defense of his position is, at best, meager. A Serbian posting information on a neo-Nazi Web site is hardly unbiased. That doesn’t make it untrue, mind you — it just would require some other corroboration.

    For instance, you might want to check the report itself, if it’s available. It turns out it is:

    http://web.archive.org/web/19991116063236/http://www.usia.gov/regional/eur/balkans/kosovo/texts/racak.htm

    Money shot:

    Most of the victims wore several warm jackets and pullovers. No ammunition was found in the pockets. It is likely that no looting of the bodies has occurred, because money (bank notes) was found on them. The clothing bore no identifying badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed. Shoes of some of the victims, however, had been taken off, possibly before the bodies were carried inside the mosque. Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman. There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians.

    Oops!

    Stop reciting what the supremacist Jew dominate media manufactures.

    I’m beginning to see why you refuse to engage in actual debate here. Your points are flimsy at best and always tip your Jew-hating hand.

    • Replies: @HA
  20. HA says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “I have no idea what Zionists have to do with this…”

    To be fair to the lunatic, I would not deny a connection between the Clinton administration’s support for Israel and its hyper-eagerness to find — and militarily intervene on behalf of — some Muslim-dominated ethnic group, so as to claim some semblance of objectivity.

    Had the Serbs continued bombing primarily Catholics, they might have had more success, though after a few years, the international community tired of that, too.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Neither conflict is smart. To get a basic sense, there’s 3 problems that politicians want solved with the military. ISIS, Russia and China.

    ISIS is an existential problem. Russia is a problem in the sense that Putin wants to restore Russia’s place in the world, as one of former glory. China is a problem in the sense that they may become a legitimate rival to American exceptionalism.

    As long as ISIS is a problem, you cannot prioritize either Russia or China. It becomes a matter of time, before the US buckles under that much military and economic burden.

    Russia is the more manageable issue, because there are many European allies to help the US. China also will not be bothered, as they will need many decades to build economic ties.

    On the other hand, focusing on China will put strain on many European nations which depend on China. We will begin to have other nations distance themselves from what the US wants. Russia will also have much more leverage, because of this. We will also be creating an enemy in China, when currently they really aren’t one. We cannot assume that countries like Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea will stayed aligned with the US. There’s growing suspicion in those countries towards the US military. While their senior citizens still see the US somewhat favorably, the sentiment among their youth is mixed. It’s been noticeable since Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Also, this puts additional strain on our potential relationship with India, who we already have a tenuous relationship with. Modi doesn’t have a favorable view of the US for obvious reasons. India will watch very carefully how we accept China’s rise and that will affect our relationship in that part of the world. India depends alot on China. Pivoting to China will accelerate Japan’s military rebirth under Abe, the most nationalist 1st world leader. Also, we must keep in mind that China has maintained a neutral foreign policy on the Middle East and Ukrainian conflicts. They could switch policy overnight and begin funding and weaponizing both Iran and Russia. This will lead to many unpredictable rises of power. Judging from trade relations that those countries currently have with China, none of those are favorable to the US over the next 20 years.

    America should not be risking the creation of enemies where she doesn’t need to. A fight against ISIS is just that. A fight against Russia is a fight against both. A fight against China is a fight against all three of them along with some new countries. It’s foolish and we must plan strategically for a longer term view than just this election cycle. It makes one wonder if politicians have the maturity of schoolyard boys or urban hoodlums.

    Good foreign policy or military strategy should primarily be designed around the skirmishes and conflicts that you avoid. Pick your battles wisely. Do not be surprised when things unravel as Hillary goes after China.

  22. @HA

    I see your point but rather think it had more to do with the Rwandan catastrophe of five years earlier, for which Slick Willy was unceremoniously left holding an inordinate share of the blame for international inaction. I don’t think he could politically afford not acting in a case of imminent genocide, particularly when the victims were white. Also, let’s not forgot that the whole Serbia v. KLA conflict coincided rather unfortunately with Lewinsky-gate, so I think there was a touch of “Wag the Dog” here as well. Zionism, if it was a factor at all, I think was pretty far down the list of reasons here.

    • Replies: @HA
  23. Big Bill says:
    @HA

    And the Russians (and other ethnics) living in Crimea also fear genocide at the hands of the Nazi/Bandera roving armies. The Ukrainian Civil War did not start in February 2014. It started over 100 years ago. The ethnic conflict was suppressed by the Soviets in the Ukraine just like Tito suppressed the nationalists in Yugoslavia.

    No difference. And just as resurgent nationalists blew Yugoslavia apart, so resurgent nationalists blew the Ukraine apart.

    Frankly, I have real problems forcing Crimea and Crimeans to stay in the now-independent Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic simply because Kruschev communistically “gave” Crimea and Crimeans (like some giant piece of meat he could dispose of at a whim) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic back in 1954.

    For the USA, the soi disantworld-wide champion of freedom and self-determination, to ratify a grotesque, immoral, totalitarian and communistic act like Kruschev’s just boggles my mind.

    The Nazi collaborationist Chetniks in Serbia dreaming of Greater Serbia are no different from the Nazi collaborationist Banderists (Azov Brigade, Right Sector, etc.) in the Ukraine who are dreaming of a Greater Ukraine and are ethnically cleansing/genociding Russian ethnics in what used to be Eastern Ukraine.

    For all the talk of “freedom” and “self-determination” in Kosovo, it is not a country. It is one giant US military base, run by Europe and the US military.

    • Replies: @HA
  24. schmenz says:
    @HA

    HA,

    What did Russia “do” to Crimea? Are you referring to the internationally-observed vote of the Crimeans to re-join (note the word, “re-join”) Russia, a vote which international observers found nothing askance about?

    You are I am sure aware that historically Crimea was a part of Russia which was “gifted” to Ukraine by the Ukranian Kruschev in 1954.

    • Replies: @HA
    , @AP
  25. Renoman says:

    One day soon you’re gonna realize
    That the Leaders of the Country are telling you lies
    That they sold it all and they sold it cheap
    And they put it in their pockets cause you were weak
    And they’re gonna get away ya they’re getting away
    And they really don’t give a damn what you say

  26. HA says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “…coincided rather unfortunately with Lewinsky-gate, so I think there was a touch of “Wag the Dog” here as well.

    I was going to mention that, too, especially since I’m guessing BBG will also regard Lewinsky as part of some vast Zionist honeypot operation.

  27. HA says:
    @Big Bill

    “And the Russians (and other ethnics) living in Crimea also fear genocide at the hands of the Nazi/Bandera roving armies.”

    Yeah, sure — as a matter of fact, I already addressed that:

    Moscow did try to draw parallels by raising the spectre of bloodthirsty Bandera-ites annihilating all Russian speakers, but the only people falling for that are those eager to fall for anything.

    I stand by that, especially in the light of what the Ukrainian police did to Muzychko.

    • Replies: @like it is
  28. HA says:
    @schmenz

    “What did Russia “do” to Crimea?”

    I’ll let you look that up, since you’re the one who sees some need to ask. The more relevant point is what Russia agreed to do some four decades after Kruschev (who was born in Russia, I might add) redrew the map. In particular, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes (which, if it were still in the possession of, things might well have played out differently), it agreed to abide by those borders. That was an agreement that both the US and UK co-signed, both being particularly keen on having the dissolution of the Soviet Union be as nuke-free as possible.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @Kiza
  29. AP says:
    @schmenz

    Are you referring to the internationally-observed vote of the Crimeans to re-join (note the word, “re-join”) Russia, a vote which international observers found nothing askance about?

    You do realize the international observers were largely a collection of Stalinists and neo-Nazis, a sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop reenaction club:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/03/pro-russian-extremists-observe.html

    There were some Eurosceptics mixed in, but the overall picture was rather disgusting.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @Bill
  30. I hope this article is a one-off that slipped between the cracks of an otherwise very informative and honest site. This author is clearly out of his depth on this topic and would be better served to stick to writing about things he knows about; like fossil fuels. If I wanted MSM talking points I’d turn on the TV.

  31. @HA

    Tell that to the people massacred in Odessa by gleeful banderites

    • Replies: @HA
  32. Seraphim says:

    @the need to crush the Islamic State (ISIS), deny Iran the bomb, and give Israel all the weapons it wants

    That would rather suggest that the foreign policy of US is not in any disarray. On the contrary it has only a paramount objective: defending and promoting the interests of Israel both in the ME and in “diaspora” (AIPAC!). Russia is and would remain “the principal threat” because it is the principal power that is a significant obstacle in the way of Jewish political and economical interests globally. China is secondary because she never was a threat to Jewish interests as Russia is, but that does not mean that the AIPAC cannot see that in a not so distant future she would become. And perhaps the fact that China is still largely perceived as a reservoir of coolies toiling to feed the US consumers with cheap toys obscures the perspective.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
  33. HA says:
    @like it is

    “Tell that to the people massacred in Odessa by gleeful banderites…”

    Again, for those who will believe in anything, that’s certainly the kind of thing I could see that they’d be willing to believe. For the rest, here’s a start towards a more comprehensive take on what happened that May 2nd:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes#2_May_city_centre_clashes

    Be forewarned, sources listed in the citations extent beyond what RussiaToday readers would find acceptable, and therefore paint a different version than the one promulgated by those who don’t let trivialities like evidence stand in the way of their ideology. So shield your eyes, if you must.

    Funny, so little in the way of response to my references to the Budapest Memorandum, laid out in black and white. I wonder why?

  34. Giuseppe says:

    It’s not really going out on a limb much to predict that based on current US hubris (we can do anything after all) BOTH Russia and China will tie for first place on the State Department’s enemies list. Both will be on the receiving end of an aggressive US foreign policy. We are the indispensable hegemon after all, so the thought is, and can apply military pressure on two or more fronts without draining our resources.

    But it won’t work. The unintended consequences of pushing around both China and Russia will force cementation of a new and much, much stronger Sino-Russian partnership. This watershed process (or event)–referencing Mackinder’s theory of geopolitics–will be the inexorable consolidation of the heartland of Eurasia; a new hegemon will emerge from this geopolitical centrifuge as an economic powerhouse. It–China/Russia–will be rich in natural resources, land-based, awaiting only improved infrastructure to arrive. The geography says it must be so.

    Our political leaders, our media and our military are formulating policies under the blindness and bondage of their own groupthink. And now you know more than Ashton Carter.

  35. Seraphim says:

    So many entries by HA makes it HAHAHAHA! LOL!
    It’s hard not laugh at the regurgitations of the most ridiculous memes of the MSM’s HAsbara.
    Crimea takes place of pride. The golden dream of the creation of a Jewish Soviet Republic in the Crimea frustrated again by the re-incarnation of Stalin and Hitler at the same time (Pustatler or Hitpustal or Hitstalput or Stalhitput)! And the New Khazaria instead of Novorossyia! Thinking that these Nu-lands had already Kagans ready to rule over them!

  36. schmenz says:
    @AP

    Thank you. However, a more reliable citation would be preferred, rather than one by someione who has an axe to grind, no?

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @AP
  37. schmenz says:
    @schmenz

    Somehow, AP, the rest of my moniker didn’t show up on this reply. It should have been “schmenz”, not “s”.

  38. schmenz says:
    @HA

    You are possibly forgetting about the decades-long treaty regarding Sevastopol?

    Other than that, perhaps it would be helpful to ask the Crimeans why they wished to rejoin Russia and who rejoined by vote, not with gun barrels pointed at them.

    Lastly, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

    • Replies: @HA
  39. Kiza says:
    @HA

    One of the conditions of this agreement signed by Russia, US and UK, as you say, was that Ukraine remains an independent country. How does this align with a US organised and lead coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine? Half of the current “Ukrainian Government” (in reality a two-bit puppet government, similar to those in South America) are people of dual citizenship, it is hard to find any who have not been educated in the US.

    And which one came first? The coup or the referendum? Who breached an agreement first, US or Russia?

    This is a typical US approach to the World, what we do is:
    1) always right because God gave US unlimited rights and
    2) always legal because US writes the laws with its powerful military.
    But when you do something to defend yourself – that is a crime against some law or breach of an agreement you signed.

    Accession of Crimea back into Russia was a purely defensive response to a US organised coup. But since the USUK are the controllers of the public discourse, let us forget about the US coup and turn a defensive Russian action into aggression. This swap succeeded only in the US and most of its puppet countries through ruthless brainwashing of the domestic population, although with some resistance. The rest of the World does not buy it.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
  40. @Seraphim

    “Russia is and would remain “the principal threat” because it is the principal power that is a significant obstacle in the way of Jewish political and economical interests globally”

    Eh, not really, Russia has never opposed Jewish interests except in the sense that Putin wants Jewish Oligarchs working for him, not dominating him & the Russian state as under Yeltsin. I guess the Oligarchs and their Harvard friends do resent this. But Putin would much prefer to have Jewish support and certainly isn’t anti-Jewish, he’ll happily accuse his enemies of anti-Semitism.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  41. @Kiza

    “This swap succeeded only in the US and most of its puppet countries through ruthless brainwashing of the domestic population, although with some resistance. ”

    I was a bit surprised and disappointed how most people in Britain seemed to buy into the brainwashing re Russian aggression in 2014 (much as they did re the 2008 Georgian war), when they had only just refused to believe the 2013 lies about evil Assad’s tyrannical oppression of the brave little ‘moderate Syrian rebels’, despite similar media tactics.

    I guess asking the public to support what we could all see was really Al Qaeda in overthrowing another secular dictatorship was a bridge too far, whereas there isn’t quite the same level of moral inversion in Ukraine, both sides being secular and the anti-Russian Ukraineans not having expressed any desire to feast on the blood of our children.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  42. Kiza says:
    @Simon in London

    Hello Simon,

    The root cause of the success of the anti-Russian propaganda when compared with anti-Iraq and anti-Syria propaganda to which the population offered some resistance, is that there has been virtually nothing positive about Russia ever in the USUK media. Consider just the portrayal of the Russians in the entertainment media. Have you ever seen a positive one? Of course not, in the Anglo media the Russians men are cartoonish Russian Mafia villains and the Russian women are prostitutes or scheming whores at best.

    Russian=rotten bad.

    Such conditioning of the domestic population has been going on for decades. Now, the population just reacts with its dog reflex (do not say Pavlov’s Reflex, he was a Russian scientist but no such thing exists).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  43. “For the first time in seven decades on this continent, a sovereign nation has been invaded and its territory annexed by force.”

    Oh, come off it! Crimea was, and has since the late 1700s, been a part of Russia. Khruschev quixotically assigned Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954, for domestic administrative purposes, at a time when Ukraine’s national capitol was in Moscow. The fact the Ukranian ingrates tried to hang onto Crimea after the 1991 dissolution of the USSR, was rather embarrassing. The Russians did not invade a foreign territory; they took back what every reasonable person who’s made a study of history, well understands to have been authentic Russian national territory, inhabited overwhelmingly by Russian-speaking ethnic Russians, who perceive Crimea as part of Russia.

    Meanwhile, we get to partially dismantle Serbia in 1999, and that’s just hunkie-dorie, apparently.

  44. HA says:
    @schmenz

    “You are possibly forgetting about the decades-long treaty regarding Sevastopol?”

    With all due respect, it sounds as if you are tossing anything you can think of in the hope that it might stick. Do you honestly think Crimea would have been exempted from the memorandum in question, or that they simply forgot to take it into consideration?

    “Other than that, perhaps it would be helpful to ask the Crimeans…”

    If tomorrow, the US decides that the Guantanameros should have the right to “self-determination”, and all those living happily (i.e. no prisoners) under the terms of its treaty should decide whether they wish to rejoin Cuba or the US instead, I think, given the context of the arrangement between Cuba and the US, and the military bases involved, you’d be able to see through that canard pretty easily. The same goes for any other military base and those resident there. Besides, the time to bring all that up would have been before Ukraine gave up its nukes and the agreement was signed.

    “Lastly, the Soviet Union no longer exists.”

    Again, if you think that question through a bit, you’ll see it doesn’t make sense. In any case, the signatory was the Russian federation, not the Soviet Union.

  45. HA says:

    “Half of the current “Ukrainian Government”… are people of dual citizenship, it is hard to find any who have not been educated in the US.”

    If counting up the number of Ukrainians educated in the US vs. Russia is enough to void the agreement in question, the matter should have been addressed at the time it was signed. Do we also count up Russian speakers vs. English speakers and adjust for their fluency in either tongue?

    Regardless, this is nonsense — a patent attempt to toss whatever you can at the wall in the vain hope that something might stick, or that the audience will be unable to see it for what it is. If you think anyone who isn’t already swooning over Putin will be convinced, there is really nothing for us to discuss.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  46. Seraphim says:
    @Simon in London

    @Russia has never opposed Jewish interests except in the sense that Putin wants Jewish Oligarchs working for him, not dominating him & the Russian state as under Yeltsin

    A bit of hair-splitting, innit?

  47. Seraphim says:
    @Kiza

    @Such conditioning of the domestic population has been going on for decades

    It has been going on for centuries. Russia has been for the West the embodiment of barbarity, boorishness, drunkenness, paranoid tyranny, heresy and anti-semitism, at least since her rejection of the Union Council of Ferrara-Florence and the rolling back of the heresy of the Judaizers in the 15-16th Century.
    The so-called Testament of Peter the Great, the Polish fabrication, offered the theme of the permanent aggression. It is invoked today as if it was never debunked (which shows clearly its propagandistic purpose).
    Russia was shunned by the Liberals (Jewish) of the 19th Century, by the Socialists (Jewish or National-…) and Zionists as well.
    Add Hollywood (Jewish) and the dual citizens of Ukraine (Jewish) to the mix and we’ll see that the poor dog has no chance but to salivate.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  48. Kiza says:
    @HA

    Yours is a vain attempt to create a straw-man, allocate it to me and then demolish it.

    I say coup, you pick citizenship of the Ukrainian Government ministers from my post to create your own straw-man. Where did I say that the citizenship makes all the difference? The citizenship of Uki Gov officials is the outcome of the mentioned coup, or is this too difficult for you to comprehend?

    I am not sure why so many commentators here respond to you when you resemble so much a paid government troll. But it is a credit to Mr Unz if the government trolls are starting to notice his Alternative Media website. I thought you guys are all working RT.com. A new department?

    • Replies: @HA
  49. Kiza says:
    @Seraphim

    My interpretation of the Western hate of Russia is that it is dual:

    1) the Western Christians always looked down on Eastern Christians as not really Christian, more pagan (how things reverse, the ancient Christians were fed to the lions for their beliefs; today’s Western Christians want to throw their Eastern co-believers to the nuclear lions). I believe that this comes from the xenophobia, intolerance and competitiveness of the West – you are either my kind of Christian or you are not a Christian at all (you are either with us or against us).

    2) Russia is the largest land in the World and mostly underutilized. The future source of resources is significantly in Russia. As Madeleine Albright put it – it is just not fair that (such barbarians such as) the Russians own so much natural wealth (what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  50. AP says:
    @schmenz

    Well, the list of who were there can be verified. This guy just put all the names together.

    For example, the Belgian neo-Nazi Luc Michel is mentioned as an observer on Russian TV:

    http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-international-observers-114/

    Where he is described as a “Belgian political activist” and quoted.

    Johan Backman, a Finnish neo-Stalinist, is also quoted (and described as a “human rights activist”).

  51. Seraphim says:
    @Kiza

    We are in perfect agreement.

  52. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “Where did I say that the citizenship makes all the difference?”

    I didn’t say it makes all the difference, and you shouldn’t put words in my mouth while complaining about straw men, as it is blatantly hypocritical. In any case, citizenship is indeed a big deal to you, apparently:

    Half of the current “Ukrainian Government” (in reality a two-bit puppet government, similar to those in South America) are people of dual citizenship, it is hard to find any who have not been educated in the US.

    That being the case, I will leave it to others to judge whether I’ve set up some straw man. As for the rest, you can play semantics games with “coup” all day, and it is of no concern to me since it is simply smoke and red herrings and other such obfuscation. In the end, not one acre of Ukraine will have been annexed to the US. The same cannot be said of Crimea.

    And the fact that you would even think that the US government would care one way or another what gets said on a site like this, to the extent that they would hire someone like me to comment on it, indicates a severe disconnect with reality. I submit that neither your opinion nor mine matters much to those in the State Dept.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  53. Kiza says:
    @HA

    When opinions do not matter then people resolve disputes using guns (the US habit).

    Maybe you do not know, maybe you pretend that you do not know, but both US and UK have opinion shaping teams. JTRIG is the name of one of those teams of highly skilled online professionals, mentioned in the Snowden documents. Therefore, the USUK Government does pay attention to the public discourse and tries to spin information online as much as in the MSM. Sometimes, I read comments on rt.com just to have a laugh, because these paid government trolls have established Total Information Dominance in rt.com unmoderated comments. There is so much bad opinion about Russia in the comments that one has to ask oneself – why are all these people coming to RT if they do not believe anything RT journalist write and are so anti-Russian. Maybe they are these millions of (undeclared) US unemployed who have nothing better to do than bash Russia. Just like you here, they keep repeating and repeating and repeating a single magical bombastic word “annexation”, to imprint it on everyone’s mind.

    I am not sure yet that you are a paid troll or not, but I will keep reading your comments for a little while longer to try establish. Some people do fall for your slight of keyboard and engage in discussion. But I will not bother responding, because I find your points to be pure subterfuge for the purpose of provocation.

    • Replies: @HA
  54. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “When opinions do not matter then people resolve disputes using guns…”

    And this, in a nutshell, is why (cosmonauts and Tchaikovsky’s notwithstanding) the rest of the world will continue to regard Putin and his circle of followers as an inflated banana republic of Jersey Shore wannabes. I don’t need to make them look bad — you do a good enough of job of that by yourself.

    As for American propaganda, I have no doubt the State Department has a significant number of flaks trying to sway Russian opinions. I just very much doubt they would waste their efforts on a site like this, and if you cannot understand that, then again, that is a far greater condemnation of your grip on reality than any that I could present. Likewise, I can only hope that these American flaks are more capable of forming a coherent argument less reliant on mere deflection and obfuscation than are the trolls, useful idiots, and fellow travelers found on this site. That should not be so very difficult, given what I’ve seen, but if those they are trying to convince are as troglodytic as you are, coherent arguments will only get them so far. Maybe a collection of neon tracksuits, Speedos and orange tans will be more persuasive.

    • Replies: @Bill
  55. Bill says:
    @HA

    Yeah, nobody in Kiev talking genocide. Nobody at all.

    • Replies: @HA
  56. Bill says:
    @AP

    Is this because your preferred election observers were denied entry or because they declined to participate?

  57. Bill says:
    @HA

    As for American propaganda, I have no doubt the State Department has a significant number of flaks trying to sway Russian opinions. I just very much doubt they would waste their efforts on a site like this

    Right. Managing Anglosphere website comment boxes has been outsourced to the Israelis. Seems likely that much of the management of Russian comment boxes has been outsourced to the same place, given the high number of Russian speakers there.

    Website comment boxes are not important enough for CIA and State to bother with at this point. But, of course, these two organizations spent and spend an enormous amount of time and effort managing public opinion in foreign lands (and presumably in the US as well, though they don’t brag much about this). If this place ever gets to be important, Ron Unz will get a visit from someone to explain to him that succeeding in spreading crimethink is dangerous, even for rich guys.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  58. HA says:
    @Bill

    “Yeah, nobody in Kiev talking genocide. Nobody at all.”

    Did I say no one in Kiev was discussing genocide? On the contrary, there is of course, this:

    https://plus.google.com/100863217176738201289/about?gl=us&hl=en

    If that is what you meant, then I concur that it is quite relevant to what is happening today.

    Glad we finally agree on something.

  59. This morning I heard in a Radio Free Europe podcast that Walter Russell Mead compared Russia’s new wave of patriotism to a collective cocaine high. Mead’s name rang a bell, so I looked up his image and his name at Amazon. He has what’s called a “punchable face”. His hot book is God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World, which has two giant gold bricks in the shape of a cross on its cover. Looking at Mead’s face and his book, and listening to Radio Free Europe talk about how Russia can’t handle gay marriage like us, made me realize just what a vile and repulsive collection of people run the Anglosphere. I’m realizing more and more that we’ve been going down the wrong track for quite a while. Watching these people react to Russia being Russian and Orthodox Christian really helps a person realize this. Ezra Pound called our current regime “Yankee Judea” and they put him in a cage for it. He was right though.

  60. HA says:
    @Cagey Beast

    “…made me realize just what a vile and repulsive collection of people run the Anglosphere.”

    Still claiming to see all this “far more dispassionately than others do”? If so, maybe it is time to reconsider. And like I said, there’s plenty of room in Rossiya-Matushka, last time I checked, notwithstanding the refugee influx from Putin’s most recent adventure. It seems a tad hypocritical to be playing up the glories of one side while safely ensconced in “Yankee Judea”, as you put it, given that the latter has become so vile to you. Then again, given your pretenses of being dispassionate, I guess you bungled the hypocrisy thing a while ago.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  61. @HA

    Still claiming to see all this “far more dispassionately than others do”? If so, maybe it is time to reconsider.

    Of course I see the Ukrainian-Russian crisis far more dispassionately than people with personal ethnic ties to the place and, of course, I lack that distance when discussing the Anglosphere in which I was born and raised. How could it be otherwise?

    It seems a tad hypocritical to be playing up the glories of one side while safely ensconced in “Yankee Judea”….

    Who says it’s their English-speaking world and not mine? Why should I have to leave and they stay? Just because one branch, one cultural strain of Anglo culture has become a weed choking out all rivals does not mean the garden belongs to them. The nasty and grubby little men got the upper hand over the 20th century because they were hired by the very wealthy to propagate ideas that served their masters’ purposes. The nature of mass media technology then gave them an unbeatable advantage over the rest of us. Walter Russell Mead looks to be the latest of the type that C.S. Lewis recognized and critiqued in his Men Without Chests and That Hideous Strength. Other men gave their warnings too but they were drowned out by the guys with the Megaphone. Thankfully that 20th century set-up is falling apart now.

    No, just because one faction, one mutated strain of Anglophone culture is currently ruining things does not mean they will keep on winning forever. Their repulsiveness and charmlessness is so pronounced that they can’t even hide it like they used to. The rest of us can now bypass their old cultural choke-points and get a good sense of who and what they are.

    I guess you bungled the hypocrisy thing a while ago.

    Why do all your comments have this sneering tone to them? If we’re all so stupid and duped then you should stop bothering with us and go get a job as governor of some Ukrainian region. Citizenship can be arranged on your first day at work.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @HA
  62. Kiza says:

    Personally, I have no doubt that rt.com comments section is heavily infested by USUK government paid trolls, but really heavily. The Editor in Chief of RT, Margarita Simonyan, claims that there is a US military unit of a battalion size (several hundred) which works on RT. I am not sure how she knows and how true this is, but I have personally engaged some of these professional trolls and have become convinced that they were not amateurs (unemployed US people with too much time on their hands).

    There are several ways to recognize a pro, but I will list only two:
    1) The pros have “talking points” prepared by propaganda professionals, which they are tasked with delivering on the Internet; talking points always use the trigger words, such as the “annexation” etc, for which the population has already been conditioned through the MSM.
    2) Often they use sock-puppetry software, to attack opposite opinions and make it look as if the majority opinion is on their side; for example, unz.com recognizes sock puppetry, but its method of detection is no match for the professional sock-puppetry software developed by USUK using the unlimited tax-payers and/or printed money.

    On unz.com, I have seen several commentators employ #1, but there was only one amateur who tried #2 and got easily detected.

    BTW, online manipulation is a standard feat of the elite and the governments they control. Imagine investing so much into MSM and then leaving the online to freedom, would that make any sense at all? There was this online magazine which established recently that an Israeli lobby group paid a troll (a university student) to spew anti-semitism in its online comments, to discredit this online magazine which was not Israel-friendly. I think Mr Unz needs to be careful about the same, because extremist comments could be used to shut-down unz.com as well. When the Government goons knock on the door, they do not say: you gave too much freedom and a platform for criticizing the US-Gov policies, then they say your website is promoting anti-semitism, anti-gay, anti-something which is sanctionable by the standing law.

  63. Seraphim says:
    @Bill

    @Managing Anglosphere website comment boxes has been outsourced to the Israelis

    You hit the nail! It was not that hard, if you can detect that special kind of humor (genre Sasha Baron Cohen) that give them away.

  64. Seraphim says:
    @Cagey Beast

    @this sneering tone to them?

    This is the normal tone of the chutzpah.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  65. HA says:
    @Cagey Beast

    “Why do all your comments have this sneering tone to them?”

    After that “Yankee Judea” rant, you’re going to accuse me of sneering? Well, in that case, guilty as charged. I’m going to sneer right back, as far as that goes. As for claiming that I’ve sneered at anything else, I show exasperation when I feel it warranted. For example, I don’t much like what was done to Iraq or Kosovo, but to compare the months of coalition building, UN inspectors, efforts to negotiate, etc., that preceded those misbegotten operations, with what happened in Crimea warrants exasperation. Same goes for the rest of my comments. If you or anyone else want to call it sneering or chutzpah (as if we don’t know where that’s going), let’s just say I don’t trust your interpretation of my motives any more than I trust your grand extrapolations of geopolitics based on a statue, or a politician’s religious overtures, or a book cover, or on whatever it is that someone’s “punch me” face has to do with anything, or for that matter, anything else you gullibly want to gulp down.

    • Replies: @denk
  66. @Seraphim

    You may have a point. I was just having a look at the Wikipedia entry for C.S. Lewis’ Abolition of Man and found a link to this page of Ayn Rand’s raging and ravings in the margins of her copy of the book: http://www.lewisiana.nl/aynrand/index.htm

    Ayn Rand has that same tone and outlook you get from people like Masha Gessen and countless internet commentators. The poor Russians had to live with them for centuries.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  67. denk says:
    @HA

    *For example, I don’t much like what was done to Iraq or Kosovo, but to compare the months of coalition building, UN inspectors, efforts to negotiate, etc., that preceded those misbegotten operations, with what happened in Crimea warrants exasperation.*

    why ?
    all are premeditated regime change campaigns.
    the genocidal war on iraq was launched under the wmd bs,
    the fraudulant r2plunder was invoked in the attack on ex yugo,
    ukraine was a standard color rev op using the tried and tested *swarming adolescents*.

    • Replies: @HA
  68. Seraphim says:
    @Cagey Beast

    You have a big point. Don’t you think that Masha Gessen and Ayn Rand (aka Alisa Rosenbaum) look very much alike? A family air… They might have been relatives, after all.

  69. @Cagey Beast

    Cagey, if you haven’t heard of him already, you’d love The Saker. Here’s one of his classic pieces defining and describing the peculiar historical phenomenon of ‘Anglo-Zionism’: http://thesaker.is/anglozionist-short-primer-for-the-newcomers/

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  70. HA says:
    @denk

    “the genocidal war on iraq was launched under the wmd bs”

    I don’t know what r2plunder is, but call me when Kurdistan or Kosovo become state #51.

    If putting together a color rev with swarming adolescents is so easy, maybe Putin should try it. He could take over all of Ukraine, fold it into his neo-Soviet Eurasian Union thing just like Belorussia, and no one would care. As it is, he chose to send in tanks and redraw maps, and so here we are.

    • Replies: @denk
  71. @Seamus Padraig

    Yes I like the Saker generally. I bristled at first at his criticism of the western Christian tradition but I’m starting to see his point as I read up a little on Orthodoxy but that’s a whole other topic. The Saker’s thinking and Alain Soral’s overlap quite a bit. I find them both interesting.

    HA, there’s a video at YouTube you’d love. It’s got Putin riding a bear at the end and all sorts of stuff. You can find it by searching at YouTube for:
    Версия клипа от известного клипмейкера и продюсера Артёма Гришанова
    which translates as:
    ” Version of the clip from a famous music video Director and producer Artem Grishanova”

    It’s under the title: “Louna — Бойцовский клуба” or “Louna — Fight Club”, which is the name of the song. Check out the lyrics as well. They do match the mood of many in these troubled times:

    http://www.lyricsmania.com/fight_club_lyrics_louna.html

    Remember though, Masha Gessen loves us and wants us to be happy. So does Walter Russell Mead and so do they all. All the think-tankers and commentators want what we want and care about what we care about. Thank goodness they remind us of these facts all the time.

  72. KA says:

    “It was also Kissinger who, quite candidly, said that terrorists were simply those who opposed the new world order imposed by the West. This is a chilling admission from an architect of U.S. foreign policy. Fortunately, it is a position that is being rejected by an increasingly large contingent of freethinking nations that refuse to be “talked into ultimatums.”

    http://beta.counterpunch.org/2015/07/03/going-off-script-in-st-petersburg/

    In the context of this rejuvenated rivalry between west and Russia- China ,its a matter of second that is all it takes to brand Russia and China as comintern new Bath Party, or al Quida or Taliban albeit with a different paint on the face.

  73. @Cagey Beast

    Thank you for pointing my attention to a person named “Walter Russell Mead”.
    I never heard about him. When I looked via Google at his
    “рожу лица”,
    the well-known expression
    “морда кирпича просит”
    came to mind.
    For English-speaking readers: those expressions are not nice,
    but without any cursing words; can be spoken in the presence of children.
    In particular, second expression translates as “his face asks to be hit by a brick”.

  74. KA says:
    @Cagey Beast

    At one time Kremlin was called ” evil” and ” godless ” by Neocon members in Reagan administration. Kremlin wasn’t tolerant of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism back in those days .
    Now Rusdia follows the Orthodox line on many social issues . Neocon finds that anachronistic ,regressive,and somehow expressive of sinister Russian game plan.

    Ths on the surface might look very contradictory and inconsistent. But empires survive by not only expanding the space and the legal definition of various activities , but also by inverting previous moral concept and replacing old values with new .

    Gay marriage and LGBT issue could be a good political tool in future against China or Russia or Iran.

    In America if a real nationwide poll were conducted ,there would be a wall separating the Mexican town and villages from US ,there would be no support for gay marriage and neither for indiscriminate abortion. Neither there would be support for warmongering or foreign entanglement .

    One wonders how the myth of popular support were created for sexual issues but totally abandoned when the issues of war and health care access were involved . It takes 1 month to start war,7 days to impose sanction on other countries and it takes 2 yrs for health care reform . It takes decades to address education and student debt. Still nothing gets done.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    , @AP
  75. @KA

    At one time Kremlin was called ” evil” and ” godless ” by Neocon members in Reagan administration. Kremlin wasn’t tolerant of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism back in those days .
    Now Russia follows the Orthodox line on many social issues . Neocon finds that anachronistic ,regressive,and somehow expressive of sinister Russian game plan.

    Yes all true, and the same people who used to welcome anything from the Soviet Union now can’t stand anything from Russia. In 1985 they’d welcome an exhibit of Soviet folk art to their city but in 2015 they’d call for a boycott of an identical exhibit because the paintings are now Russian and not Soviet. It would be disgusting, anti-gay and pro-Putin art and not progressive Soviet art. Same paintings, same western “progressives’, different reaction.

    And Hillary Clinton proudly poses with Pussy Riot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/07/hillary-clinton-poses-with-pussy-riot/

  76. denk says:
    @HA

    *I don’t know what r2plunder is, but call me when Kurdistan or Kosovo become state #51. *

    kosovo is a *de facto* colony,
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/washington-gets-a-new-colony-in-the-balkans/
    the same template was applied to iraq, afghan , libya, they’ve been gunning for syria for yrs now.

    outright annexation is so yesterday, this is how the empire works these days..
    take over a country by color rev/engineered uprising/shock and awe, appoint a *viceroy* to do washington’s bidding, announce *mission accomplished*.

    p.s.
    shock !
    u’ve never heard of the r2p[rotect] invoked in libya, syria ?
    kosovo was the mother of all r2[plunder] scams.

    • Replies: @HA
    , @HA
  77. Hey, this letter from US Senator Dick Durbin to the Ukrainian Prime Minister is cool: http://thesaker.is/you-think-the-ukraine-is-independent-think-again/

    It’s neat to see the US Senate chosing Yatsenyuk’s cabinet for him. Now that’s a good example of how to “think global, act local”.

    • Replies: @HA
  78. HA says:
    @denk

    “kosovo is a *de facto* colony,…”

    And war is peace, and freedom is slavery.

    More on Sara Flounders, the author of the piece you linked to:

    Sara Flounders… has been active in ‘progressive’ and anti-war organizing since the 1960s. She is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World Party…. She works on legal defense efforts for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, Lynne Stewart, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and other alleged political prisoners.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Flounders

    Do the searches on Mumia Abu-Jamal and Lynne Stewart yourself. Draw your own conclusions regarding the “political prisoners” she works for.

    By the way, here’s a photo of her.

    http://theiranproject.com/blog/tag/sara-flounders/

    Run it by Cagey Beast and the immigrant from former USSR. They’re apparently able to draw all sorts of conclusions from that kind of thing.

    • Replies: @denk
  79. HA says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast

    The relevant question is whether the bureaucrats that Durbin and his ilk manage tor eject result in a government that is less corrupt government than the one that preceded them. I’m not sure how that will play out, and there is good reason to be suspicious, but given the level corruption Ukraine attained throughout the decades under Moscow’s shadow, I can see why some Ukrainians might think that even an entity as corrupt as the US congress might be a relative improvement.

    Another relevant question is what happens if Poroshenko ignores Durbin’s letter. Will tanks roll in from points West to carve up his country further?

  80. AP says:
    @KA

    Now Russia follows the Orthodox line on many social issues

    In official rhetoric, yes. In actual social behavior – no, not even close. Russia is much worse even than the gay-loving modern USA.

    Comparing Russia to the USA, Russia’s nemesis Poland and to the country in conflict with Russia, whom some misguided conservatives oppose in favor of supporting Russia:

    Divorce rate (2011-2010):
    Russia: 51%
    Ukraine: 42%
    Poland: 27%
    USA: 53%

    % of people who never go to church (2008):
    Russia: 30%-40% (same as Sweden and Germany)
    Ukraine: 10%-20%
    Poland: <10%

    % of pregnancies that end in abortion:
    Russia (2014): 29.3%
    Ukraine (2010): 21.2%
    Poland (2012): 1.95%
    USA (2011): 16.9%

    Homicide rate:

    Russia (2012): 9.2
    Ukraine(2010): 4.3
    Poland (2011): 1.2
    USA: (2012): 4.7

    Adult HIV prevalence (2011, according to WHO):
    Russia: 1.1%
    Ukraine: .9%
    Poland: .1%
    USA: .6%

    Percentage of adults of reproductive age living together unmarried:

    Russia: 9%
    USA: 9%
    Poland: 4%

    Keep in mind that USA rates are all skewed by certain subpopulations that, actually, may resemble Russians. Ukraine rates are also skewed – the pro-Russian eastern provinces are even worse than Russia when it comes to abortion rates, HIV rate, etc., whereas Russia's bitter enemies in the Western parts of Ukraine lead generally moral lives.

    If western conservatives really wanted to adopt a conservative country it would be Poland, but that would mean being on the same side as neocons on something. It's about priorities I suppose.

    • Replies: @KA
  81. Seraphim says:

    @Kurdistan or Kosovo become state #51. *

    Kurdistan is to become a resurrected Kingdom of Adiabene, the ancient kingdom which flourished on the same grounds whose ruling dynasty converted to Judaism in the 1st Century AD, helping the revolt of Judaea against the Romans. It means today a vassal state of Israel.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  82. HA says:
    @denk

    “…outright annexation is so yesterday,…”

    Ah, would that were true. Alas, someone in Moscow, not to mention Sevastopol, apparently didn’t get your memo or update their OS. Or else, you’re less clued in on how the world works than you think. In any case, try focusing your efforts on bringing those so-yesterday folk up to date, and maybe we’ll all be better off.

    I wonder if Sara Flounder was one of the international observers in the Crimea elections? Kind of seems like the type, if you ask me.

    • Replies: @denk
  83. Kiza says:
    @Seraphim

    Bondsteel military airbase and Pristina Airport in Kosovo are strategic bases for the US control of the South Easter Europe. Kosovo Albanians, being predominantly Muslim, have the highest birth rate in Europe and their poverty is matching their birth rate. Why would US inherit the Kosovo poor for the sake of keeping military bases in the place? This is just another typical subterfuge by this character HA.

    The US never had any interest in making Kosovo a state of the US. Africa is full of US occupied places similar to Kosovo, and the US still does not make them the states of US. Instead, the US gave this large territory it separated from Serbia to Albania for several reasons:
    1) large Albanian population in the US, including Albanian drug mafia one of the most ruthless in the US (you will never see a movie about it),
    2) strategic position of the country of Albania, controlling the entrance into the Adriatic sea, the warm water sea which goes the deepest into the European continent (Venice & Trieste ports),
    3) high mineral resources in Kosovo, now available to Western companies for exploitation,
    4) Serbian image as Russian oriented (a valid image).

    In summary, the US was happy to drop a new army base and use an existing Serbian airport in Kosovo, after bombing Serbia to take 15% of its territory away, but not happy to get involved in Kosovo’s huge social problems. Kosovo is currently the biggest European source of illegal migrants into EU (excluding North Africans). They travel through Serbia to Hungary, and the EU member Hungary is now planning to build a wall/fence against such migrants illegally crossing into Hungary.

    • Replies: @HA
  84. KA says:
    @AP

    Thanks. But what was the statistics in 1990 or in 2000?
    Is Russia being supported at a cost to Poland by the neocon?
    I am sure you have the facts. Can you share please?

    By the way
    – there is this article in Int Herald Tribune -Jan 13, 2001- ” Gusinsky case worries Albright”
    Albright excoriates Putin government for bringing criminal charges against media giant Valdimir Gusinsky .
    Nothing has changed. Liberal interventionist and neocon warmongers have much more in common than what they would like people to think

    • Replies: @AP
  85. denk says:
    @HA

    i see u cant refute the points made by flounders
    but launch a personal attack instead.
    +ad hominem is the last resort of a……..+

    *By the way, here’s a photo of her. *

    jeeze, you spend all your time doing this ?

    • Replies: @HA
  86. denk says:
    @HA

    …outright annexation is so yesterday,…

    *Ah, would that were true. Alas, someone in Moscow, not to mention Sevastopol, apparently didn’t get your memo*

    im on murikkan imperialism.
    since when has moscow, the object of your derision, becomes the moral standard for the unitedsnake, that alleged *flag bearer for western democrazy* ?

    • Replies: @HA
  87. AP says:
    @KA

    Russia has been improving in these areas since the 90’s. The homicide rate peaked in 1994 and spiked again in 2002; it was even higher than among African-Americans at those times.

    But despite the improvement, as we have seen, it is still quite immoral and it will take a long time before Russia reaches the USA’s level . ..and probably it will never reach Poland’s level. Think of Russia as the sincerely reforming violent alcoholic who quotes the Bible now, who only binge drinks 4 days a week instead of daily, and who beats his wife only every other week now. Sure, there is improvement, but he’s still hardly a hero, or someone to look up to. And the fact that he’s quoting the Bible and saying nice things more than anyone else doesn’t change that.

    Is Russia being supported at a cost to Poland by the neocon

    Neocons hate Russia. For this reason, many conservatives, who have legitimate gripes with neocons, give knee-jerk support to Russia, even in those cases (Ukraine) where Russia is in conflict with some real and genuinely conservative places. It is quite unfortunate for some to argue that moral peoples ought to be placed under debauched Russia’s sphere of influence.

    • Replies: @KA
  88. KA says:
    @AP

    USA both the neocons and the liberal support Poland not out of fellow feeling,or for same moral stand or for abysmal immoral common attitudevThey support, for Poland does American bidding . Its march to Iraq war , support for rendition program, black CIA sites for few bucks prove that its a country that has same moral spine as that of any other country among the coalition of the willing.
    And what has happened out of that the knee jerk support from the regular conservatives to Russia? Nada. Nothing.
    When was the last time USA supported Russia- Russia of Czar, Soviet or post Soviet?

    • Replies: @AP
  89. HA says:
    @denk

    “i see u cant refute the points made by flounders”

    cant i? You call Kosovo a colony? Where’s the oil, where’s the resources, where’s the rich deposits now flowing into America’s banks that will begin to offset the costs of that misbegotten operation? Do you even know what colony actually means, or do you toss out words like that in order to get your voter base agitated?

    Dumping a worthless link onto a comment and pretending you’ve presented points that need to be refuted is not an argument worth taking seriously. If “u cant” be bothered to provide actual arguments (or type actual English, apparently), leave me to glean whatever else I can from the array of experts your ilk surrounds yourself with, given that people like Cagey Beast find that more relevant anyway..

    • Replies: @denk
  90. HA says:
    @denk

    im on murikkan imperialism….the moral standard for the unitedsnake, that alleged *flag bearer for western democrazy* ?

    How much glue does one have to sniff before one can write something like this? I’m guessing it would take at least a few hits just to parse it, so I think we’ll have to end it there.

    • Replies: @denk
  91. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “Bondsteel military airbase and Pristina Airport in Kosovo are strategic bases for the US control of the South Easter Europe.”

    Yeah, the jewel in the American crown, designed to safeguard SouthEastern Europe, from what, those NATO bases in Turkey maybe?

    In other words, forget Israel, forget China, forget AlQuaeda. What the US is really worried about is a secure South Eastern Europe.

    “3) high mineral resources in Kosovo, now available to Western companies for exploitation,”

    Let’s see some numbers. How much are these mineral resources worth, how much of them have rolled into Western companies that would otherwise have remained off limits, given that even Serbia is trying to join the EU?

    “In summary, the US was happy to drop a new army base and use an existing Serbian airport in Kosovo, after bombing Serbia to take 15% of its territory away, but not happy to get involved in Kosovo’s huge social problems. “

    Because the Serbs did such a lovely job of taking care of Kosovo’s social problems all by themselves. Ah, the good old days.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  92. AP says:
    @KA

    They support, for Poland does American bidding . Its march to Iraq war , support for rendition program, black CIA sites for few bucks prove that its a country that has same moral spine as that of any other country

    I judge a country’s “moral spine” by the behavior of its population. By that standard, Russia is simply not in the same league as Poland. Indeed, it even compares poorly to the USA.

    Poland seeks an alliance with the USA because it is too small to be a power on its own, and for legitimate historical reasons it doesn’t trust Western Europe and it is afraid of Russia. So, it seeks an alliance with the USA. This is why is was involved in the Iraq war tragedy. And while the USA’s involvement in the middle east has been awful, there are many people far more worthy of pity than the Islamists who found their way into the CIA blacksites.

    • Replies: @KA
  93. Kiza says:
    @HA

    One point is sufficient to cover your whole comment:
    How many Kosovo Albanians were illegal migrants when Kosovo was part of Serbia, how many are illegal migrants now? In other words, when was life better? Answer: about 5x more people are living Kosovo now.

    This is exactly why a small percentage of Albanians was committed to remaining in Serbia, but the US and Germany supported and trained KLA terrorists, who killed opponents, extracted their body organs and sold them to the back market in Germany and Israel. Thus, the victims of the organ trade that KLA ran were both the Serbian and the Albanian war prisoners. But KLA had strong links with Albanian drug mafia in the US and in EU, and Albanian mafia poured money into the deeply corrupt (rotten) Western political system and media. This is how you buy yourself the services of the US rent-a-military (to bomb for non-US interests).

    Why does US need South-Eastern Europe? The US, together with its EU puppet, just killed the Russian South Stream gas pipeline using the stupid and totally corrupt Bulgaria. Russia then tried to build an alternative route through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia, but the US created a color revolution in Macedonia to prevent this. The US military base Bondsteel is there to prepare Albanian terrorist groups and launch their raids into Macedonia and Serbia, if and when a need for this arises. If Russia somehow succeeds building the new pipeline, these raids will target the pipeline, about 100 km away from the Bondsteel base.

    Finally, the regime in Serbia is US+EU appointed, most MSM are owned by Germany and this is why the EU is sold to Serbians as no-alternative. Seriously, they even use this exact expression in their brainwashing MSM propaganda: “There is no-alternative to joining the EU”. Naturally, the corrupt Serbian elite is keen to join the EU because it will become the technocracy in firm control of the country, as all Western client regimes do.

  94. HA says:

    “One point is sufficient to cover your whole comment…”

    Only if if you start branching out into pointless segues of your own choosing. I’m not arguing that separating Kosovo from Serbia was the right thing to do, only that Serb officials had made a good mess of that situation already, and had long since lost any shred of credibility in Bosnia and elsewhere, before the Kosovo situation came to a head.

    Moreover, contrary to the red herring that Sara Flounders raised (in the article denk linked to), the decision to bomb the Serbs was not based on allegations that genocide that happened, but rather, that allowing the Serbs to continue their misbegotten policies risked future situations like Srebrenica. Again, I do not agree that granting Kosovo a relatively easy ticket to independence was the right solution, but I understand why many at that point no longer trusted the Serbian government to continue their rule there.

    As for whatever strategic importance Bondsteel imparted (today it is stopping Russia, yesterday it was supposedly Kosovo’s rich coal deposits, tomorrow it will be who knows what), even by your allegations, the US doesn’t need military bases to foment terrorist activity in that part of the world, whether that means blowing up Russian gas lines or importing drugs, or whatever else you allege. Moreover, the US would have found easy customers in Croatia or Macedonia had they wanted to build bases there, so the essential need for Kosovo as a “colony” is a matter you have failed to address.

    • Replies: @HA
  95. HA says:
    @HA

    Oh, and as for organ trafficking, the countless allegations that organs were ripped out of POW’s and other such horror stories could never be substantiated, despite repeated efforts by Serbian officials to coerce Kosovar criminals to confess to taking part in such operations in exchange for leniency.

    There was indeed organ trafficking in Kosovo, see here and here, but that was a scam in which poor people from Moldova and elsewhere were enticed to come to Pristina where the organ transplanta took place (and whereupon the donors were sent back without payment or adequate medical care).

    That is indeed horrendous (and the sentences were ridiculously light – less than 10 years for just a few of those involved) but anyone who thinks that kind of thing would never have happened under Serbia’s aegis is living a pipe dream.

  96. KA says:
    @AP

    I got it . Polish people have spine and are noble . Is it some kind of new thingie in the international diplomatic market?

    • Replies: @AP
  97. Kiza says:

    You keep inventing things, repeating propaganda from MSM and interpreting the words of others to suit your agenda.

    Very often you use partial truths to spin propaganda conclusions. For example, you lie that there is no proof for organ trafficking by the KLA, Wikipedia is not an always reliable source but it points in the right direction. An official report by Dick Marty a Swiss prosecutor and EU investigator:
    “On 12 December 2010, a draft[37] report from Swiss prosecutor Dick Marty to the Council of Europe was pre-released.[38] The report alleged that the Republic of Kosovo’s prime minister, Hashim Thaçi was the head of a “mafia-like” group responsible for smuggling weapons, drugs and human organs through eastern Europe.[39] As stated in the report, the KLA held prisoners in a network of six facilities located in Albania, and Thaçi’s “Drenica Group” had the greatest responsibility for the prisons and the fate of those held there.[39]”

    Your partial truth is that there were naive poor from Moldova selling their kidneys to KLA. Yes true, but taking organs from prisoners was also proven and then covered up by the US and EU. What would a “humanitarian” bombing campaign on Serbia look like if their infantry on the ground, the KLA, was trading in prisoners’ body organs. In the West, the term “humanitarian” means using up humans!

    Finally, Srebrenica, a big Western holly grail lie. So typical of the constant Western manipulation of the truth (which you practice). Yes, there was a massacre of prisoners in Srebrenica, between 400 and 1500 Bosnian Muslim soldiers were massacred by the local Serbs living in villages around Srebrenica. The Muslim Bosnian Army was using Srebrenica, a UN safe heaven for the refugees, to launch raids on the surrounding villages and massacred more than 1,000 Serbian villagers (there is plenty of evidence about this). The US and UK set this safe heaven for the Muslim Army and the Dutch “peacekeepers” never demilitarized the “safe heaven” which was their primary duty as UN peacekeepers. After several weeks of fighting, Srebrenica enclave was taken by the Serbian Bosnian Army. If the Srebrenica “UN Safe Heaven” resisted an Army attack for several weeks was it demilitarized? This massacre was a crime of revenge that the US+EU and their media had so much understanding for when KLA terrorists did it to Serbs after winning Kosovo. To create The Legend of Srebrenica, the West added all the dead from the fighting, the Serbs as well as the Muslims and not only from Srebrenica then from the surrounding areas and voila, 8,000 killed. Hitler’s Große Lüge, Western endless lies.

    This is a standard modus operandi of the Western propaganda machine:
    1) keep quite about the Kiev’s bombing of civilians in Donbas,
    2) inflate and misrepresent Serbian killings.
    All in the “fog of war”.

    • Replies: @HA
  98. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “The report alleged that the Republic of Kosovo’s prime minister, Hashim Thaçi was the head of a ‘mafia-like’ group responsible for smuggling weapons, drugs and human organs through eastern Europe.” (emphasis mine)

    Sorry to disappoint you, but allegations do not equal proof. There was, for example, the story of Adrian in my first link above, the Kosovar thug who received lenience in exchange for saying what Serb authorities wanted him to say. He, for example, claimed a heart was sawed out of a chest (of a conscious and unsedated prisoner) with a bayonet and then sent to Tirana to be flown to Turkey or elsewhere. But the story simply didn’t pan out even though it was a cause celbre throughout Serbia:

    Adrian’s testimony was striking, but it also seemed to connect one too many dots. By his account, he had participated in the barbaric murder of a Serb, received praise from a notorious war criminal, taken a suspicious package from a doctor at the yellow house, and delivered this parcel to a plane bound for Turkey. And his description of the surgery seemed bizarre: why, for example, had the Serb not been fully sedated?…Prem Shekar, a cardiac-transplant surgeon at Harvard Medical School, told me that Adrian’s tale was medically implausible…. A heart transplant requires a truly sterile environment, he said…. Moreover, a heart can last only four to six hours outside a body. There was simply no way you could transport a heart from a remote camp in Albania to a hospital in Turkey, and then complete a lengthy operation, without the heart failing first.

  99. HA says:

    “Finally, Srebrenica, a big Western holly grail lie…. Yes, there was a massacre of prisoners in Srebrenica, between 400 and 1500 Bosnian Muslim soldiers were massacred by the local Serbs living in villages around Srebrenica.”

    I think you need to work on the consistency of those two sentences a little more. The killing of 400 to 1500 Bosnian Muslim soldiers, under the noses of the UNHCR, was indeed a spectacle the international community wanted to make sure did not happen again, and the worries of a scenario like that being repeated was a major concern in launching the Kosovo operation. If you’re trying to refute something I’ve said, you’ll need to try harder.

  100. AP says:
    @KA

    I’m just pointing out that Poland has among the highest church-going rate, lowest abortion rate, lowest divorce rate, fairly low homicide rate, etc. etc. in the “white” world, while Russia is among the worst in these categories – worse even, than the USA. Conservatives can draw their own conclusions about moral spine, nobility. etc.

  101. Kiza says:

    Did your “International Community” give a hoots about a thousand civilians killed by the same 28th Bosnian Muslim Army Division which operated, as you say, “under the noses of the UNHCR”. These Serbians in villages in the mountains surrounding Srebrenica were mostly killed in the favorite Muslim way – by slitting the throats with a big knife, because this is how pigs are killed (which Muslims despise and do not eat).

    These Serbian victims are as invisible as the Donbas civilians killed by the US supported Nazis in Ukraine. They have been wiped off from existence by MSM.

    In the Western propaganda world, it is more humane that US killed more than a million Iraqis than that Russians permitted the Russians of Crimea to ascend to Russia without one dead. The same Western Propaganda Machine wants to blow up the Srebrenica revenge massacre (a crime common in civil wars) into a Crime of the Century.

    Of course, the Bosnian Serb Army should have conducted a court marshal on the captured members of the Muslim Army, identified the killers and executed them. But being attacked by the Western special forces, the Iranian and Afghani mujahedin brought into Bosnia by US military planes and the regular Muslim army, they went for a quick and wrongful justice: the sons of the civilians killed by the Muslims were given the weapons to administer “justice”. It was a crime by all international standards, but not 10x more that the West is adding to it to justify its own crimes. Should I mention My Lai or a million other examples?

    The key question is – who caused the war in Bosnia and in Kosovo and the answer is the US, UK and Germany. The same team as in Ukraine.

    Except for the constant noise the morally rotten West is making, it has zero right to judge anyone.

    • Replies: @HA
  102. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “These Serbian victims are as invisible as the Donbas civilians killed by the US supported Nazis in Ukraine.”

    And whose fault is that? Could it have something to do with the Serb propaganda ministers who, instead of actually finding proof of what they alleged, simply found some criminal willing to make a deal and in exchange for a reduced sentence, had him make “confessions” that a real reporter talking to a real doctor was able to shoot to pieces in one paragraph?

    This reminds me of Soviet apologists who complain about Conquest getting the number of Stalin’s victims wrong when the Soviet information blockade and propaganda protocols were the main obstacle to the information getting out in the first place. For the last time, I do not agree with what was done with Kosovo. But I understand, after the lies of Milosevic and Karadzic, beginning with fake desecration of Croatian Jewish memorials and continuing all the way to Adrian’s confessions about seeing heart transplants initiated with bayonet saws, why after a while no one believed Serb officials anymore, even in situations where they happened to have a point. Pretending that the US or Germany started it, instead of Milosevic et al. is not going to fool anyone who has studied that mess.

    One would think the propaganda ministers at RT would learn from that lesson, but they seem intent on repeating it.

  103. Kiza says:

    You are a pure propagandist of the Western regimes, I have little doubt now: constant subterfuge, obfuscation and shifting of argument. Who gives a sh.. what you agree with or not about Kosovo? You pull out these Western MSM lies and make them into “truths”, 99% of your points are either lying and shifting the truth, that is repeating the Western media lies. What Serbian Propaganda Minister??? Such thing never existed, did you mean the US and UK Ministry of Truth? I have no time to continue, I am not paid like you are. Good luck to you in your propaganda effort here, but only the like minded people will buy “truths” from you. I am sure I will come across you again because you are a permanent commentator here, most likely under several different nicks. But I know now who you belong to. I am unlikely to engage you in discussion again, because I have no time for individuals or teams of propaganda professionals such as you.

  104. denk says:
    @HA

    *cant i? You call Kosovo a colony? Where’s the oil, where’s the resources, where’s the rich deposits now flowing into America’s banks that will begin to offset the costs of that misbegotten operation? Do you even know what colony actually means, or do you toss out words like that in order to get your voter base agitated?

    do u even know whats *de facto* ?
    +First, Kosovo is not gaining independence or even minimal self-government. It will be run by an appointed High Representative and bodies appointed by the U.S., European Union and NATO. An old-style colonial viceroy and imperialist administrators will have control over foreign and domestic policy. U.S. imperialism has merely consolidated its direct control of a totally dependent colony in the heart of the Balkans.+

    u dont like the word *colony* ?
    , shall we settle for *kosovo is a de facto murikkan 51 state* ?

    p.s.
    you may add the *five eyes*, jp, sk, ph, to the list !

    • Replies: @HA
  105. denk says:
    @HA

    *How much glue does one have to sniff before one can write something like this?
    I’m guessing it would take at least a few hits just to parse it,*

    u made a very lame attempt to deflect the discussion on murkkan imperialism in kosovo etc. to your perceived russian trangression in ukraine.
    willlfully obtuse eh ?

    *so I think we’ll have to end it there.*

    u should’ve cut it out earlier instead of making a fool of yourself.

  106. HA says:
    @denk

    “It will be run by an appointed High Representative and bodies appointed by the U.S., European Union and NATO.”

    If you think that’s a colony, then that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

  107. HA says:

    ” I have no time to continue, I am not paid like you are.”

    And back we go to the odd insistence that someone in the West cares enough about what happens at unz.com to pay someone with my views to post here.

    That pretty much tells you all you need to know about KA’s grip on reality.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  108. Kiza says:
    @HA

    Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, tsss, tsss, tsss. It is Kiza not KA, dummy.

    You even patronized me by criticizing me for badly presented arguments.

    Indications that you are a propaganda pro:
    1) constantly shifting arguments, like quick-sand,
    2) never admit, even when your opponent has a very strong point,
    3) keep quoting the established MSM propaganda as truth,
    4) using methods of psychological influencing and demoralization,
    5) spending too much time on the comments, the time an amateur could not afford.
    Therefore, about 80% probability that you are a paid pro. If not, then you are an undiscovered gem and they should employ you.

    My guess is that you work for the British, not for the US regime.

    • Replies: @HA
  109. HA says:
    @Kiza

    “It is Kiza not KA, dummy.”

    On that point, you are correct. My apologies.

    As for the rest, let’s see — your best and only evidence of what you’re trying to establish is one Wikipedia article mentioning “allegations”. When I point out how ridiculous that is, after having provided something with, you know, actual references by actual reporters, you start ranting about “MSM propaganda” and that there is an 80% chance (really? Eighty percent? Did you work that out on a spreadsheet or something?) I am being paid by someone, as if only only a professional could make you look like an amateur.

    In fact, as hard as it may be to believe, making you look like an amateur is really not that difficult. But no matter — if believing that keeps you from trying to answer or rebut anything else I might write in the future, no complaints here.

    And British? Really? You think they care any more about unz.com than the Americans do? At least the NSA might monitor this site in the anticipation that another Dylann Roof is posting here, but the Brits? Talk about sloppy thinking.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  110. Seraphim says:
    @HA

    So, what’s the reason you write at all?

  111. Alieu says:

    Please stop feeding the troll. I know it’s tempting, but we can all see through his Zionist lies and distortions. AP previously went under the name Dr. Preobezodsky…or something and he is a sock-puppeting Zionist troll. HA is almost certainly him using a different name. Note the use of names using two capital letters. A tip for him in the future.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Michael T. Klare Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings