Putin at UN: We need a ‘genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler’

Vladimir Putin’s 2015 Address to the United Nations28 Sept 2015

**PDF for download**

Russian President Vladimir Putin just took the stage at the UN General Assembly for the first time in a decade, and he called for a “genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler.”

Putin began by describing the original purpose of the UN, which he said had been violated by “those that found themselves at the top of the pyramid” after the Cold War.

“They thought they knew better and thought they did not have to reckon with the UN to legitimize their decisions,” Putin said, probably referring to the US.

Of course, the world is changing,” he said. “The UN must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready.”

Putin then laid out his argument against regime change in Syria, saying foreign meddling in overthrowing regimes had only created more instability in the Middle East.

“The export of revolutions — this time so-called democratic ones — continues,” he said.

The Russian president was expected to use the speech to flesh out his proposal for a Russian-led anti-ISIS coalition — which now includes Syria, Iraq, and Iran — and to emphasize how US intervention in the Middle East had destabilized the region.

9/28/15 at 2:02 PM

 

putin-unga

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses attendees during the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, September 28. Mike Segar/Reuters

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin just took the stage at the UN General Assembly for the first time in a decade, and he called for a “genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler.”

Putin began by describing the original purpose of the UN, which he said had been violated by “those that found themselves at the top of the pyramid” after the Cold War.

“They thought they knew better and thought they did not have to reckon with the UN to legitimize their decisions,” Putin said, probably referring to the US.

Of course, the world is changing,” he said. “The UN must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready.”

Putin then laid out his argument against regime change in Syria, saying foreign meddling in overthrowing regimes had only created more instability in the Middle East.

“The export of revolutions — this time so-called democratic ones — continues,” he said.

The Russian president was expected to use the speech to flesh out his proposal for a Russian-led anti-ISIS coalition — which now includes Syria, Iraq, and Iran — and to emphasize how US intervention in the Middle East had destabilized the region.

isis map

To this effect, Putin said: “Far from learning from others’ mistakes, we keep on repeating them. It suffices to look at Middle East and North Africa … Rather than bringing about reform, foreign interference has resulted in … violence, poverty, and social disaster.

Putin said the power vacuum in the Middle East had “started to be filled by militants and terrorists.” He continued: “We think it is an enormous mistake to not cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces. No one but Assad’s armed forces and the Kurdish militias are truly fighting ISIS and other terrorists in Syria.

“On the basis of international law, we must create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism,” he said. “Naturally, the modern countries are expected to play a key role in this coalition.”

Putin then proposed that the world coordinate its actions to fight ISIS based on the principles in the UN charter. This was most likely a jab at the US, whose arming of some Syrian rebels Putin denounced as a violation of the charter in his interview with Charlie Rose that aired Sunday.

Putin addressed the conflict in Ukraine, albeit briefly, railing on the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West.

“Unilateral sanctions have become almost commonplace in pursuing political objectives,” he said. “The rules of the game are being constantly rewritten by a small group of players.”

russian posture in syria 27 sep 2015-01
 
 

Russia has been building up its military presence in Syria since late August in an effort to keep the embattled regime of President Bashar Assad from being overthrown by the many rebel groups operating, and gaining territory, within Syria.

Putin has been working to challenge America’s influence in the region by forging ties with Iran and expanding Russia’s leadership role in Syria and Iraq, and it seems to be working: Iraq announced on Sunday that it had reached a deal with Russia, Syria, and Iran to begin sharing “security and intelligence” information about ISIS, the Associated Press reported.

Broadly, Putin wants to show that he is willing to go further than the US and coalition partners to meet his stated regional goals, Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider. Those goals apparently include keeping Assad in power.

Now, more and more Western leaders — including British Prime Minister David Cameron and Secretary of State John Kerry — are beginning to accept Russia’s assertion that the jihadists in Syria can be defeated only if Assad remains in power, at least in the short-term.

isis map

Obama, too, has been forced to acknowledge Russia’s expanding role in the region. The president, who has not spoken to Putin face-to-face in more than two years, was scheduled to meet with him Monday after both leaders’ speeches at the UN.

The Daily Beast’s Ben Nimmo warns that Obama should be wary: “The Russian president is hoping to snare his American counterpart by forcing him to accept Assad’s legitimacy. Obama should resist.”

During his speech at the UN earlier Monday, Obama said he was prepared to work with both Russia and Iran to solve the crisis in Syria.

And while he said Assad should not remain in place, he advocated a “managed transition” from Assad to a new leader. That could be a compromise that Russia and Iran — which are doubling down on propping up Assad — will certainly welcome as the military stalemate continues.

***NOW WATCH: Why Putin is the most powerful man in the world***

http://www.businessinsider.com/ian-bremmer-vladimir-putin-most-powerful-man-world-2015-5#ooid=RhNTFkdTovrJg1rP-s9ZqAiCXm6cMBEh

Stop Bombing Syria: a Letter from Mark Rylance, Brian Eno, John Pilger et al.

 

We are gravely concerned at the possibility of a parliamentary decision to bomb Syria. David Cameron is planning such a vote in the House of Commons in the near future. He is doing so in the face of much evidence that such an action would exacerbate the situation it is supposed to solve. Already we have seen the killing of civilians and the exacerbation of a refugee crisis which is largely the product of wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

The US and its allies have dropped 20,000 bombs on Iraq and Syria in the past year, with little effect. We fear that this latest extension of war will only worsen the threat of terrorism, as have the previous wars involving the British government. Cameron is cynically using the refugee crisis to urge more war. He should not be allowed to.

Mark Rylance

Charlotte Church

John Williams

Mairead Maguire Nobel peace laureate

Brian Eno

Len McCluskey General secretary, Unite the Union

Christine Shawcroft Labour NEC

Diane Abbott MP

Jenny Tonge

Caroline Lucas MP

Andrew Murray Chair, Stop the War Campaign

Lindsey German Convenor, STWC

Tariq Ali

John Pilger

Tim Lezard

David Edgar

Alan Gibbons

Andy de la Tour

Michael Rosen

Eugene Skeef

Victoria Brittain

Anders Lustgarten

David Gentleman

David Swanson

Gerry Grehan Peace People Belfast

 

 

 

 

The Hillary Clinton Email Saga: “Senior Intelligence Officials Said”

Region:

 

Hillary-Clinton-EmailsThere’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

There’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). UNRULY hEARTS will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Outright lies from the New York Times

 

SALON

Outright lies from the New York Times: What you need to know about the dangerous new phase in the Ukraine crisis

While establishment media toe Washington’s line, violence and instability have shaken the Ukraine this week

The slightly fetid “phony war” in Ukraine—the unsettling stagnation noted in this space a month ago—is emphatically over. Suddenly there is movement on several fronts, and some of it is promising. But this is a dangerous moment, too, chiefly because Washington’s bet on the post-coup government in Kiev, bad from the outset, is on the brink of producing a result so ugly and shameful its consequences all around cannot now be calculated.

I refer to the very real potential, as of Monday, for a coup mounted by violence-adoring ultra-rightists—those neo-Nazis airbrushed out of the news coverage even as they now maraud through the Ukrainian capital almost with impunity. “The far right won’t make a full move on the Poroshenko government now,” a Ukrainian émigré said on the telephone Tuesday. “I think it’ll be a couple of months before we see that.”

Comforting, isn’t it?

In effect, we will now watch a race between those attempting to forge a negotiated settlement in Ukraine—and the prospects for this look good once again—and the collapse of the Kiev government precisely because the European powers are now forcing it to accept such a settlement. You tell me who is going to break the tape.

Before I go any further, there is an aspect of this new phase in the Ukraine crisis that needs to be noted right away. The narrative advanced over the past 18 months by most Western media—and all corporate American media, without exception—is coming unglued before our eyes. This is going to make it even more difficult than heretofore to understand events by way of our newspapers and broadcasters.

Already we see the kind of contorted reporting always deployed when our media have to cover their tracks after long periods of corrupt, untruthful work. Per usual, the most consequential offenses occur in the government-supervised New York Times.

Example: Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president, now confronts “Ukrainian nationalists” over plans to decentralize power because Vladimir Putin forced this upon him, “with a metaphorical gun to his head.” This we read in Tuesday’s paper. And here we need a trigger warning for the faint of heart, because I have two strong words for this report, written with deliberation.

Outright lies. We are beyond lies of omission now. These are the real thing.

One, these are not “nationalists.” France’s Front Nationale is nationalist. The U.K. Independence party is nationalist. The majorities on Capitol Hill are nationalist. These are black-shirted ultras who vote with explosives and assassins’ bullets. You deserve to know this, and it does not change simply because Washington backs them covertly and John McCain—ask him—does smiling photo ops with Oleh Tyahnybok, their openly fascist leader.

Two, there is no accounting at all for the “gun to his head” bit, but Putin’s view that federalization is the sensible solution to the Ukraine crisis is (1) plainly the sound way to hold the nation together while addressing its differences and (2) vehemently endorsed by the French and German governments. Chancellor Merkel, with no gun to her head, made this plain Tuesday, when she insisted that autonomy legislation now pending in Kiev must be acceptable to the leadership in the rebellious eastern regions. You deserve to know this, too.

Chronology is all if we are to understand the events of the past week or so. You have not seen a chronology, because this is the very worst time, from the official and media perspectives, for you to understand events. A brief sketch of the errant timeline, which will do for now, looks like this:

Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the German and French leaders, had Poroshenko to Berlin last week and made him stand next to them as they vigorously reiterated their commitment to a negotiated settlement based on the pact signed in Minsk last February. “We are here to implement the Minsk deal, not to call it into question,”Merkel declared in that forthright way of hers.

Last weekend, with Poroshenko back in Kiev, Germany, France and Russia—the Minsk signatories, along with Ukraine—declared that a new ceasefire would go into effect Tuesday, September 1. At writing, the very early signs are that it has a better-than-even chance of holding, previous efforts having frayed.

On Monday the Kremlin announced that the Minsk signatories would meet by mid-September “in the Normandy format.” This means the four foreign ministers will convene, probably by telephone (as they first did in northern France on the D-Day anniversary last year). Two implications: One, this is a working session, devoted to structuring terms. Two, Paris, Berlin and Moscow want concrete progress toward a settlement within two weeks. In other words, the clock ticks.

Also on Monday, the Rada, Ukraine’s legislature, held a preliminary vote on the constitutional revisions that are to provide the eastern regions a high degree of autonomy. While this is a key provision in the Minsk agreement, the Poroshenko government had previously done nothing to implement it over the seven months since Minsk II was signed.

• And finally, far-right protesters had gathered outside the Rada in anticipation of the vote. As soon as the measure was passed—by a narrow margin—they erupted into violent rioting featuring bombs, explosive devices and grenades. Three police officers are now dead, more than 100 injured. The instigator was the same party that turned demonstrations last year into a coup— Oleh Tyahnybok’s Svoboda, the Russian-hating, Jew-hating party that canonizes Nazi collaborators. Poroshenko called Svoboda’s riot “a stab in the back.” Of course: Until recently his deputy prime minister and prosecutor general were both Svoboda members. He’s no stranger to these people.

So went the past week. What do we make of it? Where are we in this story?

* * *

I see several moving parts in what is now a highly kinetic situation in Ukraine and surrounding it. In some cases these are intricately related.

Consider first the European position. The Germans and French have plainly quickened the pace of their joint diplomatic efforts. Why is this and why now? It helps to note that Paris and Berlin have chosen to work with the Russians within the Minsk II framework while excluding the Americans (as, indeed, Mink II pointedly excluded them earlier this year, when warmongers on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon were hoisting the thought of arming Kiev up the flagpole).

Two concerns appear to be at work in the European capitals. One, Washington has stepped back but half a step from its effort to force a military solution in Ukraine. Recall: As of this summer the Pentagon is effectively managing Ukraine’s armed forces. Note: Joe Biden, the White House’s point man on the war, had little to say to the French and the Germans last week, but he called Poroshenko in Kiev to stiffen the wayward president’s back in countering rebel forces on the ground in the eastern regions. (Biden for president is an odious thought, incidentally.)

Two, and more urgent, the Europeans are well aware that the Poroshenko government is highly unstable, if not teetering indeed. Its support in opinion polls is well down in the single digits. Even before this week’s street violence, nobody in Berlin could fail to see the threat of an overthrow posed by the black-shirted ultras of Svoboda and Right Sektor, a more recently formed descendant of the Social-National Party, as Svoboda used to call itself.

Remember the wave of assassinations in Kiev last April? Among the victims was a journalist and historian named Oles Buzina, who opposed a radical breach with Russia on numerous grounds. Buzina seems to have been much honored among Ukrainians, for some of them placed a plaque on the front wall of his home. Last week, Right Sektor members gouged it off—and then replaced it with a similar slab honoring his assassins. “In broad daylight. No police to be seen,” as Russia Insider, the Western-run news site in Moscow, reported.

A few days later Svoboda and Right Sektor staged the riot outside the Rada. There have been arrests in both cases, but we are looking at something close to impunity.

I called Lev Golinkin, a young Ukrainian writer from the eastern city of Kharkiv (and the émigré quoted above), to ask him about this. Here is some of what he said in a long telephone exchange Tuesday:

“The far right does not have enough support to win any presence in parliament. But they don’t need support. They need unrest. All they need is for people to see the Poroshenko government as just as corrupt and inefficient as the one it replaced. And of course it is.

“Svoboda sees Poroshenko as a traitor, who is letting Europeans betray Ukraine. They have no interest in equal rights, decentralization of the country, peace with Russia. There’s no room for compromise in their position…. The war serves Poroshenko because it distracts the far right. They’re for the war. But other than this, they have nothing in common with this president.”

“Why, Lev, do you think a move against the government is probable in the next couple of months?” I asked. Golinkin replied:

“It’s historical reality. Once they’re active they don’t stop until they’re completely defeated or they take power. After World War I, Poland brutally suppressed them. After World War II, the Soviet Union brutally suppressed them. And now there’s no one to suppress them…. The Ukrainian army may not be on Poroshenko’s side. The biggest question in my mind is whether the army will fight the far right.

“Right now Poroshenko’s darting around like a squirrel. In Kiev he says, ‘There’s no plan to decentralize. There’s no special status for the east.’ Then he works with Merkel and Hollande on plans to decentralize and grant the east special status.”

Let me put it this way: If I am talking about this near-chaos as I sit in a village of 1,600 souls in the New England hills, they are talking about it in Berlin and Paris. Merkel and Hollande appear to be motivated in some measure, and maybe in large measure, by the thought that they must move now if they are to grasp their last, best chance to achieve a negotiated settlement in Ukraine.

* * *

I had a note from a reader the other day—a prominent, connected man—who conveyed the thoughts of an American colonel now serving in Germany. (I will name neither my reader nor the officer I am about to quote.) The colonel was writing about “a shift toward collaborative behavior” he sees among Americans—the thought being that Washington is moving gradually away from unilateral action and an insistence on American primacy across all oceans and continents.

I, too, see signs of this in the Obama administration’s record, but only signs, and they are faint. It occurs on a here-and-there basis and there is no consistency to it. In my read, this shift reflects partly a new understanding of America’s place but mostly the force of circumstance. The colonel sees the latter at work in Europe, referring to “the pretty much complete failure of the most recent ‘regime change’ that was engineered in Ukraine.”

The note prompted me to think, and the events of the past few days confirm the thought: It is not too soon to assess Washington’s failure in Ukraine. It is, indeed, “pretty much complete” and pretty much on display as we speak. No surprise from this quarter: As argued severally in this space, this failure is has been more or less inevitable since the beginning of the Ukraine adventure in the first post-Soviet years—and certainly since the coup Washington cultivated in Kiev last year.

I do not seem to be as isolated in this judgment as I was even a few months ago. “Better to get the most advantageous possible negotiated terms,” a new piece on Ukraine in The National Interest argues, “than to set up ourselves and the NATO alliance for a high-profile defeat.”

That is a foreign policy “realist” doing his reckoning. It is the sound of tactical retreat in the face of failure. I go even further: Not only has failure been inevitable from the first; it is the best outcome for Americans by a long way.

There are a couple of ways to explain this. First, there are the practicalities. The shambolic Poroshenko government is simply too weak to serve as an effective client, even if you think a client regime on Russia’s border is a good idea. It long ago spent its political capital. Its support in the Rada is crumbling. The I.M.F. just completed its bailout arrangement, but in so doing it assumes responsibility for an economy that has more or less ceased to exist.

The new figure for deaths in the conflict zone bouncing around in the press is “approaching 7,000.” Bad enough. But as Stephen Cohen, the honored Russianist, pointed out long ago, this is the number of bodies counted in morgues, nothing more. German intelligence put fatalities at 50,000 or more, and that was six months or so back.

Now comes the very real threat of a far-right insurgency no one can control. Even if Poroshenko manages to keep his balance, this problem will haunt him. Equally, consider the damage to trans-Atlantic relations—already complicated by the Ukraine crisis—if a neo-fascist regime were to take power as the outcome of Washington’s 20-odd year effort to pull Ukraine out by its roots and repot it as another flower in the Western garden.

These are on-the-ground reasons Washington simply does not want to put its name on this mess any longer. A “realist” in these matters might agree. Wait for it, readers: All the blame must now be shoved off on Russia, which is never right about anything and which holds guns to people’s heads. This is going to take a lot, lot, lot of lying.

But there is another reason to applaud Washington’s failure in Ukraine, and I put a higher value on it.

Good people in Washington and elsewhere in this nation can think all the high-minded thoughts they wish, but none is going to alter the policy cliques’ conduct abroad decisively, as it must be altered if we are to avoid a series of calamities and tragedies as the 21st century proceeds. It is essential to wage the intellectual war, surely, but we also need failures. Repeated failures are the only way we will get this done. In failures lies our success, to put the point another way.

It is not a matter only of countering entrenched interests—the Pentagon, the defense industries, the intelligence and national security apparatus. I conclude that the American consciousness must also sustain a certain kind of violence before we will imagine our place in the world anew. This seems to me the colonel’s thought: We failed in Ukraine “pretty much completely,” and we can learn from this to think differently.

I see two major misapprehensions immediately at issue. One is the neoliberal model, arising as it does out of the Chicago School’s free-market ideology, econometrics, rational choice theory, and the drastic tilt toward mathematics and computer modeling in postwar social sciences. It strips all history, culture, tradition and human preference out of our thinking such that we can pile into Ukraine and expect to win the day.

Impossible. This is the irrationality of hyper-rationality. It is a proven loser. Let the losses pile up.

Two, of course, is the exceptionalist impulse, and it is closely allied to neoliberal thinking. I have little faith that we Americans will abandon our claim to providential righteousness—the ideological cloak draped over our incessant drive for markets—until the world tells us one too many times to keep it to ourselves. Drop the mythological veneer, and we Americans can have a proper debate as to whether we want to subvert nations such as Ukraine for the sake of corporations such as Chevron.

The only weakness in this argument, so far as I can see, is undue optimism—and yes, you read the sentence correctly. It may be that I overestimate this nation’s capacity to learn from its mistakes. Maybe I see higher aspirations among us than the policy cliques will ever reflect and, in a drastically changing political scene, see a chance for these to rise to the surface as they might have before the three assassinations that changed everything 50 years ago.

We will see. Let us watch how our failure in Ukraine computes out. Two wishes in the meantime.

One, the odious triumphalism that arose in the 1990s—so tinny and unbecoming when seen from the perspectives of others—will go straight to hell at last. I detest it.

Two, the shockingly bad performance of our media, notably but not only the government-supervised New York Times, will prove a turning point in the arrival of alternative media. It is they that have got the Ukraine story right, shining more light on it than news organizations commanding a hundred times the wattage. Given this performance, we should not consider them an alternative to anything, I like to think—only new growth on the old tree.

Patrick Smith is Salon’s foreign affairs columnist. A longtime correspondent abroad, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune and The New Yorker, he is also an essayist, critic and editor. His most recent books are “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century” (Yale, 2013) and Somebody Else’s Century: East and West in a Post-Western World (Pantheon, 2010). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is patricklawrence.us.

Donbass ✰ T-64 y T-72 batallón montado miliciano “Diezel” 09.07.2015 maniobras

Published on Jul 11, 2015

El T-64 es un carro de combate diseñado en la Unión Soviética. Entró en servicio a finales de la década de los 60. Es el primero en ser construido con blindaje compuesto y cargador de munición automático, es considerado el precursor de todos los carros de combate modernos de la Unión Soviética y sus descendientes como los T-80, T-84 incluso los T-72 y T-90.

Mas Información: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eXrussoYT

Donbass Song: Anthem of Heaven

Published on Jul 25, 2015

“Sing the eternal song for the eternally living. By the Law of Heaven, lies and evil are going to be erased from the pages. By the Law of Love, the ones who stay with Him will live. Then the task is given to survive, to return home with victory. And Heaven will sing about your courage from above.
The waltz will swirl,
The march will march,
We will shout hurrah!
And praising the Law of Heaven you will sing the anthem of Love,
(Excerpt from a song from Donbass)
Video excerpt from “Donbass Under Fire: Unbowed” Documentary by Maxim Fadeyev
See entire video: https://youtu.be/z68hA6qcQY0

Many THANKS to Kazzura for her translation of this video. See all her videos at: https://www.youtube.com/user/winterso…

No Russian Troops in Ukraine- Obama still wants War
http://youtu.be/iNx2DvY3qaw

Obama Admits US “Brokered” Coup in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/1QAXmf5_EOs

US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013
http://youtu.be/hMVfN5AF0dI

US Army in Ukraine Since Sept 2014
http://youtu.be/f6oLJB69dOU

“Open Hand Now a Fist” to Kiev,USA”
https://youtu.be/Ws1ESTTDH9A

Kiev Officers Defy Kiev,USA’s Genocide in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/lurflboZreI

American Teaches Kiev Soldiers Not to Have Emotions in War
https://youtu.be/TZfexe3gR8w

Kiev Major General Defects to DPR
http://youtu.be/mNV2q9MuOaI

Obama Hypocrite of the Year
http://youtu.be/8itUHqit5sY

Damn Obama & Poroshenko!!! Wake up America!
http://youtu.be/i2VnxiIvdjg

US Legacy in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/6Dvi_uz5eSU

US Goal in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/X8k8xRQ2FCk

Separatist Vows to Fight Kiev,USA
http://youtu.be/mmVVh6h8LQg

US General, “start killing Russians”
http://youtu.be/3EJLi23fTPg

Ukraine Crisis Summary -short
http://youtu.be/7jl06ALnLWk

Ukraine Chaos Summary http://youtu.be/51NoHKpqVyI

US Coup in Ukraine- Longer version
http://youtu.be/Yhcc4v1kh-Y

Ukraine People Hate New Gov’t from Obama
http://youtu.be/7YGBLkRrxY8

Ukraine Message to Obama
http://youtu.be/gPxRLx4X9YM

Obama & Poroshenko Poster
http://youtu.be/bIJaxDgvXnU

EU coup d’etat in Ukraine – Nigel Farage
http://youtu.be/0ILMjrdL5Ds

“Obama’s Appalling War Rhetoric” in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/LuiJVO6tzlA

Anti-Putin Journalist-Truth About Ukraine
http://youtu.be/VSEkcCavcmE

Joe Biden’s Son Appointed to Ukraine’s Largest Gas Co.
http://youtu.be/zFKzZPOcYb4

US Wars – Blood for Money
http://youtu.be/xB7JcWoTiR4

WAR- A Scam on Americans (Butler)
http://youtu.be/Nr4fJaXFh88

Why the West Fears Putin
http://youtu.be/xNFmBJSAxUQ

article- “Why the West Fears Putin”
http://xlerma.wordpress.com/2010/12/2…

Why America Falls https://youtu.be/HkM-e2a2ql4

US Dogs of War
https://youtu.be/3-M-i2ldc1w

Country singer Daron Norwood found dead in his apartment

GODaronNorwood100711

Daron Norwood has died at the age of 49.

The country music singer was found in the bedroom of his Texas apartment by his landlord on Wednesday, according to UsWeekly.

The crooner was best known for his Nineties hit songs Cowboys Don’t Cry, If It Wasn’t for Her, I Wouldn’t Have You, My Girl Friday and Bad Dog, No Biscuit. He quit the music business in 1995 because of his addiction to drugs and alcohol.

He was last seen out with friends on Tuesday evening,

According to police spokesman Chief Brent Harrison of the Hereford Police Department, he was discovered around 2 pm on Wednesday afternoon.

‘On July 22nd, 2015, at approximately 2 p.m., officers of the Hereford Police Department, along with medical personnel were sent to the 100 block of Hereford Calle in reference to an unresponsive subject,’ Harrison told Us.

‘On arrival, Daron Norwood, age 49, was found in the bedroom of the apartment, deceased. No signs of foul play were observed and the incident remains under investigation.’

Norwood released three albums: self-titled Daron Norwood in 1993; Ready, Willing And Able in 1995; and I Still Believe in 2012.

Six of his singles were on the Billboard Hot Country Songs charts. He was twice in the country top 40.

Daron grew up in Texas and then moved to Nashville in 1988. There the the son of a preacher tried to launch his country music career. His idols were Johnny Cash and George Strait.

@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook