Planet of the humans is back on youtube and elsewhere
UPDATE: Youtube has removed the film again, but you can watch it at https://planetofthehumans.com. We reproduce a letter from Jeff Gibbs, Director of Planet of the Humans.
UPDATE: Youtube has removed the film again, but you can watch it at https://planetofthehumans.com. We reproduce a letter from Jeff Gibbs, Director of Planet of the Humans.
Did you know that YouTube has removed Michael Moore's massive environmental film, "Planet of the Humans"? The reason appears to be a purported infringement of copyright, which its producer vehemently denies. They didn't like the message, he argues in this rivetting and educational interview. Michael Moore joins Rolling Stone's "Useful Idiots" show to discuss the removal of Planet of the Humans from YouTube, and addresses criticism he and the film have received. This fascinating interview has nearly as much to offer on the environmental movement and its problems - notably with corporate interference - as the film itself.
The Syrian Kurds have asked Syria to help them because Turkey is threatening them. President Erdogan treats them as an extension of the Kurds in Turkey who want independence from Turkey. During the main part of the war in Syria (which seems to be tailing off now) the Kurds fought the Takfiri rebels. The United States, which supplied a lot of the so-called rebels including ISIS (indirectly at least) at times appeared to support Kurdish independence, using them as a lever against the Syrian Government. The Kurds had been offered control of their own department by the Syrian Government, but not actual independent state status. The US rewarded a Kurdish independence movement against Syria, although it is not clear that all Kurds in Syria really wanted this. The region also contains substantial minorities of Arabs and others whom a separate Kurdish state might not have suited. Until Russia intervened in the war (at the invitation of the Syrian Government) it looked like the United States backed terrorists were going to tear the country apart. The UN and NATO and its allies, including Australia, all supported this with a policy of removing President Assad and splitting Syria into many little states. The western public and corporate media provided propaganda to support this. Western readers were given no critical comparison with the prior destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, states destroyed by the same kind of tactics. YouTube gave great comfort to these lies when it suddenly removed all of the Syrian Presidency's interviews, claiming some breach of advertising. [Suddenly some of them are back, as the wind is changing.] Since the insurgency began in 2011, Turkey provided a covert base for terrorists to attack Syria from. After Russia intervened with the invitation of Syria, the US, which was an illegal and unwelcome presence in Syria, tried to get Turkey to support it. As it was also promoting the idea of the Kurds having an independent state, Turkey's support could never be relied on. Turkey could always align itself with the Russians, although, in the end, it seemed to prefer to be independent and it has its own ambitions to dominate the region. By outing the murder of the journalist, Kashoggi, in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey, Turkey has made itself look a bit respectable, but it is not inconceivable that Erdogan is supporting the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia against the Crown Prince, for strategic purposes. No-one really knows. Whilst Turkey is not a Wahabist state, Erdogan is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to establish a new Muslim caliphate in the Middle East and much of Europe. Syria is a multi-religion state which includes many Christians and it does not support a Muslim caliphate. This editorial is by Sheila Newman and James Sinnamon, candobetter editors. We have republished the following report on the state of the war in Syria from RT.
Republishing from RT at https://www.rt.com/news/447572-syrian-forces-enter-manbij/.
Damascus says it has deployed troops to the city of Manbij, the focal point of a tense standoff between Kurds and Turkey, as the government continues attempts to reassert control over the strategic border area in Syria’s north.
The Kurdish YPG militia on Friday called on Damascus to secure Manbij, located close to the border with Turkey. Ankara earlier said it plans to conduct an “anti-terrorist operation” around the city, with the YPG being the target.
In response, Damascus said its troops were already in the north and raised the flag in the “area of Manbij.” In a statement from the general staff broadcast by the Syrian media, the top brass said their army was determined to “crush terrorism and defeat all invaders and occupiers” as well as to provide security for all Syrian citizens.
Also on rt.com
Kurdish YPG calls on Syrian government to protect Manbij from Turkish attack
Just how far-reaching the Syrian deployment is and if it’s taking place at all is yet to be confirmed by other sources, as is the Syrian Army troops’ arrival in the city proper.
Skeptical over the statement from Damascus, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the “flag-raising” a “psychological action.” He, however, acknowledged that there would be no need for the Turkish Army op in Manbij if the Kurds pull out of the city.
Meanwhile, Turkey-backed militants opposed to both the government and the Kurds said they were moving fighters towards Manbij and were prepared to start an operation there, if necessary.
Also on rt.com
Erdogan: Reports of Damascus taking control of Manbij, Kurdish-held town bordering Turkey is ‘psyop’
Damascus is trying to assert full control over Syrian territory, a goal that remains elusive despite significant progress over the year. Among the contested zones are the province of Idlib, some Kurdish-controlled areas and a region on the border with Jordan, where a US military outpost is located.
The Kurds and the central government have remained mostly neutral towards each other over the years of the conflict and occasionally allied against jihadist groups. The Manbij maneuver does not make them immediate allies, but with Kurds de facto asking protection from the Syrian government, Damascus now seems in a stronger position to negotiate the degree of autonomy the Kurds would have after the political transition in the country. They currently control large swaths of territory east of Euphrates River, which is rich in oil, and crude revenues would be crucial for Syria’s post-war reconstruction.
Also on rt.com
Arab states are making nice with Assad’s Syria. Will the West follow suit?
Manbij became the focus of tense war of words earlier this month, after Erdogan said he was prepared to order a new “anti-terrorist operation” targeting the Kurds. He said the move was necessary because the US failed to make the YPG remove their fighters from the area, despite promises to do so.
The US, a key ally of the Kurds for the past several years, has meanwhile decided to withdraw its troops from Kurd-controlled areas in Syria, including Manbij. The withdrawal promises to be a game-changer for Kurds, who relied on American backing for protection against Turkey, but it is also yet to happen.
Ankara has amassed a fighting force near its southern border over the past few weeks but stopped short of launching the promised offensive. Turkey sees all Kurdish militias as an extension of its domestic Kurdish insurgency and attacked them repeatedly in both Syria and Iraq.
Also on rt.com
Moscow welcomes Syrian Army entry to Manbij, will ‘synchronize expectations’ with Ankara
The situation is to be discussed on Saturday by top Turkish and Russian officials at a meeting in Moscow. Russia, a backer of Damascus in its fight against jihadist groups, said the deployment in Manbij may be a good sign that stabilization of Syria is progressing. But a spokesman for the Kremlin indicated that the outcome would depend on how the talks in Moscow unfold.
In Syrian Girl's Facebook Ban Linked to Russia-gate Twitter Purge? - an Exclusive Interview (30/9/17) | Russia Insider, Charles Bausman reported that Facebook had blocked SyrianGirl's account after she had criticised Kurds.
Syrian Girl, the Australian activist, Youtuber, and social media powerhouse, tweeted on Thursday evening (EST) that her Facebook account has been blocked for her exposure of fraud during the Kurdistan referendum. She had 75,000 followers.
She also has 70,000 followers on Twitter, and 75,000 subscribers to her excellent Youtube channel.
She gave Russia Insider (RI) an exclusive interview on Friday, explaining that Facebook acted without warning, (which is unusual - usually they give people a chance to correct whatever is upsetting the censors), and so far have not responded to emails.
She speculated that perhaps her page had been caught up in the anti-Russian Twitter / Facebook purge currently unfolding. (Twitter removed 200 Russian accounts that targeted Facebook during election - USA Today)
This of course follows the evidence-free beat-up that alleged Russian interference somehow caused American voters to elect Russia's allegedly favourite candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton the chosen favourite of the American corporate elite, including Zuckerberg himself.
As revealed by Julian Assange of Wikileaks, "Zuckerberg Colluded with Hillary Clinton Campaign":
Mark Zuckerberg's claims this week that Facebook was fair to Donald Trump during the 2016 election just took another serious blow.
The Facebook founder and CEO personally met with Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta a year before the 2016 election, according to an email released by Wikileaks.
The news comes a day after Wikileaks' Julian Assange dropped a bomb onto the heads of Zuckerberg and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, alleging they colluded with Hillary Clinton's 2016 election campaign.
Assange Tweeted Thursday, linking the emails sent back and forth between John Podesta and Sandberg which reveal Sandberg wanted Clinton to win "badly." Assange said the women met privately numerous times during Clinton's campaign.
Assange included one email from Sandberg to Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, which is particularly damaging in which the Facebook executive pledged to help elect Clinton.
This outrageous attempt at thought control and censoring of political information by Zuckerberg, as well as Google, YouTube and Twitter, shows that in a true democracy, the news media upon which we all depend, must be taken out of the hands of the corporate owners and placed in the hands of the people.
Alternatively, rival newsmedia and social media that are run transparently, and with a charter to promote a free contest of ideas, should be established.
This could easily be done with public funds and with popular support within purportedly democratic countries like Australia, France, Germany and the UK. Should this not occur, then alternatives could be set up. One such alternative is the community-owned minds.com.
Another alternative is for sovereign countries like Russia and Iran, which are independent of United States' hegemony, set up their own alternatives to Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. If they were also run transparently and with a charter to promote a free contest of ideas, they would very quickly draw away much of the current audiences of Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Such an initiative would surely cost those countries only a fraction of what they are currently obliged to spend on defence.
In fact, Russia has already set up Yandex an alternative to Google. Hopfeully, Yandex will soon be expanded to include more in English. Hopefully, also, other alternatives to Google, Facebook, and Twitter will soon be established.
Over time their need for defence expenditure would be greatly reduced as more and more people in Western countries are able to see through the lies of the corporate newsmedia. We could well see the end of war altogether.
See also: "Russia Threatens to Ban Facebook" (2/10/17) | Russia Insider by Tyler Durden – Russia demands data of Russian citizens be kept on servers physically located in Russia, @caityjohnstone/the-push-to-fight-foreign-propaganda-is-the-same-as-government-book-burning-bba16a128835">"The push to 'Fight Foreign Propaganda' is the same as government book burning" (28/9/17) | Medium by Caitlin Johnstone.
From PressTV News Videos YouTube Channel
"The last people who should be returning to the scene of their former crimes are Britain, France and the United States of America." Those words were said by George Galloway, a British MP during a debate in the lead up to a vote on the UK participating in airstrikes in Iraq against ISIL. It came as no surprise that the vote went through, though concerns remain about how the very countries involved in the 2003 Iraq War and subsequent chaos which helped in forming ISIL, can beat their own Frankenstein. In this edition of the debate we ask: was the mission a never-ending creation of pretexts, however false, in order to justify an unending war in Iraq?
"What's needed is a kind of "pit bull terrier" state, which would be prepared to start at least a local conflict, to show the weakened Russia how events could develop." (Andrei Fursov, speaking of Ukraine's purpose for the US.)
All-in-all a must-read for westerners needing to understand what is really happening in both the Ukraine and the wider Anglo-US-NATO globalisation drive which it brings into sharp focus.
Original source of document is https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Battleground_Ukraine
Firstly, let me say that sometimes it's pleasant to be wrong. Well, I got it wrong. At the beginning of February my colleague, Elena Ponomarëva, and I discussed the question, could we take Crimea? I was a pessimist and said, 10% chance that we'll take Crimea. We won't get it because the West will react aggressively, and our authorities lack the courage. She said, on the contrary 90% chance that we take Crimea, and 10% chance that it doesn't happen. She was right. I was wrong.
Without doubt, the re-unification with Crimea is a very important landmark. In a recent TV interview I said that this is genuinely the end of the disgraceful era which began in Malta on the 2-3rd Dec 1989, when Gorbachev surrendered absolutely everything to Bush, even what wasn't asked for.
After that everything possible was given up. Rays of hope began to appear later, during the Putin administration. There was the war of 08.08.08. But later we failed to support Libya. Although we did put the foot down at Syria. But this is all far away from Russian lands. But Ukraine and Crimea - this is a completely new situation. We started to re-take our territory, little by little. Started doing as the Muscovite princes did in the 14th, 15th century, what the first Romanovs did, and the Stalin system in the 1930s, all of which was: leaving the historical zone of defeat.
But leaving the historical zone of defeat means not only external matters, we are now tearing up the global status quo, which took shape in 1991-94. Meaning: disintegration of the Soviet Union, the uranium deal, the shooting at the Moscow White House, the Budapest Memorandum.
But overcoming defeat has not only an external aspect but also a domestic aspect. Yeltsinism gave raise to a whole stratum of people, whom our president called national-traitors. That is, the fifth column - in the authorities, in business and in the media. In particular, they revealed themselves during the events in Crimea. That was a real moment of truth, moment of choice. People's true colors became apparent, in various spheres. And it was an very import experience for this reason: One could clearly observe the application of double-standards.
What do we mean by double-standards? For example: There was a time when the Brits annexed the Falkland Islands. They said: "Well, why not. There was a referendum in the Falkland Islands and the residents came out in favor of joining up with Britain, and that's sufficient."
"Crimea is a different matter altogether ..." -- although the situation is analogous.
Today we're talking about the Ukraine situation from a number of angles. It's a multi-faceted situation, like all big situations. Many different aspects have led to what happened. Concerning not only the clash between Russia and the West. There's a lot else going on too.
Firstly, it all began with a conflict within the Ukrainian oligarchic class. A great analyst is Vladimir Matveev. I very much recommend you look him up. A number of his analyses are out on the net. Moreover you don't need to be erudite to read his books. Anyone with higher education can read them. He's been very active on the subject of Mossad in Ukraine. He gets continuously threatened. Now he needs to get out of Ukraine and is having problems with that.
We are talking about the oligarchs.
Later we'll talk about the interests of the West - The Europeans and the Americans have different interests.
Next, the interests of Israel.
Then we'll run through the key events originating from the Banderite-American coup in Kiev, which continue to unfold.
Firstly - the Ukrainian business clans.
The next corporate group is Privat. This is the most interesting one. It's the group of Ihor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky's worth is 3 billion dollars. His partner is Gennady Bogolubov. Kolomoisky is a very interesting figure. Not only because he called our president a schizophrenic. 'He is the engine behind what is currently happening in Ukraine.
In 2012 analysts such as Matveev warned that there would be a very brutal conflict in 2013 between the business clans, between the oligarchs. And that's what happened.
What do we mean by clans in Ukraine? First we need to understand the division of power at the end of 2013. There are four basic clans.
Firstly the Donetsk clan - Rinat Akhmetov, whose fortune is estimated at $16 billion. His main interests are mining and steel production. This clan includes Boris Kolesnikov, the Kluevs, Yury Ivanyuschenko.
The second clan is the Yanukovych family. They control principally the customs officials, farming and infrastructure. By comparison this clan is a bit poorer, but they have held very powerful administrative positions. Yanukovych's "achievement" is that during his presidency the welfare state of Ukraine was finished off. Or rather, what was left of it. Destruction of the welfare state began during the time of Kuchma. Yuschenko and Tymoshenko significantly reduced the welfare state. And Yanukovych finished it off.
It's very interesting to examine the growth of the billionaire class. In 2010 the number of billionaires in Ukraine was 8. By only 2011 there were 21.
The Yanukovych regime greatly favored the growth of the billionaire class. Yanukovych's main sponsors were Rinat Akhmetov and Dmitry Firtash. The division of labor was: Ahkmetov controlled the government and Firtash the presidential administration.
The next massive bloc is Firtash, which is RosUkrEnergo, energy production and chemicals. They are the main partner of Rothschild in Ukraine. One of Firtash's main advisers is Robert Shetler-Jones. I'll talk about him later. An entrepreneur from the Rothschild group. Moreover, he's from MI6.
By the way, in all British corporations, in order to occupy a senior position, it is mandatory to be vetted by MI6. Otherwise you don't get it.
The next corporate group is Privat. This is the most interesting one. It's the group of Ihor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky's worth is 3 billion dollars. His partner is Gennady Bogolubov. Kolomoisky is a very interesting figure. Not only because he called our president a schizophrenic. He is the engine behind what is currently happening in Ukraine.
Born in 1963. Jewish. He very actively supports the Hasidic group Chabad, which is not a sect, it's a movement. He's the main sponsor of the Dnepropetrovsk Jewish community. An old friend of Berezovsky. He owns about 200 companies, controls 40% of Ukrnafta, the media. A big fan of soccer. He owns: FC Dnipro, of Dnepropetrovsk, Arsenal Kyiv, and Hapoel of Tel-Aviv. He's the vice president of the Football Federation of Ukraine. Its president, Surkis, is a millionaire too, albeit not as big as Kolomoisky. He owns Dynamo Kyiv. Information frequently appears in the media about Kolomoisky's connections with international organized crime. He really wanted to buy up the assets of Sevastopol. Indeed he was on the verge of buying. He is the sponsor of Yuschenko, Tymoshenko and Klitschko, and of, paradoxical though it is, the ultra-nationalist Tyaghnibok.
It might seem strange that Kolomoisky the Jew would support Tyaghnibok the ultra-nationalist. But the main goal of Tyaghnibok is to get Ukrainians and Russians fighting each other. His ultra-nationalism is not anti-semitic.
Then there's another group in Ukraine, which no-one wants to talk about. Victor Pinchuk's group. He's the son-in-law of Kuchma. Pinchuk's people are Tigipko and Yatsenuk. According to experts such as Matveev, whom I mentioned and strongly recommend you look up, because of his enormous expertise, Pinchuk is very closely linked with the United States and with British intelligence, MI6.
Finally, one more part of the Ukrainian economy, which experts prefer not to write about. Arms trade, military technology and narcotics. Experts name dozens of names here. The main ones are: Vadim Rabinovitch, citizen of Israel, Ukraine and Hungary, Sergei Maximov and the Derkatch family. The elder Derkatch is Leonid Derkatch. He was the head of the Ukrainian security service, SBU. Now he holds all the cards, as he's dealing in weapons. Rabinovitch is a very interesting figure. He supports the gay-lesbian party Raduga and the Kiev feminist group Femen. Often quarrels with other Jewish oligarchs.
In general what characterizes the situation in Ukraine is that there isn't a single political center, This propagates into Ukraine's Jewish community too. They don't have a unified center either. There are constant squabbles, to impose their point of view. There are angry clashes between the secular part and those who support the Hasids and Chabadists. For example, there was a very angry conflict over the construction of the memorial at Babi Yar. Kolomoisky insisted there be a synagogue and an iconic building. Vitaly Nakhmanovitch said no, the place should be absolutely secular. There are very severe clashes.
For example, In 2011 Kolomoisky established the European Jewish Parliament, which sits in the European Parliament. It has a leaning toward Hadism and Chabad. The secular group is, for example, Vyacheslav Kantor. They haven't accepted all of this. There is an on-going angry clash. There are humorous situations. For example, Kolomoisky supports Chabad. Chabad supported Yanukovych during the election. Kolomoisky has openly come out against Yanukovych. This whole tangle of clashes has flared up. In 2013 it got very nasty. Moreover, the greed and stupidity of Yanukovych's mafioso clan revealed itself when they imposed their fees not only on the medium-sized businesses, they even went into the small businesses. Basically, they had to pay 60% to this family.
So you can understand those who went to the Maidan. They had had enough of that clan.
A different matter is who exploited the situation. Marx and Engels wrote in 1848 about revolutions: We now know what role stupidity plays in revolutions, and how scumbags will exploit it. So that was the Ukrainian oligarchs.
The next players on the Ukrainian field are: the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds entered Ukraine immediately after Ukraine became free from the Soviet Union. The Rothschild group entered in 1991-95. Likewise MI6 entered with a free hand.
Basically all western intelligence agencies had a free hand in Ukraine. That's why some experts call Ukraine the sandpit of the intelligence agencies. The CIA has a whole floor dedicated to Ukraine. We got this information now. But those who worked under cover in Ukraine in the late '90s were already reporting that SBU is a subsidiary of the FBI and the CIA, who were actively working there. Likewise the BND (German intelligence) were very actively working with their Banderite underground. And MI6 was working more unnoticed.
I'm not even going to mention the Israeli agents. I'll come to that later. Basically they all had a completely free hand. Firtash soon became the main partner of the Rothschilds. His partner from the Rothschilds was Robert Shetler-Jones. He is considered by experts to be the instigator of the gas wars between Ukraine and Russia. He was the one getting Ukraine and Russia to fight over gas. Notice the Rothschild group is at work in the East of Ukraine. That's the area they want to get their hands on, in particular the Dnepropetrovsk region, where the bank "Rothschild Europe" and their "Royal Dutch Shell" are operating.
The interests of the Rothschilds strongly clash with the interests of Russia. Remember that when we talk about the interests of the USA and of Britain, there are different interest groups in these countries. Not for nothing the great French geopolitical analyst Alexandre Del Valle talks about not the foreign policy of the US, but the foreign politicians of the US. There are different clans. The clans behind Obama want one thing, and the clans behind the neo-cons want something completely different. So they really have different foreign policies. The Rothschilds busily exploit crises and chaos which can be manipulated by the world players in order to buy up assets in Ukraine, likewise in Central Asia, and where possible in Russia. It's about gaining control of resource economies. That's a very important aspect.
The Rockefellers have more modest interests. For example, Chevron Corporation, which is in the Rockefeller empire. The Ivano-Frankivsk region was basically handed to them by Yanukovych. It's hard to even say whether Ivano-Frankivsk belongs to Ukraine or belongs to Chevron Corporation. The Rockefellers are more interested in Western Ukraine than Eastern.
The next player in Ukraine is Israel, which is represented in Ukraine by Mossad and practically all of the Israeli intelligence services. Including the Komemiyut management, that's an administration within Mossad, whose business is the physical removal of Mossad's opponents. Komemiyut is Hebrew for "sovereignty". This Komemiyut administration, for example, they were the ones who killed the Iranian nuclear scientists. They are very effective, like Mossad generally. Aman is military intelligence service of the Prime Minister. Shabak is the internal security service. Shin Bet, Nativ - they are all present in Ukraine. Israel's current ambassador in Ukraine is Reuven Din El - formerly a Mossad resident in the CIS countries, he was thrown out of Moscow, and then received in Ukraine as ambassador.
Vlad Lerner of Nativ is the First Secretary of the Israeli embassy. In this respect you have to give them their dues, the Israeli intelligence services, for how they work in Ukraine. Also important to be clearly aware of - Mossad operates in close contact with CIA and MI6. It's a unified snake of intelligence agencies, which gets the job done.
All of the western intelligence agencies, including Israel's, are very active in the higher education establishments in Ukraine. This year I gave a lecture at the Seliger youth forum. Guys from Kiev told me that in almost all large institutes of higher education in Ukraine, especially in Kiev, there is a NATO room, a NATO department. If you want to make a career, you have to attend several of their programs. That's what's going on. The Anglo-american intelligence services are not falling behind Mossad.
What is Israeli intelligence doing? Under the guise of looking for students who are Jewish or have Jewish roots, they try to pick out all the talented students with good prospects, and send them to study in the West. Of all the universities in the West, where I have taught, Columbia, Yale, New York, the most powerful where I taught, was the Central European University of Soros, where only Jews are educated, moreover very well-prepared and carefully selected ones. On the course I lectured on there were three guys from Russia. Not from Moscow, but from Arkhangelsk, Ivanovo and Petersburg. These guys were really chosen ones, genuinely powerful. Central European University is the only university where I gave lectures. I was dealing with junior colleagues more than with students. The standard pace of study at the Central European University is 400 pages per day, as it was with comrade Stalin. Many can't endure it.
I know a student who came from the Russian State University for the Humanities, for example, who studied for a month, and said that she physically can't continue, and she went home. And of course the tuition is conducted in English, although they welcome people with more languages.
Let's look at the situation in and around Ukraine in a wider, global context, considering the role which the West collectively, by their various games, has assigned to Ukraine.
Firstly - the battle against Russia.
secondly - the clash with China, and
thirdly - concerning the unleashing of war in the Middle East.
Let me repeat, By no means is it all groups in the West, who want to unleash war in the Middle East. But quite a few of them are interested in it. Likewise Saudi Arabia and Israel are interested, for a whole series of reasons. And these three vectors converge in Ukraine - all three plans unite into one.
That is, the global geo-economic and geo-political re-distribution of assets in the course of the global economic crisis.
Of course, there is this Yellowstone threat - I mean the super-volcano. That could completely change the rules of play at any time. The super-volcano could solve for the Western elite the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to. An eruption of the volcano could solve those problems. But that's another subject.
Wikispooks note: On its face this seems a bizarre diversion from the subject in hand - suggestions on Fursov's reasons for the diversion welcome on the discussion page.
Let's look at how the situation came about that preceded the current situation, namely: It's 1991. The USSR has collapsed. After 10 years of robbery the Americans are wondering "should we go for more?" Evidently they decided not to, as it would have fallen to the Chinese. Besides, Yeltsin's team seemed to be running the country into the ground. Then suddenly in 2001 came the attacks in New York. The Americans' political vector shifted to the Middle East. They became occupied with the Middle East. i.e. they got distracted from the goals.
Then we had Iraq, Afghanistan. During this time the Russian Federation got room to breathe, rise onto its feet again. Then there was the war of 08.08.08, which showed the West they had somewhat let go of Russia.
After that the Medvedev episode, when we didn't react on Libya. Evidently, 08.08.08, Putin's coming to power, and our position on Syria, in spite of the West's pressure, changed the approach toward Russia of those who brought Obama to power.
Two points to note:
In the new doctrine of 05 Jan 2012 is established that the US can wage one war and some other indirect actions in other parts of the world. Previously it said two wars - meaning they're not up to that any more. More interesting statements made by Obama in the Australian parliament 17 Nov 2011: This was said in Obama's vague style. But if we call a spade a spade, it means:
Firstly: in this doctrine: political-economic encirclement of China. Control over the flow of energy into China. That's why we have seen their naval power being moved to the straits between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is why land-based energy supply routes are so important for China. Sea-based supply routes can be easily interrupted by the Americans.
Secondly: applying pressure on the Russian Federation, as a partner of China, and as a country beginning to rise up.
Really, Obama didn't say anything new here.
There's an organization Stratfor -(Strategic Forecasting Inc), a kind of private CIA. Their founder and chairman, George Friedman, said openly that the primary task of the United States is the destabilization of Eurasia, in order that there could never be a state or group of states able to challenge the US.
The key region for dealing with the problem of China and Russia is the Middle East, which is also important in and of itself: Oil, Iran, the Caspian, Azerbaijan in particular. Pay attention to Azerbaijan. Have no illusions. This is a faithful partner of Israel and the US. This country pumps oil to Israel and Ukraine, receives arms from USA, Ukraine and Israel, and has Israeli advisers busy working with its army. In the event of a conflict with the Armenians, who are good warriors, I don't think that the Azeribaijani Army would perform any better than they have up to now, but it's a fact that today they are more capable and better trained.
The Americans need controlled chaos and civil war in Ukraine.
The Europeans need Ukraine whole - a market where they can dump all kinds of junk. A market for cheap labor, on top of everything else. It is truly an unexploited consumer market to be opened up with 44 million people, now minus Crimea.
Obama. That is, the clans behind Obama ( By the way, my views about Obama haven't changed. General Ovchinsky and I wrote an article, when Obama had just become president, entitled "The Cardboard Box President". We haven't changed our view since then.) When I say "Obama", I mean the clan behind him. From the very beginning these clans wanted to improve relations with Iran to the detriment of relations with Israel, obviously. How is Iran useful for the United States? Imagine Iran as a partner of the US. Firstly, it's a much bigger country than Israel. It occupies a magnificent geopolitical position. Has magnificent resources. If Iran is a partner of the US, then you have an Iran-India axis against China, against Russia, while maintaining the tension. Israel has the tension of being a Jewish state with Arabs, while Iran is Shi-ite. The tension is primarily with the Sunni monarchs, with Saudi Arabia. Thus the tension will remain.
Obama has taken a whole series of steps intended to improve relations with Iran. A whole wave of publications appeared, claiming that the US was going to abandon Israel. But Obama found himself under the powerful influence of a variety of groups, including the pro-Israel lobby. Improvement of relations with Iran isn't happening so far. What's interesting is that whether relations with Iran improve or deteriorate, it forces the Americans to solve two problems.
One is to eliminate the regime of Assad. And with that eliminate the "fabulous" organization Hezbollah. We don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It's a Lebanese Shi'ite organization, which is truly global. For example: one of the key centers of the Hezbollah is the region of Iguazu Falls. Anyone know where Iguazu Falls is? In South America. It's the border area of Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil. There is a huge number of tourists there. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas have made themselves a little nest there. But the main thing is that the Lebanese diaspora is there. When we hear "diaspora" we think of the Jewish diaspora, the Armenian diaspora. But the Lebanese diaspora is no less sizable, it's just quieter. They don't make a lot of noise. 100 years ago the Lebanese began to establish themselves in Africa, South America. They moved into the part of Africa where diamonds are mined: Sierra Leone, Liberia, and a few in Angola. In this border area, where the Lebanese diaspora is, along with Hezbollah and other organizations, they buy cocaine and transfer it on submarines to Western Africa. Previously they used submarines sold by Ukrainians. Now those submarines are out of commission and others are used. The cocaine is transferred to Sierra Leone, where it is exchanged for diamonds. With the diamonds they purchase arms. This triangle - Hezbollah, Syria, Iran - gets in the way of the Americans. They take the view, correctly, that eliminating Syria as an Arab partner of Iran, whether relations with Iran are good or bad, Iran will be weaker, and it will be easier to get an agreement with them. The removal of the Assad regime therefore became objective No.1 for the Americans. Likewise for Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But it turned out that the template for the Arab Spring didn't work in Syria, so they had to intervene militarily. But the intervention was foiled, thanks to the position of Russia and China. The West's aggression against Syria was the first really serious military phase toward re-drawing the geopolitical map of the Middle East. Let me stress: the first serious military phase. Libya doesn't count here. That had to do with the fact that Libyan oil was very important for the Americans. The production cost of Libyan oil is $1. So that was very important. But Libya and Syria are different countries with different potential. In Syria it didn't work out for them, I repeat, primarily because of the position of Russia and China. The American offensive against the Russian Federation and China in the Syrian theater failed. That plus the presidency of Putin forced the Western elite to look for other maneuvers.
They started looking for where to attack - and Ukraine came up. Because in Ukraine an explosive situation had developed on all levels: amongst the oligarchs themselves, between the oligarchs and the population. It would have been a shame for the Americans and Europeans not to exploit that. Although, the Americans and Europeans do have completely different objectives in Ukraine.
The Americans need controlled chaos and civil war. The Europeans need Ukraine whole - a market where they can dump all kinds of junk. A market for cheap labor, on top of everything else. It is truly an unexploited consumer market to be opened up with 44 million people, now minus Crimea.
In principle, Ukraine is not currently a member of NATO. But that didn't stop Ukraine participating in all four of NATO´s military campaigns. Thus Veronika Krasheninnikova was right, when she said on TV that for us the current issue with Ukraine is where the NATO boundary will be located. Doesn't matter if Ukraine joins NATO de-jure or not. It's clear that it will become a NATO country.
Moreover, it is absolutely clear that this country is intended to be absolutely anti-Russian, nationalist, Banderite and neo-Nazi. So the dual goal of establishing this anti-Russian state is to apply pressure on the Russian Federation - constantly. The long term goal is to pull Russia into the Western camp and start a fight: We put pressure on Russia. Then Russia, in order to reach agreement with the West, to solve this problem of constant provocations, turns toward the West. Next, Russia becomes a tool for the West to pressurize China. If possible, even get China and Russia fighting with each other - that would be the ideal scenario for the West.
Like they perpetually have Russia fighting with Germany and France. It's the same pattern again and again. The current situation in Ukraine, which began in late 2013, has served this purpose. Hegel talked about "the insidiousness of history". Those 30 days, 15 Feb to 17 Mar, broke everything. And changed the world.
The era which began in the period 1989-94 in our eyes is coming to an end, or has ended. We often quote Brzezinski's words: "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire." But that's not true. Russia can be a great power even without Ukraine. A different matter is that it will be more difficult and will take longer.
And what is Ukraine? The Eastern part of Ukraine was never part of Ukraine. The Bolsheviks did that. They needed to increase the proletariat ratio in Ukraine. That was the only reason why they moved those regions into Ukraine. But never mind that. The main thing is that Brzezinski's words are not original. He is repeating the words of the German general Paul Rohrbach, who at the beginning of the 20th century foretold:
"To eliminate the danger that Europe, and above all Germany, faces from Russia, it is necessary to completely separate Ukrainian Russia from Muscovite Russia".
Notice that for the German general - Ukraine and Muscovy are both Russia. He is talking about the need to bring about an internal Russian split. That wasn't original from Rohrbach either. He is developing the idea of the German politicians from the end of the 19th century, including Bismarck, who proposed specific means to solve this problem. In particular he emphasized the need to pit Ukraine against Russia, to get their peoples fighting. But why? As he wrote:
,p>"We must cultivate among the Ukrainians a people whose consciousness is altered to such an extent, that they begin to hate everything Russian".
Thus we are talking about a historical psy-op, an information-psychological sabotage, whose purpose is to establish russophobic Slavs - Orcs at the service of the western Saruman. They are the means to separate Ukraine from Russia and to oppose Russia as a kind of anti-Russian 'Rus', as a free, democratic Ukraine of the totalitarian empire. This was all devised under the Galician Project, on which the intelligence services of Austro-Germany and Kaiser German worked, followed by the intelligence service of the Third Reich, later - CIA and BND.
Although I don't have direct proof, there is no doubt that the intelligence service of the Fourth Reich has been at work here, the "Fourth International", known as "Daisy". When D-day and H-hour came, the Galician project and the Banderite underground got the starting gun - figuratively and literally.
Fast forward to the Orange Revolution of 2004, which differs from the current situation. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was organized by neo-liberals. Those behind it in Ukraine and the West thought that this would be sufficient to create the anti-Russian Ukraine. But it wasn't. So during the current events a different approach was rolled out: an alliance of neo-liberals and ultra-nationalists, in effect neo-Nazis. The neo-liberals are the face of the West. And the neo-Nazi militants and storm-troopers were the ones to break the power of Yanukovych, and terrify Eastern Ukraine. Wise people did warn Yanukovych that he shouldn't play with fire with Tyaghnibok and allow him to develop his movement. Yanukovych's plan, as experts have shown, was: We'll pump up Tyaghnibok. Then, at election time, the East, terrified by Tyaghnibok, will vote for Yanukovych. He was playing a kind of chess game. But the West wasn't playing chess at all. They knocked over the pieces and used the chess board for a completely different game.
Firstly - Ukraine is an absolutely non-viable, artificial construction, which could only function normally within the framework of the Soviet Union. Despite being the only post-soviet state, apart from Russia and Belarus, which could have stood on its own feet, it didn't. The Ukrainian SSR was in ways very important in the Soviet Union. Who remembers where Ukraine was placed at the National Exhibition of Economic Achievements (????)? Right in the center! Now it has fallen into neglect, but they are at the center of that Exhibition. The importance of Ukraine was emphasized in every way. And Ukraine could only exist within the framework of the USSR. Outside the USSR Ukraine is not capable of developing. What has kept it afloat? The Soviet heritage, which they have been eating their way through for twenty years. One can marvel again at what a heritage it was, when the Ukrainian oligarchs have been stupidly eating through it more stupidly than the Russian oligarchs, and it lasted twenty years. But, as they said in ancient Rome, "Nihil dat fortuna mancipio" ("Fortune gives nothing forever.") and in 2013 that heritage was finally eaten up. Moreover, Yanukovych was very busy eating it up. Ukraine stood over the precipice. Russia could have saved them. But that was categorically undesirable for the US. That was the first part.
Secondly. After the 2004 Maidan, as I said, the Western puppet-master presumed that it was sorted: people like Yuschenko and Tymoshenko could solve all the problems. But it turned out they couldn't. Yanukovych came to power. He played almost all the same games. Played very inconsistently. Played with the Americans, with Russia. In the end he overplayed his hand.?
The scorecard from these twenty years is positive for the West. They have been very busy in Ukraine: with the help of various non-commercial, non-governmental organizations, they have done a quite fantastic job. Dozens of non-commercial Western organizations have been at work. As for us... do we have any non-governmental organizations busy at work in the sphere of foreign policy? "Russkiy Mir". When did they appear? Not long ago. Their effectiveness... Any other organizations? There is "Rossotrudnichestvo", who have little money. "Institute of CIS Countries" - that's an institution. "Gorchakov Fund" exists too. But all of this is recent initiatives and these organizations don't have the funds.
The Americans have been pumping massive amounts of money into the place. Besides, all these years there has been a Banderite underground operating in Ukraine, in cooperation with the American and West-German intelligence agencies. Moreover, geographically Ukraine is not a Baltic state. Incidentally, who knows when the last "Forest Brother" was killed in the Baltic states? 1960? - 1974. But, you know, there's nowhere to hide really in the Baltic states, but in Ukraine there is. And the Banderite underground has always been there. Of course, the West has always been working with them.
Obviously there were serious domestic reasons for the events of December, January, February (2014). Impoverishment of the population. Dissatisfaction with this miser-oligarch regime of Yanukovych. Now what do we see? The family of Yanukovych is gone. In their place has come the family of Tymoshenko. One family of oligarchs has been replaced by another. They've been putting oligarchs in charge of the cities of the East. Not by chance I quoted the words of Marx and Engels regarding the European revolution of 1848. "We now know what role stupidity plays in revolutions, and how scumbags will exploit it." Indeed, exploit they did.
As far as we can tell from the unfolding events, the greed of the ruling clan was exploited in general and in specific ways from the eventful situation. "D"-day and "H"-hour came on 21 Feb.
Since I am in science and not intelligence, my information is only indirect, but it is confirmed by another analysis too. Towards 18:00 on 21 Feb half of the Maidan was cleared. And it could have ended at that. But you know, between 18:00 and 20:00 ... There were about 15,000 Maidan protesters. There were being shifted by a group of about 3,000 some of whom gave me this information. Walking behind them was Berkut. They reported that all of a sudden Berkut stopped. "We were proceeding, but Berkut stopped." They had been given the order to stop. What happened between 18:00 and 20:00 ? Let us re-create the events. This is my version. I'm not forcing it upon anyone, by any means.
At that point Yanukovych decided that he had won and could start negotiations. Moreover, the Americans had told him they knew where his billion was stashed. Here Yanukovych decided to play a stupid country-boy trick. He decided to trick the Americans, not realizing that they would trick him, by not respecting the agreement. Any they wouldn't exactly forget his betrayal anyway. At this point, when the opportunity to clear out Maidan was lost, events turned in a different direction. I was saying on the 21st, 22nd, that this is a situational loss for Russia, because if the only pro-Russian force we could set up in 20 years was the one fronted by Yanukovych, then that is a poor performance by us.
What was Chernomyrdin up to? He was singing songs and playing the accordion with the Ukrainian oligarchs. Evidently that was his destiny - it turned out nicely for him. What Zubarov was doing we have no idea. But clearly he was making some nice gas deals, hanging out with the oligarchs. The western intelligence, and the non-governmental organizations, they worked with the oligarchs, the intelligentsia and the masses. And look at the result: although Kiev is not a Galician city, 90% of the Kiev intelligentsia are supporters of the Galician Project. That means the Western intelligence did a good job. Indeed, that was their job.
A different matter is that we didn't work like that. We were chatting with oligarchs instead of getting on with other things. Again, if our only pro-Russian force at a high political level was this person called Yanukovych, then that's our failure. Of course, losing one round doesn't mean you lost the match. Indeed, the actions of the Russian authorities in Crimea showed that having lost a round, you can still win the match. The match of the 17th-18th was won. But that match was only over Crimea. There is still Eastern, South-Eastern Ukraine.
Now let's look at what the West wanted, what their plan was. What did the West need out of this situation? Let's think like the Westerners. That is, those who planned this. This is really the right approach.
In the summer when I was in London, I read the English papers. There was a marvelous editorial in the Financial Times. This editorial was basically slamming tutors of economics at English universities. They were saying that if you want to train an economist, don't hammer into their heads what is written by economists. Teach them to think like economists. Incidentally, likewise we need to teach people to think the way the politicians do. Our political science is reduced to a model where people only know the theories of political science. But the theories of political science are very far from reality. Indeed, they exist to hide the thinking of politicians. It's a misdirection.
Plan "Minimum": the West establishes a Slavic, neo-Nazi, Banderite Reich. Constant pressure on Russia, provocations by various means. If Russia reacts - tell everyone that "the huge totalitarian Russia is harassing the free Ukraine" The same template was used on Yugoslavia: "Those poor Albanians - victims of the evil Serbs."
Plan "Maximum": same as when the German Nazi Reich was established in the 1930s. Set up the forces, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the decisive part of the war against Russia. Some will say: "What a nightmare! How are you supposed to go to war against Russia?" There are different situations. Who in Europe could wage war against Russia? Romanians, you think, could conduct a war? Poles - not themselves. What's needed is a kind of "pit bull terrier" state, which would be prepared to start at least a local conflict, to show the weakened Russia how events could develop.
If you think that's laying it on thick, refer to the history of relations between the West and Russia. Every aggression which Russia has endured in the last 200-300 years always came from the West. There was no aggression by Russia in the West. Only two points: the liberation campaign against Napoleon, which, by the way, as Kutuzov said, should have been ended in 1813. without going beyond our own borders. "Leave France and England there to love each other perversely and engage with each other". That was one campaign. The second was in 1849, Nikolai I. In my view this was a mistake, although he was a great Czar. It was assistance to suppress the Hungarian uprising in Austro-Hungary. That was unnecessary. Let the Hungarians beat up the Austrians. Let them have their own little theater of chaos in Central Europe. It will be easier for us. Apart from those, Russia never took any action in the West. That was the 19th century.
As for sending forces into Czechoslovakia, that was done in accordance with the rules, written in the Warsaw Pact. NATO has the same rules. In the statutes of NATO, in black and white, is stated:
"If any NATO state is in danger due to internal or external changes, forces are to be deployed immediately"
Yet when we sent in forces they called it the "Brezhnev Doctrine" ... It's just that our propagandists are poor. We should have explained that it was done as prescribed in the Warsaw Convention and the NATO statutes, as in all such organizations. But I was talking about the 19th century.
As for the 20th century, the Soviet leadership missed a unique opportunity in 1968. They were slow, only reacting to events. During the May unrest in Paris 1968, the Soviet leadership, by utilizing the French Communist Party, could well have gotten NATO forces to enter Paris in response to demonstrations by the communists and the unions. If NATO forces had entered Paris, we could have been shouting for 30 years about how NATO crushed the French students. Then they wouldn't be talking about any "Prague Spring". But the Soviet leader was only reacting to events. Because they were a reactive government. As Arnold Toynbee noted: "The West's policy toward Russia is one of aggression." By the way, Toynbee wasn't a russophile. "The Russian expansion is of a defensive nature", wrote Arnold Toynbee. The end goal of the North-Atlantic elite has always been the elimination of Russia. In this respect Leonid Shebarshin, one of the most visible leaders of Soviet intelligence, was of course right, when he wrote: "What the West needs from Russia is that it not exist." That was strategic.
Tactically... In 1991 the West could have begun the dismemberment of Russia. But with China already rising, it didn't seem like a good idea. Besides, they decided to harass Russia over the course of, say, 20 years. During which time Russia managed to get on its feet again. Banderastan, if that's what Ukraine is fated to become, as designed by the puppet-masters across the ocean, is to be an oligarchic, terroristic, russophobic state. Russophobic - it's clear why. Quasi-state - because even post-Soviet Ukraine was not a fully independent state.
We are already seeing external administration of the country. Kiselëv was absolutely right, when he mentioned yesterday: "The visit of the CIA director to Kiev, plus the directive of the IMF to fire 12,000 workers in the social sector." They are making brutal cuts. IMF money always comes with requirements to cut social programs. Which in turn provokes unrest among the population. The government then has to take further action and you're into a vicious cycle. This is very well described in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. He explains it all very well.
An oligarchic Banderite Ukraine is unavoidable for this simple reason: Because of their corruption, inability and unwillingness, oligarchy is the ideal vehicle for external control. Clearly, this will suit both the oligarchs and the West.
Finally: if the marionette junta in Kiev can hold out, then by logic they will conduct a policy of terror against the East and South-East. A different matter is that they don't appear to have the power to do that. They are always talking about "deadlines". But they can't do anything, because they don't have real power. Besides, it's clear that the "Right Sector" is a serious threat to the Ukrainian leadership.
What else will the banderization of Ukraine mean, if it comes to pass? Well, the East and South-East are industrially developed regions. These areas are modernized. The West is agricultural. It's clear, the EU doesn't need Ukraine's modern industries like Yuzhmash and Motor-Sich: They are competitors and they have to go. They don't need Ukraine's atomic energy either. What they need is a place to store atomic waste.
One theory about why Oleksandr Muzychko was eliminated, and I'm very convinced by it, you can read it on the Internet, was that Tymoshenko, in need of money, made a deal with the Europeans, that Ukraine would immediately begin disposing of nuclear waste. The thing is that Ukraine doesn't have facilities for that. Which means they are just going to bury it. They intend to bury it in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. "It's already polluted. We'll bury and hide it all there". If a person is decisive... Well, Yatsenuk and Turnychov wouldn't touch that. Tymoshenko agreed with Yarosh, and Yarosh instructed Muzychko. But Musychko, although he looks brutal, he wasn't a fool. He understood that whoever was organizing this was going to eliminate him. That's why he started acting differently than Tymoshenko expected. So there was no other way out than to eliminate him.
As far as I know, the train with nuclear waste is currently waiting at the Polish-Ukrainian border, not going anywhere. It's completely obvious - Europe needs Ukraine as a dumping ground. What surprises me about the Ukrainian leadership is this: Those who will die or become sterilized by radiation, it's not only the commoners. It will affect the elite's children too. That surprises me. Why on earth is she turning the country into a dump, a source of radio-activity, if she lives there herself? You're planning to become the president, no? You're going to live there for 4-5 years? 4-5 years is plenty then. The banderization of Ukraine will mean its de-modernization, its futurist-archaization. If this junta is completely victorious in Ukraine, which I have a lot of doubts about, then Ukraine will collapse into this futurist-archaistic zone, more extreme than that depicted in the fantasy battle novels by Alexei Kolentev.
An important lesson from the whole Ukraine crisis, which for me is a positive, concerns the Russian media. For the first time they weren't the losers in a conflict. During the 08.08.08 war quite a few of them adopt anti-Russian positions. This time only certain completely frenzied structures took an anti-Russian position, the likes of "Echo Moskvy", and even at that not everyone there. On the one hand they have hysterical menopausal women. Their boss adopted a more restrained position. A significant group was called "national-traitors" by the president, for coming out in opposition. Nevertheless, our media didn't lose the infowar over Ukraine, and acted very correctly. In Crimea everything was organized very correctly. From the point of view of international law, any attempts to discredit it simply don't have a leg to stand on. Everything was done correctly.?
Still, this crisis has highlighted a whole series of double standards. I looked through the press at the time and will highlight a few points for you.
In an editorial of the New Statesman it is claimed that "Putin violated Ukraine's sovereignty." Violated - how so? "by sending troops into Crimea". That didn't happen. Then what should we call the actions of American diplomats who organized the overthrow of the legitimate president? It is a direct lie.
Then let's take the respectable "Economist" of 8 Mar. They made the accusation that Putin "has become more autocratic". No arguments given. Unwillingness to join in the games thrust upon people by the West is interpreted as autocraticness. By the same logic 'democracy' means licking the boots of NATO.
The same deceitful pathos that we saw over Qaddafi is repeated toward Putin in the rhetoric of articles in March about the situation in Russia. such as in Time magazine of 17 Mar. Likewise in the Spectator of 8 Mar. A certain O'Sullivan writes: "Putin has broken the consensus which arose after the end of the Cold War". As if Putin considers that this particular consensus should even have existed.
This is the impudence and impunity of NATO, who bombed Yugoslavia, which, as if that wasn't enough, they covered the whole of Yugoslavia with bombs. You probably saw the films. I learned about it from Serbs long ago. Moreover, when they bombed the Serbian areas, they peppered the place with uranium. Now in Serbia there is so much cancer. The population is just dying. Additionally, they dropped spermicides everywhere, which is causing male infertility, so that the Serbs, being a pro-Russian force in Europe, will be eliminated.
Later in the same edition of "The Spectator" they reported a statement by Obama that "Russia is on the wrong side of history". Obama's logic means that the right side of history is those who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, attacked Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, killed hundreds of thousands of people - that's the right side of history.
But what made the biggest impression on me was an article by our own Garry Kasparov. In two respects:
'Firstly, how this guy (whom the West did accept) is presented, and his representation of history. Secondly, what he is offering to the West. The article is entitled "Cut off the oligarchs, they will bring down Putin". It was published in the very serious "Wall Street Journal", 10 Mar 2014. We can judge the author's intellect by the next statement. Kasparov writes: "For the second time in six years Putin ordered his troops to cross an internationally recognized border, and occupy foreign territory." The first time, he presumably means, was 08.08.08, and the second time - Crimea. When did Putin order the troops to enter Crimea? Where was there such a decision? We didn't send our troops into Crimea. Putin belongs to an exclusive club - along with Miloševi?, Saddam Hussein, - leaders who "invaded neighboring countries." Miloševi? didn't invade anywhere. Miloševi? was dealing with Kosovo, which was part of Yugoslavia. Saddam Hussein did invade Kuwait - that was a trap. And that wasn't at all the reason why they overthrew him. It wasn't in 1990-91 that they overthrew him.
Next, Kasparov writes: "In Yalta Stalin forced the weak Roosevelt and the powerless Churchill to accept his position on Poland, while Putin's policy on Crimea is the same as Hitler's annexation of Austria and Sudetenland". If a student were to write that in an exam, I would immediately give them a "two" and send them to re-sit. The point is not even that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt was weak. Churchill and Stalin, although this sounds cynical, they swapped Poland and Greece. They agreed that the USSR would get 90% domination in Poland and 10% in Greece, and Britain vice-versa: 90% in Greece, 10% in Poland. So the Soviet Union stopped actively supporting the Greek communists. And they got crushed by the English. On the other hand, we solved our Poland problem. For us Poland was more important than Greece. Evidently, Kasparov wasn't told about that. Kasparov continues: (Why I'm talking about Kasparov, who is very active in our opposition, is to demonstrate the intellectual level of these people.) "If Putin wins", writes Kasparov, "then the world which came out of 1945 will disintegrate". Kasparov from the mid-80s is like the hero of the American short story "Rip van Winkle", who fell asleep and later woke up to find that America is no longer part of the British empire but a free country. "Rip Van Winkle" means anyone who woke up to find themself in a different world. The thing is that the world order from 1945 collapsed in 1989 in Malta, when Gorbachev gave everything away. Journalists coined the term, although it didn't stick: the "Maltese System", to replace the Yalta system. So it makes no sense any more to talk about breaking the world order from Yalta.
Here's one thing that really deserves attention: What does Kasparov recommend the West do? He says they need to "put pressure on the oligarchs", not on Putin, but on the oligarchs. If pressure is put on them, then they will carry out a coup and overthrow Putin. This is a Russian citizen telling the US State dept what they need to do to effect regime change in Russia. Imagine if this were a US citizen sitting in Russia, for example, or, who knows, in China, talking about how to overthrow Obama, I think that person would have serious problems - very serious. Yet Kasparov is free to come and go in Russia as he pleases, and no-one is revoking is citizenship.
No more the kind of relations that existed under the Russian authorities of the 1990s, or even during Putin's first term, or the Medvedev period, those days are gone. Because: The West won't forgive what this leadership does. And this leadership, considering the behavior of the West... Well, if they were in any doubt before: "Look, we're not Miloševi?, we're not Saddam Hussein, or Qaddafi, they wouldn't do that to us".
Well, now there can be no doubt. The West has no brakes. In trying to solve their own problems, they'll keep going until they hit the wall.
What's the importance of these February-March events? Let's get to the heart of the matter. For the first time since 1991 the West, the United States of America, they set up, albeit covertly, an aggression against the Russian world. Because Ukraine is in the territory of the Russian world. They organized an aggression far away from their own shores. Ukraine cannot possibly be in the United States' zone of interest. Mexico perhaps, maybe even Cuba. They could declare Cuba to be in their zone of interest,
But Ukraine is very far away, like Iraq is. This was an aggression for the first time since 1991. They decided that they could do this. For the first time since 1991, we gave the aggressor a pasting - big time. Despite all the shouting and bawling in the West, we didn't give up, we re-united with Crimea, and, as the president said in Red Square: "Crimea has returned to its native harbor". In spite of all the shouting and everything else. With that, the song by the group "Nautilus Pompilius" - "Goodbye, America!" - takes on a certain symbolic meaning. Indeed: "Goodbye, America!" No more the kind of relations that existed under the Russian authorities of the 1990s, or even during Putin's first term, or the Medvedev period, those days are gone. Because: The West won't forgive what this leadership does. And this leadership, considering the behavior of the West... Well, if they were in any doubt before: "Look, we're not Miloševi?, we're not Saddam Hussein, or Qaddafi, they wouldn't do that to us".
Well, now there can be no doubt. The West has no brakes. In trying to solve their own problems, they'll keep going until they hit the wall. With this marvelous re-unification with Crimea, this whole Crimean Victory, which really puts an end to a distinct era, a few problems still remain. The first problem is the incompatibility between the direction of our foreign policy toward restoring our status as a great nation and the neo-liberal economic course of the government, nominally Medvedev's. Confrontation against the West is unsustainable on a foundation of neo-liberal economics. Enduring it is only possible on the basis of a mobilization economy. At the same time, a mobilization economy is only possible within a mobilized social system. In other words, the relations with the West which are now taking shape for the period ahead require very serious domestic changes.
Those, whom Putin called the national-traitors. Quantitatively, it's a smallish group, but it includes representatives of the authorities, business, media, intelligentsia, education. You just need to look for who was shouting the loudest that the re-unification with Crimea is the same as what Hitler did with Austria.
The first change is cosmetic: A policy of lawful suppression of the fifth column. That's the very first step which has to be taken. Next we need to strengthen a number of matters relating to economics and social structure. Because in half a year, the euphoria over the re-unification with Crimea will have passed, and in the Fall our economic problems will re-surface. Our most optimistic assessments of economic growth are 1%. As a minimum we need 5-6% Of course, the population's dissatisfaction with the economic situation will be exploited by those who organized the Bolotnaya mass protest. They will take advantage of people's dissatisfaction. Of course, there will arise an alliance of neo-liberals and ultra-nationalists. It will quickly become, "the oligarchs", and "the battle against corruption", and so on. Then, if they are successful, the next group of oligarchs will come along, who will... Revolution is something which changes the socio-economic structure. Not one of these "color revolutions" brought about any change in the socio-economic structure. The regimes were replaced with pro-Western ones. Nothing more. That needs to be well understood.
If Russia switches to a system of mobilization, the North-Atlantic elite, and their network of agents in the Russian Federation, will attempt to bring down the existing regime, and, I repeat, that will be done under the banner of "fighting corruption" and so on. This is why we need to pay attention to the February Maidan in Kiev and the heroes it revealed. Look. Tymoshenko went on the stage at the Maidan and said that the events in Kiev are a model for the peoples of all post-Soviet republics in their battle against dictators. The son of the war criminal Shukhevych, Yury Shukhevych, who served a prison sentence here, declared:
"The February Maidan is the continuation of the events of 1991, the beginning of the second anti-Soviet revolution, the first being 1991-1993, which should finally destroy the dream of resurrecting the Soviet Union".
For them, clearly, the Maidan was indeed a continuation of 1991-93. Russia's tough reaction to the Maidan - protecting Crimea - they didn't expect that.
The second problem is closely connected to the first and arises from it. The fifth column. Those, whom Putin called the national-traitors. Quantitatively, it's a smallish group, but it includes representatives of the authorities, business, media, intelligentsia, education. You just need to look for who was shouting the loudest that the re-unification with Crimea is the same as what Hitler did with Austria. Moreover, these people managed to avoid the issue that Austria was given to Hitler by Britain and France: without their approval he could never have annexed Austria. The reason they let Hitler annex Austria: Hitler didn't have currency reserves, Austria did. By giving him Austria, they gave him the currency reserves needed to re-arm. Next they let him have Czechoslovakia, because he needed their military-industrial potential, which the Reich didn't have. He needed to get across the border into the Soviet Union.
The Ukraine crisis has demonstrated the unity of the people and authorities of Russia when it comes to such an important issue as bringing together the Russian world. But this crisis makes it necessary and urgent to resolve a number of issues in this country. In my view, the following issues.
Firstly. Suppression of the fifth column by political-legal measures, cut them off from the media and sources of finance, principally from the West.
Secondly. Switch over to a mobilization economy, and switch to a mobilized social system, an element of which will be the mobilization economy.
Thirdly. Re-format the legal sphere. Eliminate the precedence of international law over national law.
Incidentally, they don't have such precedence in the UK or US. That's something they've successfully foisted upon others. Terminate participation in openly anti-Russian structures, and, moreover, financing them.
Fourthly. Strengthen the military alliance with Belarus, notwithstanding the objective and subjective complications of the process. Far from everything said by Lukashenko about the situation in Crimea impressed me. But he did say one very important thing. Belarus will never do anything detrimental to Russia. That's good. In my view he should have said more.
Fifthly. Counteract the opponent, the aggressor, not only around our own borders, but in any part of the world where we have the possibility: establish their degree of vulnerability. We need to conduct ourselves toward the West exactly as they have conducted themselves toward Russia since it came into existence in 1991.
Recently the film-maker Karen Shakhnazarov said something very true when he appeared on TV: The West never ended the Cold War against Russia. The Soviet Union disintegrated, everything continued. Brzezinski spoke very honestly in one of his interviews, this was after the Cold War had already ended. He said: "Don't fool yourself. We are not at war with communism, but with Russia, whatever it may be called." If he´d said war against "the Russian spirit", then he would have been practically repeating the words of Churchill, who said in 1940:
"We are not at war with Hitler, or even the National-Socialism. We are at war with the German spirit, the spirit of Schiler, so that it may never be revived."
The kind of spiritual castration that was imposed upon the Germans after 1945, that's what they wanted to do to Russia after 1991.
In one of his interviews Alexander Rahr, he's a kind of German fringe politician, said that many Western politicians and journalist are surprised as to why Russia doesn't repent. Meaning: Russia lost the Cold War, so they must repent. One more thing he said, for which he was criticized in the West: "For the West the victory over the Soviet Union was no less important, and possibly more important, that the victory over Hitler." Because Hitler belonged to them. Russia never did. This is why we have to counteract the opponent not only on our borders and not when he invades us. We need to make problems for the opponent wherever he is vulnerable.
Sixthly. We must roll out a powerful, massive, informational counter-attack against the North-Atlantic elite. Particularly aggressive wherever they have problems. Specifically, in the Muslim and Spanish-speaking worlds.
I am working closely with the Spanish- and Arabic-language services of Russia Today. They're doing a great job. What is meant by the Spanish-speaking audience? It's not only Latin-America and Spain. There is a huge Spanish-speaking audience in the United States itself. That has to be exploited.
Seventh and last. Re-configure the public awareness for defense. It doesn't mean protecting ourselves. Defense means understanding that we are living in war-time. Train the population, especially the younger generation, to be ready to repulse any aggression: military, informational, cultural, civilizational.
I am very pleased to see the resurrection of the military-patriotic education and the concept of "Ready for Labor and Defense" (???). I remember as a school pupil taking the junior, then senior, exams of "Ready for Labor and Defense" It involved running, which we liked, throwing grenades. It's a robust approach. The reason we won the war was we had the "Societies of Assistance to Defense and Aviation-Chemical Construction" (??????????), we had sports organizations in the 1930s. We were really getting prepared. You want peace - be prepared for war.
We are peaceful people, but our armored train is ready in the sidings. So the changes which happened in February-March was the end of the era of defeats. Leaving the era of defeats is necessary not only on the external front, but also domestically. There are still plenty of odious characters around from the time of Yeltsin. Some have gone to Ukraine. There's a journalist Kiselëv - Evgeny Kiselëv, who shares a surname with Dmitry Kiselëv. He's been in Ukraine since many years ago. He's a Berezovsky-Gussinsky person. Has been broadcasting in Ukraine for many years. Now he says he´s ashamed to be Russian. "Ashamed", for God's sake ...
Well, we shouldn't be ashamed to learn from the West how to operate in the informational domain. Their policies are of an offensive nature. If you are reacting, then you're one step behind and you're going to lose. In the Crimean Victory we won because our leadership, above all the president, he was always a step ahead of the opponent. He took a step. They reacted. He set the agenda.
Watch here (http://unmanned.warcosts.com/briefing), on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSe6-mK8wk or embedded here.
Sound starts about 5 minutes into video. English is interspersed with other language. Subtitles can be read at full screen size. At 12.02 the video within the video ends and we hear a panel speak English to the inquiry directly in the room.
Click here to access Unmanned, America's Drone Wars, Robert Greenwald's newest full-length feature. It is being released on October 30th, 2013. The documentary will only be available to stream online for a limited time. Sign up today to get your link to see the film FOR FREE.
(Quotes and paraphrases from the Congressional hearing:)
The killings are extra-judicial.
They cause collateral damage.
Public opinion is mobilised against the US in every nation targeted by these strikes.
The US finds itself in international crisis. If Chinese drones killed people in the US who showed anti-Chinese sentiment US citizens would find that unacceptable.
Anonymous killing from the skies.
No other type of human activity where you accept the fact that 10-30% of the dead will be innocent.
If it were a drug that killed 10-30%; if surgery that did so... these activities would be forbidden. Yet we accept this in the practice of drone killings.
Hope faith charity love... peace trumps them all.
These strikes are done in the absence of the target victims names even being known.
Embedded broadcast was originally published as What is the future for Syria? Truthloader LIVE debate. See also: Turks slam Ankara's support for terrorist groups in Syria of 19 May 2013 on PressTV. Israeli peace activist tells the truth about Israel
Three Syrian supporters of the Syrian Government debate three Syrian supporters of the terrorist insurrection in the embedded broadcast.
Those not familiar with the Syrian conflict will have to pay close attention in order to gain much from this discussion. The debate is somewhat tiresome due to the evasions, repetition and circular logic of the supporters of the insurrection. In spite of this, I think that their opponents, particularly the Syrian Girl, won the debate quite definitively.
Whilst verbal debate has great value, I still think it is easier to find where the truth lies from written online debate. However, in my experience, supporters of such causes as that of the terrorists fighting against the Syrian people and their government instinctively know that evidence and logic are against them and so will be even less willing to participate in written forum discussions than they are to participate in verbal discussions.
Those seeking the truth from written sources therefore should try to find opposing written views, compare the evidence and form their own judgement. Examples of opposed written online views of the Syrian conflict are, on the one hand on Global Research and, on the other hand, the lying Mainstream Media
In fighting to defend their people, the Syrian Government will unavoidably cause the deaths and injury of Syrian human shields used by the terrorists and the destruction of Syrian homes in which the terrorists hide. In addition, the Government will inevitably make mistakes that will cause yet more destruction and cost more Syrians their lives.
This has been used by the mainstream media.
Whilst the loss of lives and the destruction made necessary by the terrorist war will inevitably be used against the Syrian Government by the lying mainstream media and inevitable mistakes made by the Syrian Government in prosecuting the war will compound the problem, it would be a still greater mistake on the part of the Syrian government and armed forces to fight with any less ferocity and determination against the terrorists for fear of making such mistakes.
Click on first picture to see film of "Frankston Storm-tide surge and Channel Deepening - seaviews"
Click on second picture to see film of "Storm tide views of CBD and Houses on Kananook Creek, Frankston"
The films made by Sheila Newman and including still-footage by James Sinnamon, show very high water at a time when the tides themselves were not at their highest, but rain was heavy and run-off had increased in storm conditions. This means that a very high tide could be devastating under similar rain and storm conditions.
Sue Pennicuik (Greens, Victoria) says that analysis of tidal data supports residents' reports of higher Bay tides since channel deepening. But even without higher tides overpopulation has made old conditions more dangerous. Films made by Sheila Newman and including still-footage by James Sinnamon, show very high water in a creek at a time when the tides themselves were not at their highest. What caused the very high levels in the mouth of Kananook Creek, Frankston, were increased volumes of run-off from increased hard surfaces associated with more buildings to accommodate population growth in Frankston, plus the very heavy, tropical style rain on top of the storm-tide. This means that, even without sea-level rise, a king tide could be devastating if it occurs during a similar short period of high rain and wind. Note that the deepening of the channel from the ocean to Port Phillip Bay was done to accommodate much bigger ships justified by projections of greater volumes of trade associated with the bigger populations in Australia as encouraged undemocratically by her state and Federal governments.
ABC TV Stateline 7.30 PM this evening (2 July 10) also has a story on the evidence of higher tides since channel deepening.
"There have been growing reports of higher tides, beach erosion, faster currents and an increase in swell (surge from Bass Strait) since the Entrance to Port Phillip Bay was deepened,” Greens MP, Sue Pennicuik said today.
The Office of Environmental Monitor (OEM) is reported* as saying that there is no evidence to suggest that dredging is to blame for erosion at Portsea beach; and that the most likely explanation was natural erosion caused by the local impact of storms and seasonally high tides, exacerbated by the swell rolling in from Bass Strait.
“Tidal data that I have obtained from the Port of Melbourne Corporation and have had analysed, supports what so many residents, swimmers, divers and other businesses in the southern part of part Phillip Bay have been reporting since channel deepening: that tides are higher in the south of the Bay” said Greens MP, Sue Pennicuik today.
“Preliminary analysis of wind data from the past ten years suggests that wind beach erosion, particularly at Portsea was not caused by seasonal weather events alone,” she said.
"I am very worried about the tidal changes that are being seen at many places around the south of Port Phillip Bay," said Ms Pennicuik. "It is one of the most serious effects of the channel deepening project that the government was clearly warned about at the time.”
“The preliminary analysis that I am releasing today strongly suggests that the average daily high tides have increased significantly at four points in the south of the Bay, by much more than was predicted by the Port of Melbourne on the basis of ‘expert advice’ in the Channel Deepening Project (CDP) Supplementary Environmental Effects Study.** However, more data is needed about tides, swells, currents and weather events to be able to know for certain what is happening in the south of the Bay, Ms Pennicuik said.“
"Unfortunately, the five metres of sea bed and rock can't be put back at the Entrance and Port Phillip Bay may be permanently damaged as a result of the expensive channel deepening project that we didn't need,” she said.
(From a media release from Sue Pennicuik, 2 July 2010)
The storm-tide associated with the flooding recorded in the films on 26 April 2009 above did not occur during a king tide. If the conditions had been similar and it had been a king tide, the damage and danger would be much greater. In the past few weeks there have been higher tides than in April 2009, but the amount of rainfall coinciding was not as great as in April 2009. Residents have the impression, however that Kananook Creek is running faster since the channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay. If this is true then erosion will be greater on the banks and the land where houses on Long Beach are situated.
The state government (under Kennett, Bracks and Brumby) have made policies to increase development and population in Frankston over objections from many residents. The associated development has increased the hard surfaces (in the form of built surfaces like roofs, roads, gutters, pavements etc) and decreased the big tree coverage. Blocks have been moonscaped and smaller trees have been substituted for the old ones removed.
This decreased vegetation mass has the effect of decreasing the absorption and transpiration once provided by tree cover, which kept water tables down and absorbed a lot of running water. Now, when there is a lot of rain, more runs down into the bay via the hard surfaces and drains and it runs faster. During the storm tide in April 2009 Kananook Creek was flooded by water from drains and surrounding hard surfaces as well as by the incoming tide which was driven by high storm-winds. On this particular day the low pressure system was 997.7, the maximum wind gust was 93, the high tide was .92 cm and the rainfall was 30mm.
If this flooding from the hills had met with a king tide what would have happened to the houses, businesses and residents along Kananook Creek?
The Council will have to redo their planning scheme where the Land Subject to Inundation Overlays did not correlate with the land contours and did not accommodate the changes that were brought on by overpopulation and overdevelopment in the April 2009 situation.
On August 25, 2009, most of the conditions were very similar to those on 26 April 2009. The low pressure system was 999.4, the maximum wind gust was 96, the high tide was .93 cm, but rainfall was only 8.4 mm. The creek did not flood, but this storm-surge still inundated the pier forecourt.
What will happen to Seaford, the next suburb, which is much lower than Frankston, if these trends continue?
Melbourne Water also seems to have been taken by surprise and to have used old data for Frankston Beach in the design of new infrastructure because new data was not available due to the removal of a Bureau of Meteorology weather station at the end of Frankston Pier.
Frankston has the longest reach of westerly winds in the bay and the storm surges rely on prevailing westerlies. For instance, when tide levels are .389mm in St kilda, they may be .730mm in Seaford. In Frankston, they would be higher again. The removal of the weather station makes information for Frankston elusive, just at a time when it is crucial.
All this indicates that the state of organisation and technology and planning in Victoria is not of a sufficiently high standard to predict or deal with the impacts of accelerated and additional development and population growth. The government departments are not competent for the demands they have been generating. The promotion and engineering of population growth and development was done against public opinion. This makes any impact, particularly any damage to person or property, all the worse, since it would have been avoidable if the governments had listened to the public.
Bigger pipes were put in under the McCoomb reserve, on the bend of the creek near the mouth, adding to the inflow rate and volume. These pipes should probably go out into the bay. It has been suggested by a resident that all big buildings should have retention pits. Others have called for no more building permits to be granted and for massive replanting of trees above the flood-level.
The Future Coasts site finds the likelihood of tropical style rains to be increased, with more storms in this area. Storm surges can virtually double height of water over the highest tide. Sea level rise on its own may not be the worst problem in the future; it will be more storm surges.
* The Age, 5/5/10, "Life’s not so swell at Portsea."
** SEES Appendix 45 Cardno Lawson & Treloar, 2007b.
Storm data from http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/rivers_and_creeks/rainfall_and_river_level_data/rainfall_and_river_level_data.asp