Friday, July 28, 2017

Tom O'Connor — Did Russia Kill A U.S. President? New Cia Documents Reveal Spy’s Theory About JFK's Death

Bringing up the big guns.

Even if "Russia" were involved, it would have been the USSR and not the Russian Federation. The West seems to have overlooked the fact that the USSR collapsed and is no more.

This obsession with Russophobia is a huge strategic blunder, driving Russia and China together in the only alliance that can threaten the Triad (US, NATO, and Japan) existentially, as Henry Kissinger has been explaining to Donald Trump.

This is beginning to resemble a Greek tragedy where the protagonist cannot help himself against fate.

Incidentally, the headline is clickbait, with no substantiation in the article, only beliefs.

Tom O'Connor

See also
The French foreign ministry said: the sanctions “contradict international law” due to their “extraterritorial reach.”

Europe views the sanctions as a tool of US industrial policy that elevates US business interests over Europe’s business interests.

Let’s hope that Washington’s arrogance will not permit Washington to back down and that Europe will give Washington the finger and disengage from the American Empire. Without Europe to host its military bases and to parrot its propaganda, Washington’s ability to threaten Russia would significantly decline. Indeed, a continuation of the hostile threatening attitude toward Russia would leave Washington isolated in the world. No country wants the risk of experiencing nuclear war merely for the sake of Washington’s unilateralism.
Some Europeans are getting fed up with this nonsense.

A Ray of Hope — Paul Craig Roberts

Much depends, according to both Pillar and Mohseni, on how the Europeans in the P5+1 respond to any US violation or provocation. If their reaction to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate accord is any indication, Pillar said, the Europeans may very well stick to the JCPOA and leave Washington Isolated.
Significant hostility toward Washington was made evident by some other findings in the latest poll. Asked, for example, who they thought was behind the June 7 terror attacks, 52% named the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), which took credit for the attacks, but nearly one in five respondents (19%) named the United States. Another 17% named Saudi Arabia. Sixty-one percent of respondents said it was “very likely” that the U.S. “provided guidance or support for the perpetrators”—just behind Saudi Arabia (67%) and Israel (65%).
In the wake of the terror attacks, two thirds of respondents (68%) said that Iran should increase its support of groups fighting IS—that was up from 56% last December. But 55% said that they would disapprove of “collaborating with” the US to help the government of Iraq fight IS. In CISSM’s August 2015 poll, 59% said that Tehran should collaborate with Washington if fighting IS in Iraq.
Asked their views about each of the P5+1 countries, 60% of respondents said that they held “very unfavorable views” of the United States, the worst ratings of all six countries. Of the six, China, Russia, and Germany were seen most favorably in that order.
Iranian Public May Be Turning More Skeptical, Hostile Toward US
Derek Davison and Jim Lobe

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

My best guess is that virtually nobody in the USA or the UK who are talking incessantly about imaginary threats of russian attacks overt or covert believes what they say, and they talk like that because complicated multiethnic/multinational states and alliances need an external enemy to maintain cohesion despite many centrifugal forces. The external enemy must be identified whether it exists or not, and Russia is just very convenient because of its past. I have also noticed several anti-german campaigns in the recent past, especially taking as pretext the greek situation, and I suspect that were also about trying to talk up an imaginary german bogey in addition to the imaginary russian one.

There is a story that at one point V Putin asked whether the Russian Federation could become a member of NATO, which if you think of it would be perfectly logical for both sides, if the point of NATO were to maintain peace in Europe; but of course the answer was not at all affirmative :-).