Monday, April 25, 2022

Links — 25 Apr 2022 Part 1

The Vineyard of the Saker
The Moskva Riddle (If you could not access this post at SCF, try this link.)
Pepe Escobar
http://thesaker.is/the-moskva-riddle/

Reminiscence of the Future
It Is Becoming A Sports Of Sort (Larry Johnson). (The Larry Johnson post was linked to here at MNE yesterday. Most Western military analysts stating their views publicly still seem to be deceived by the initial Russian feint toward Kiev that masked the real objective, Mariupol, which has fallen. Probably the ones that know, other than a few brave enough to say, Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter, for example, are afraid to say owing to total narrative control. Several prominent bloggers, Paul Robinson and Patrick Armstrong, for instance, dropped out stating this reason. Plus a short Eva Bartlett on-site video debunking the "mass graves" disinformation  in Mariupol at the end of the post.)
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/04/it-is-becoming-sports-of-sort-larry.html

Here Is Russia's Investigative Committee's Video...
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/04/here-is-russias-investigative.html
Andrei Martyanov, former USSR naval officer and expert on Russian military and naval issues.

India Punchline
US recruits Israel against Russia (juggling with knives)
M. K. Bhadrakumar | retired diplomat with the Indian Foreign Service and former ambassador
https://www.indianpunchline.com/us-recruits-israel-against-russia/

RT (Russian state-sponsored media)
UK reveals new ‘gift’ for Ukraine (armored vehicles equipped with anti-air missiles)
https://www.rt.com/news/554494-uk-stormer-vehicles-ukraine/

Internatinalist 360º
SOUTHCOM General Admits Goal to Target Russia and China Worldwide (WIII on?)
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/04/25/southcom-general-admits-goal-to-target-russia-and-china-worldwide/

Eva Bartlett Reports from Mariupol: “Ukraine Forces Used Scorched Earth Tactics”
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/04/25/eva-bartlett-reports-from-mariupol-ukraine-forces-used-scorched-earth-tactics/

Covert Action Magazine
Jeremy Kuzmarov
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/04/25/cia-behind-secret-plots-to-kidnap-torture-and-assassinate-ukrainian-dissidents-for-president-zelensky-says-ukraine-defector/

Sputnik International (Russian state-sponsored media)
Series of Explosions Rock Transnistria's Ministry of State Security Building: Correspondent (conflict in Europe spreading?)
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/series-of-explosions-rock-transnistrias-ministry-of-state-security-correspondent-1095043993.html

Sputnik's Chief [Margarita Simonyan] Was on Neo-Nazi Kill List, Suspects Took Orders From Ukraine’s Security Service: FSB
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/neo-nazis-plotting-to-assassinate-solovyev-also-planned-to-kill-sputnik-editor-in-chief-others-fsb-1095042255.html

Putin: Russia Knows Names of CIA Curators Advising Neo-Nazis to Assassinate Russian Journalists
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/putin-russia-knows-names-of-cia-curators-advising-ukrainian-neo-nazis-to-carry-out-crimes-1095034268.html

Indian Brands Have Huge Opportunity in Russia, Entrepreneur Susil Dungarwal Says
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/indian-brands-have-huge-opportunity-in-russia-entrepreneur-susil-dungarwal-says-1094958802.html

Russia’s S-500 Missile System Enters Mass Production
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/russias-s-500-missile-system-enters-mass-production-1095034431.html

Top Iranian General Claims US-Affiliated Terrorists Behind Recent Bomb Blasts in Afghanistan
https://sputniknews.com/20220425/top-iranian-general-claims-us-affiliated-terrorists-behind-recent-bomb-blasts-in-afghanistan-1095030930.html

TASS (Russian state media)
Six neo-Nazis preparing to assassinate [Russian] journalist [Vladimir] Solovyov detained (Gilbert Doctorow is often a guest on his show.)
https://tass.com/society/1442735

Russia opens corridor, says up to Kiev to release trapped civilians used as human shields
https://tass.com/world/1442599
https://tass.com/world/1442495

Bracing Views
Edward Snowden and Turnkey Tyranny ("turnkey tyranny" would be the US post 9/11)
W. J. Astore, Lieutenant Colonel (USAF ret.), taught at the Air Force Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School, and currently at the Pennsylvania College of Technology
https://bracingviews.com/2019/10/26/edward-snowden-and-turnkey-tyranny/

Southfront
Bucha Investigation Contradicts Itself, Confirms AFU’s Atrocities (maybe "confirms" is too strong and "questions" would be more apt.)
https://southfront.org/bucha-investigation-contradicts-itself-confirms-afus-atrocities/

In Videos: Civilians From Mariupol Testify To Crimes And Atrocities By Azov Fighters (English Subtitles)
https://southfront.org/in-videos-civilians-from-mariupol-testify-to-crimes-and-atrocities-by-azov-fighters-english-subtitles/

Strategic Culture Foundation (sanctioned by the US Treasury Department)
Alastair Crooke
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/04/25/the-dynamics-of-escalation-standing-with-ukraine/
Russia-China axis possess food, energy, technology and most of the world’s key resources. History teaches that these elements make the winners in wars

As it dawns on the West that whereas sanctions are deemed capable of bringing countries to their knees, the reality is that such capitulation never has occurred (i.e. Cuba; North Korea; Iran). And, in the case of Russia, it is possible to say that just ain’t going to happen.

Team Biden still has not fully grasped the reasons why. One point is that they picked precisely the wrong economy to try to collapse via sanctions (Russia has minimal foreign supply lines and oodles of valuable commodities). Biden’s staffers too, have never comprehended the full ramifications of Putin’s monetary jujitsu linking the rouble to gold, and the rouble to energy.

They condescend to Putin’s monetary jujitsu as yet another forlorn strike versus the dollar’s ‘impregnable’ reserve currency status. So they choose to ignore it, and assume that if only the Europeans would take fewer hot showers, wear more woollen jumpers, forego Russian energy, and ‘stand with Ukraine’, the economic collapse finally would materialise. Hallelujah!

The other reason why the West misconstrues the strategic potential of sanctions is that the Russia-China war on western hegemony is assimilated by its peoples to be an existential one. For them, it is not just about taking fewer hot showers (as for Europeans), it is about their very survival – and consequently their pain threshold is much, much higher than the West’s. The west is not going to smoke their challengers out so ridiculously easily.

At bottom, the Russia-China axis possess food, energy, technology and most of the world’s key resources. History teaches that these elements make the winners in wars.

The strategic problem though, is two-fold: Firstly, the window for a Plan ‘B’ de-escalation via a political deal in Ukraine has passed. It is all or nothing now (unless Washington folds). And secondly, albeit in slightly differing context, both Europe and Team Biden have elected to take the stakes sky-high:

The conviction that the European liberal vision faces humiliation and disdain, were Putin to ‘win’, has taken hold. And in the Obama-Clinton-Deep State nexus, it is unimaginable that Putin and Russia still regarded as the author of Russiagate for many Americans, might prevail.

The logic to this conundrum is inexorable – Escalation.

For Biden, whose approval ratings continue to tank, disaster looms in the November mid-terms. The consensus amongst U.S. insiders is that the Democrats are set to lose 60–80 seats in Congress, and a small handful (4 or 5 seats) in the Senate too. Were this to come about, it would not be just a personal humiliation, but would token administrative paralysis for the Democrats until the notional end of Biden’s term.

The only possible path out from this approaching cataclysm would be for Biden to pull a rabbit from the Ukraine ‘hat’ (one that, at the very least, would distract from soaring inflation). The Neo-cons and the Deep State (but not the Pentagon) are all for it. The arms industry naturally are loving Biden’s laundering weapons into Ukraine (with huge ‘spillage’ somehow vanishing into ‘the black’). Many in DC profit from this well-funded boondoggle.

Why are we seeing such euphoria over such a seemingly reckless scheme of escalation? Well, strategists suggest that were the Republican leadership to go bi-partisan on escalation – become complicit in ‘more war’, as it were – they argue that it might prove possible to stem Democratic losses in the mid-terms and blunt an Opposition campaign assault focussed on a mismanaged economy.

How far might Biden go with this escalation? Well, the arms splurge is a no-brainer (another boondoggle), and Special Forces are already in theatre, poised to light a fuse to any escalation; moreover, the mooted no-fly zone seems to have the added advantage of enjoying European support, particularly in the UK, amongst the Baltics (of course) and from the German ‘Greens’, too. (Spoiler Alert! First, of course, in order to implement any no-fly zone, it would be necessary to control the airspace – which Russia already dominates, and over which it implements full electronic-magnetic exclusion).

Would this be enough? Dark voices are advising not. They want ‘boots on the ground’. They even talk of tactical nukes. They argue that Biden has nothing to lose by ‘going big’, especially if the GOP are persuaded to become accomplices. Indeed, it might just save him from ignominy, they urge. U.S. military insiders already point out that the arms supply will not ‘turn around’ the war. A ‘lost war’ must be avoided going into November at all costs.

Is such a consensus for escalation realistic? Well, yes, it is possible. Recall that Hillary (Clinton) was the alchemist who fused the 1980s Neoconservative wing to the 1990s Neoliberals to create an interventionist broad-tent that could serve all tastes: Europeans could imagine themselves wielding economic power in a globally significant way for the first time, whilst the Neo-cons have resurrected their insistence on forceful military intervention as the requisite to maintaining the rules-based order. The latter are cock-a-hoop that financial war is failing.

From the Neo-cons’ perspective, it puts military action firmly back on the table and with a new ‘front’ opening: The Neo-cons today, precisely are questioning the premise that a nuclear exchange with Russia must be avoided at all costs. And from this shift away from the prohibition on actions that could trigger a nuclear exchanger, they say that circumscribing the Ukraine conflict on such basis is unnecessary and a strategic error – asserting that in their view, Putin would be unlikely to resort to nuclear weapons.

How can this Neo-con-Liberal interventionist élite superstructure wield such influence when the broader American political class historically has been ‘anti-war’? Well, the Neo-cons are the archetypal chameleons. Loved by the war industry, a regular loud presence on the networks, they rotate in and out of power, with the ‘China hawks’ nesting in the Trump corridors, whilst the ‘Russia hawks’ are migrated to populate the Biden State Department.

Is escalation already ‘baked-in’? There may yet be one iconoclastic ‘fly in the ointment’: Mr Trump! – through his symbolic act of endorsing J.D. Vance for the GOP Senate Primary in Ohio, against the wishes of the GOP Establishment.

Vance is one (amongst many) representatives of America’s populist tradition seeking office in the coming Congressional ‘churn’. But the salience here is that Vance has been questioning the rush to escalation in Ukraine. Many other would-be populist contenders among the GOP’s new crop of interesting senators and senators-in-waiting already have succumbed to GOP old-establishment pressure to endorse war. (Boondoggles again).

The GOP is divided on Ukraine at its upper representational level, but the popular base traditionally is sceptical of foreign wars. With this political endorsement, Trump is nudging the GOP towards opposing escalation in Ukraine. Ross Douthat in the NY Times confirms that the Vance endorsement connects more closely to the sources of Trump’s 2016 popularity, as he mined the anti-war sentiment amongst the deplorables, whose focus more is with caring for their own country’s welfare.

Shortly after the endorsement, Trump issued a statement:

“It doesn’t make sense that Russia and Ukraine aren’t sitting down and working out some kind of an agreement. If they don’t do it soon, there will be nothing left but death, destruction, and carnage. This is a war that never should have happened, but it did. The solution can never be as good as it would have been before the shooting started, but there is a solution, and it should be figured out now—not later—when everyone will be DEAD!”, Trump said.

Trump effectively is wedging apart the possible key fault-line for the coming elections (even if some GOP panjandrums – many of whom are funded by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) – favour a more robust military involvement).

Trump too, always has an instinct for an opponent’s jugular: Biden may be highly attracted to the argument for escalation, but he is known to be sensitive to the thought of body-bags coming home to the U.S. before November becoming his legacy. Hence Trump’s exaggeration that sooner rather than later, everyone in Ukraine “will be DEAD!”.

Again, the fear amongst Democrats with military understanding is that the western weapons airlift to the borders of Ukraine will not change the course of war, and that Russia would prevail, even were NATO to engage. Or, in other words, the ‘unthinkable’ will occur: The West will lose to Russia. They argue that Team Biden has little choice: Better to bet on escalation than to risk losing all with a debacle in Ukraine (particularly after Afghanistan).

The eschew escalation presents such a challenge to the American missionary psyche of global leadership that momentum for it may not be overcome through Biden’s innate caution alone. The Washington Post already is reporting that “the Biden Administration is shrugging off fresh Russian warnings against providing Ukrainian forces with more advanced arms and new training – in what appears to be a calculated risk Moscow won’t escalate the war”.

The EU élites, by contrast, are not just persuaded (Hungary and one faction in Germany, apart) by the logic of escalation, they are frankly intoxicated by it. At the Munich Conference in February, it was as if the EU leaders were intent on out-bidding each other in their enthusiasm for war: Josep Borrell re-confirmed his commitment to a military solution in Ukraine: “Yes, normally wars have been won or lost on the battlefield”, he said upon arrival for a meeting of the EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, when asked to comment on his previous statement that “this war will be won on the battlefield”.

Their euphoria is centred around the belief that the EU – for the first time – is wielding its economic power in a globally significant way, and, at the same time, enabling and arming a proxy war against Russia (through imagining the EU as a real Carolingian empire, actually winning on the battlefield!).

The euphoria of the EU élites – so completely de-coupled from national identities and local interests, and loyal rather to a cosmopolitan vision in which men and women of consequence network endlessly amongst themselves and bask in their peer approval – is opening deep polarisation within their own societies.

The unease arises among those who do not regard patriotism, or a scepticism towards today’s Russiaphobia, as necessarily ‘gauche’. They are concerned that perception-delimited EU élites, advocating sanctions on Russia and NATO engagement with a nuclear power, will bring disaster to Europe.

The Euro-élites are on a crusade – too highly invested in the emotional charge and euphoria of the Ukraine ‘cause’ to have even considered a Plan ‘B’.

And even if a Plan ‘B’ were to be considered, the EU has less of a reverse-gear than the U.S. The Brussels zeitgeist is set in concrete. Structurally, the EU is incapable of self-reform, or of radically changing course and wider Europe now lacks the ‘vessels’ through which decisive political change can be effected.

Hold onto your hats!

19 comments:

Peter Pan said...

Well if Europe is willing to escalate, why would Washington stand in their way?

They've already succeeded in driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. Escalation can help maintain the animus.

Footsoldier said...

An ongoing inquiry into what’s going on with PayPal


The PayPal share price just keeps on going down: And here's the stock compared to the performance of the Nasdaq: The usual pundits are at a loss. They think the stock should stage a comeback soon. As Bloomberg's Subrat Patnaik noted on Monday: "Wall Street sees the company's shares jumping 90% over the next year.


Surely Bitcoin has played a big part. What intrigues me about Bitcoin is with energy prices soaring and it was expensive energy wise anyway.How will energy prices affect Bitcoin in the near future ?

Footsoldier said...

“If Elon Musk buys Twitter I’m deleting the app” is the new "If Trump wins I’m moving to Canada”

Footsoldier said...

Morrison:

“Working together with our partners in NZ and…US, I share the same red line that the US has when it comes to these issues. We won't be having Chinese military naval bases in our region on our doorstep. "


Smell the hypocrisy....


But, but, but, but, but Scott you have nothing to worry about as it is a" defensive" alliance lol.




Peter Pan said...

Deleting the Twitter app is easier than emigrating to Canada.

Footsoldier said...

It is quite amazing Le Pen got branded the " far right" candidate against Macron.


I'm with Thomas Fazi on this


https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-left-should-not-vote-for-macron/?1650624926388



Le Pen has castigated the “neoliberal” logic of many of her competitor’s proposals — particularly the tightening of the conditions for the recipients of in-work benefits and the raising of the pension age, both of which Le Pen has consistently opposed. Indeed, it is frankly difficult to see how anyone in good faith could describe Le Pen’s electoral manifesto as neoliberal.



If anything, it is a moderate redistributive programme of Keynesian orientation based on state interventionism, social protection and the defence of public services. Its measures include the strengthening of public services such as hospitals, widespread reductions in VAT, wage increases for healthcare workers and other sectors, tax exemptions or free transport for young working people, the construction of 100,000 social housing units per year, the renationalisation of motorways, and a tax on financial wealth. Nothing particularly radical — but neoliberal it certainly ain’t.


It’s no surprise that an in-depth study of Le Pen’s manifesto by the Centre for Political Research at Sciences Po, one of the largest and most influential centres for political science research in France and definitely not a lepéniste bulwark, concluded that her political programme is firmly “to the Left of the economic axis” — far more so than Macron’s agenda. Interestingly, the study also showed that Le Pen’s electorate shares her Left-wing economic outlook: high confidence in unions, distrust of large private companies, refusal to reduce the number of civil servants. Overall, an overwhelming majority of Le Pen’s supporters agree with the idea that “one should take from the rich to give to the poor”.



Indeed, it’s painstakingly obvious that Mélenchon’s own economic manifesto has much more in common with Le Pen’s than Macron’s. Yes, Mélenchon’s programme has a stronger emphasis on wages and workers’ rights, as is to be expected, but the overall orientation is similar. Mélenchon and Le Pen have also both been very critical of Macron’s “vaccine passports”, promising to repeal them if elected. And the two leaders share a similar aversion to globalisation and to the European Union in particular — of which Macron is a staunch supporter. They also both support France’s withdrawal from NATO.

Footsoldier said...

The biggest difference between the two concerns immigration. While Mélenchon’s manifesto calls for “welcoming immigrants with dignity”, Le Pen wants to “regain full control of immigration” — by tightening the rules for acquiring French nationality, granting priority access to certain social services to nationals and deporting delinquent and systematically unemployed foreigners. She has also taken a hard stance against Islamic radicalism.


So it seems that most of Mélenchon’s (and the French Left’s) arguments for choosing Macron over Le Pen don’t hold up to scrutiny: the former is incomparably worse — i.e. more “Right-wing” — than Le Pen on the economic front, and arguably almost as bad as his rival, from a standard “progressive” standpoint, when it comes to the treatment of immigrants. Regardless of what one may think of Le Pen — I’m not a fan and if I lived in France my vote would have gone to Mélenchon — it seems pretty clear that the French working class would be much worse off with a second Macron term.




As I have been saying on here for weeks now.


Ultimately, this whole affair really encapsulates why the Left-Right cleavage no longer makes much sense. No country exemplifies this better than France — the place that invented the concepts of Left and Right in politics in the first place. For not only have nominally Left and progressive parties radically shifted to the Right in economic terms and abandoned class politics in favour of identity politics, while at the same time nominally Right-wing parties have moved to the Left on the economic spectrum. But even where political parties have challenged the traditional Left-Right dichotomy — and Macron, Le Pen and Mélenchon have all insisted, in their own way, that Left-Right politics are over, with the latter going to great lengths to “de-neoliberalise” Left politics — these labels continue to prove very hard to shake off.

This is ultimately why a socialist like Mélenchon still can’t bring himself to choose “Right-wing” Le Pen over nominally “progressive” Macron, even though the former’s economic agenda is much more Left-wing. It also explains why Macron will likely be elected for a second term, with dire consequences for the French working and middle classes.

Of course, Le Pen’s voters would probably face the same dilemma if Mélenchon were running against Macron. But this only proves how the Left-Right cleavage has become a smokescreen destined to make it virtually impossible to mount any serious challenge to the status quo. So long as political parties and voters continue to attach greater importance to the increasingly meaningless labels they give themselves, rather than to the policies other parties and voters actually support, any prospect of toppling the likes of Macron is likely to be thwarted — much to the delight of the ruling classes.

Footsoldier said...

Brexit was a case in point.


The liberal left acted like the right throughout the Brexit debate.

The right acted like the left.





Footsoldier said...

Throughout his presidency, Macron has relentlessly pursued an aggressive neoliberal agenda that has dramatically worsened the conditions of the French working class, while hugely benefiting the country’s wealthy elites and corporate giants — slashing taxes for the rich and for big business, reforming the labour code to benefit employers, cutting back on welfare spending, and pursuing the “marketisation” of every area of French society.

As one French economist put it: “Macron is the candidate of the richest 1% or even 0.1%.” This is more than just a figure of speech: in his eye-opening book Crépuscule, French writer and activist Juan Branco chronicles how France’s most powerful oligarchs and media moguls literally “groomed” Macron from an early age, using all the money and influence at their disposal to help him become the country’s youngest president. It proved to be a worthwhile investment: in recent years, France has seen the greatest increase in the number of millionaires after the United States, with the richest 1% now holding 20% of the country’s wealth and seven billionaires owning more than the poorest 30%. Meanwhile, the living conditions of the most disadvantaged have worsened, and the number of French people in poverty has increased.


As if this weren’t bad enough, when France’s underclasses took to the streets to protest the president’s policies of top-down class warfare, giving birth to the Gilets Jaunes movement, Macron responded with frightening police violence, worthy of the world’s most repressive regimes, which caused protestors to lose at least 24 eyes and five hands.

The protests only came to an end because the outbreak of the Covid pandemic offered Macron, as other leaders around the world, the perfect excuse to roll out draconian and authoritarian policies of social control, which, as Toby Green and I have documented, have hurt the working classes the most. As Serge Halimi, director of Le Monde diplomatique, recently stated, Macron’s is “France’s most ‘illiberal’ presidency of modern times”, having exploited the fear of insecurity, terrorism, Covid-19 and now the war in Ukraine to “favour an anti-democratic ‘shock strategy’ aimed at “govern[ing] by fear”.



And the future for the ordinary French isn’t looking any brighter, if Macron’s electoral manifesto is anything to go by: more tax cuts for big business, raising the retirement age to 65, forcing recipients of in-work benefits to work more than 15 hours a week, and returning to Maastricht’s strict budgetary rules (i.e. more austerity). As Halimi notes: “A second term for Macron would be especially dangerous for the working class as he is unable to run for a third. Without the restraining influence of a future election”, there would be little standing in the way of Macron’s authoritarian neoliberal project.



Yet, it was Le Pen who was labelled the " far right "


The sheep fell for it again bombarded 24/7 by the media.

Peter Pan said...

France is a police state.

Matt Franko said...

Macron lost in under 60 cohort …

Peter Pan said...

The left-right divide is phony in the US and Canada; why would it be different in France?

It's the ruling class + police versus the working class. In France, there's more action in the streets because of their union movement. In North America, unions are ineffectual and corrupt.

Matt Franko said...

“ The left-right divide is phony in the US”

It’s not phony in fact it is becoming more institutionalized…

Peter Pan said...

Believers in left-right politics should be institutionalized...

Peter Pan said...

Case in point: Curtis Yarvin

Matt Franko said...

Well you’d have to jail at least half the population…

Which would include all who vote …

Peter Pan said...

Half the electorate doesn't vote because of this left-right theater. Lock 'em up.

Tom Hickey said...

Half the electorate doesn't vote because of this left-right theater

Generally speaking, the presumption is that those eligible to vote but don't is the result of apathy.

But not voting is also a way of voting when the ballot doesn't provide for "none of the above." It's called "voting with your feet."

Peter Pan said...

When nothing ever changes as a result of voting, why wouldn't voters be apathetic?