Vlad Putin just notched his first victory in Syria?

Obama_Putin

President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and U.S. President Barack Obama

 

17 December 2015

Vladimir Putin’s carpet-bombing campaign in Syria just notched its first victory. The Obama administration surrendered, The New York Post said.

That is, Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday de facto abandoned Washington’s “Assad must go” line. Assad was losing until Vlad Putin intervened in October [surprising the world when he found what sparks the light in him, and then he used that light to illuminate the world]. 

Russia has been bombing ever since hitting ISIS a few times, but mostly the rebels, including those America had helped. Team Obama’s answer was first to tut-tut, and then to appease – seeking to negotiate a common front with Putin against ISIS.

Never mind that Assad has often allied with ISIS, coordinating joint assaults on the rebels and buying ISIS oil.  But beware of sleeping with the enemy.

No matter: After meeting Putin in Moscow, Kerry announced: “The United States and our partners are not seeking the so-called “regime change.”  The U.S. focus now isn’t on “what we can or cannot be done immediately about Assad”   but rather on a magical mystery peace process that will let Syrians make a “decision for the future of Syria.”  There goes Putin’s light again.

Swell — if any Syrians are left to decide after Assad, Putin and ISIS have their way.  However, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insists US policy on Assad is still “he must go.” Mr. Earnest, however, will have to wait until Assad dies of old age, maybe.

Right now there’s hope that Russia and America can work together again.  And forget those who have tried to make them enemies.

“God’s love goes before us, his look anticipates our needs. He can see beyond appearances, beyond sin, beyond failures and unworthiness. He sees beyond our rank in society. He sees beyond this, to our dignity as sons and daughters, a dignity at times sullied by sin, but one which endures in the depth of our soul. He came precisely to seek out all those who feel unworthy of God, unworthy of others.”  ~ Pope Francis

 

 

EU Increasingly Abandons Obama on Ukraine?

 

 

eu-us-russia-ukraine-400x400As reported on Saturday March 7th by both German Economic News, and Spiegel magazine, the ongoing lies and arrogance from U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration regarding Ukraine and Russia have finally raised to the surface a long-mounting anger of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Government.

This is especially the case with Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who comes from Germany’s Social Democratic Party, which is far less conservative (and far less anti-Russian) than the Christian Democratic Union Party, Chancellor Merkel’s party. The CDU has traditionally been hostile toward Russia, but the SDP has instead favored an unprejudiced policy regarding Russia, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of communism there.

Steinmeier has always been skeptical of Obama’s intentions regarding Ukraine and Russia, but now it appears that even Merkel is veering away from the United States on these policies.

“Resistance to the US strategy toward Russia is growing in the EU,” reports GDN, which names especially U.S. General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Commander, as the major source of this turn-about, because Breedlove has “exaggerated the military role of Russia in Ukraine.”

Spiegel provides the details on Breedlove, but especially blames Victoria Nuland, the Obama official who actually ran the February 2014 coup in Ukraine and who selected the person who would steer the new, post-coup, Ukrainian Government in the ways that President Obama wants.

Spiegel’s headline is “Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine.” GDN’s is (as auto-translated by Google’s Chrome browser) “Ukraine Policy: First open conflict between Germany and NATO.”

Spiegel notes that, after the second — which was the Merkel-Hollande — Ukrainian ceasefire was reached at Minsk in late February, Breedlove announced that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” had just been sent to the conflict-region, Donbass, from Russia. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.” All of that was fictitious.

Spiegel continues: “German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency,” heard Breedlove lie and were shocked by it.

But Spiegel then goes on to subhead “The ‘Super Hawk’,” when describing Victoria Nuland’s role. Spiegel says there:

“She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats. Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine.”

Spiegel has always tried to portray U.S. President Obama as being trapped by conservatives, such as Breedlove and Nuland, who somehow became parts of his Administration and who are, supposedly, independent actors in the roles that they perform — as if they weren’t instead his employees. For Spiegel, Nuland’s (and they spell it out there, so I will here) ”Fuck the EU” statement, was only speaking for herself, as if she weren’t Obama’s hire, though Spiegel does note there that, “Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.” Precisely why Mr. Obama selected Dick Cheney’s former chief foreign-policy advisor, Nuland, to become the person who would carry out his Administration’s polices regarding Ukraine and Russia, the ever-‘tactful’ Spiegel ignores. Instead, Spiegel goes on to say, “When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand.”

Throughout, Spiegel ignores that Obama has been driving his entire Administration to marginalize, weaken, and crush Russia, and that this overriding goal of his foreign policies does not originate with his hires but with himself: he chooses these “Super Hawks” regarding Russia, because this is who he secretly is. When he plays the good cop in the good-cop bad-cop routine on Russia, it’s an act, which is designed to fool the public.

Obama bombed Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was friendly to Russia; he bombs Syria because Bashar al-Assad is friendly to Russia; he overthrew Ukraine’s Government because Viktor Yanukovych was friendly to Russia; and he has been and is squeezing Iran because Iran is friendly to Russia. Israel is no different than the U.S.: it’s rabidly anti-Russian (and most of the large political donations to there come from American billioinaires; Israel is America’s 51st state, which has lots more than one-fifty-first of the power over the American Government — it’s the most powerful of the 51 actual states, even though it has no fealty to the U.S. Constitution and no constitution of its own); and both the U.S. and Israel are allied with Saudi and other Arab royals because they’re all anti-Russian. America’s ally is Saudi Wahhabist jihadist Islam, not the EU.

America created Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Everything else than the obsession to isolate and destroy Russia is just an act, for the American aristocracy (including the ones who own Israel) — and especially for all Republican politicians and for the top Democratic ones.

Maybe the EU will finally decide that they’ve had enough of it, and invite Russia to join with them, and will tell Ukraine that they’re a bit too American for European tastes, after all: Europe has had enough experience with fascism and nazism, so that they don’t want to invite it back in again.

But will Germany actually do this? Will France actually do this? Have they had enough of “Sunni jihad“, and of “Christian nazism“ (both just aristocratic ploys), to decide that they want no part of either one? Maybe goodbye, U.S.; hello, Russia? What type of Europe would that be? Might it out-compete the U.S.? Would it be the best thing for Europeans?

That’s the big strategic question in our time. And it’s not America’s to answer. Either Europe will go with democracy and peace and abandon NATO (i.e., abandon the U.S. military), or else it will go with nazism and war and abandon democracy (like the U.S. itself has done, especially in Ukraine).

Which will it be? Europe will need to choose between Russia and the United States. If it goes with the U.S., Europeans will become servants to America’s aristocracy — to the people who are now actually running Ukraine. If it goes with Russia, then perhaps a United States of Europe will become possible so that no nation’s aristocracy will have either the inclination or the ability to dictate to the governments of Europe.

Stay tuned. These are exciting times: the stakes for future history have never been higher.

It’s not really Obama who is on the fence. It is Europe. And the decision will be for Europe’s leaders — not for America’s, nor for Russia’s — to make.

They are in the driver’s seat, for Europe’s future — and for the entire world’s.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

CNN Poll: 78 Percent Favor Military Authorization Against ISIS

Barack-Obama-Stunning-Decline

“The stunning decline of Barack Obama” – CNN

 

A majority of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s handling of the terror group Islamic State (ISIS), while 78 percent back a new authorization for use of military force against ISIS, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The poll found 57 percent don’t like how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS and 58 percent think American military action against the group is going badly. In the fall, both those numbers were at 49 percent.

Fifty-seven percent also disapprove of Obama’s handling of foreign affairs overall, and 54 percent disapprove of how Obama is handling terrorism.

CNN notes that Obama’s declining poll numbers come as violent events unfold. This weekend, two shootings in Denmark targeted a cartoonist who had illustrated the prophet Mohammed and a synagogue.  Also, Egypt launches airstrikes against ISIS in Libya over the beheadings of 21 Egyptian Christians.

Almost half – 46 percent – of people who identify as members of Obama’s own party told pollsters the fight against ISIS isn’t going well.

Just more than half – 51 percent – of all respondents think Obama is doing a good job as commander-in-chief.More people now support sending American ground troops to fight ISIS, according to the poll. In November, only 43 percent were in favor and 55 percent opposed. The number of those supporting is now at a record-high 47 percent with only half opposing.There is a party split on the issue, with 61 percent of Democrats opposing ground troops and a similar number of Republicans supporting the idea. Independents are about evenly split, with 48 percent favoring ground troops and 50 percent opposing.Seventy-eight percent of Americans favor Congress giving Obama a new authorization of use of military force against ISIS, down slightly from 82 percent in December.

The poll was conducted with 1,027 adult Americans Feb. 12-15, and and has a margin of error of 3 percent.

Kissinger warns of West’s ‘fatal mistake’ that may lead to new Cold War

 Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Reuters / Gero Breloer / Pool)


Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Reuters / Gero Breloer / Pool)

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has given a chilling assessment of a new geopolitical situation taking shape amid the Ukrainian crisis, warning of a possible new Cold War and calling the West’s approach to the crisis a “fatal mistake.”

The 91-year-old diplomat characterized the tense relations as exhibiting the danger of “another Cold War.”

“This danger does exist and we can’t ignore it,” Kissinger said. He warned that ignoring this danger any further may result in a “tragedy,” he told Germany’s Der Spiegel.

If the West wants to be “honest,” it should recognize, that it made a “mistake,” he said of the course of action the US and the EU adopted in the Ukrainian conflict. Europe and the US did not understand the “significance of events” that started with the Ukraine-EU economic negotiations that initially brought about the demonstrations in Kiev last year. Those tensions should have served as a starting point to include Russia in the discussion, he believes.

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin (Reuters / Kevin Lamarque)

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin (Reuters / Kevin Lamarque)

“At the same time, I do not want to say that the Russian response was proportionate,” the Cold War veteran added, saying that Ukraine has always had a “special significance” for Russia and failure to understand that “was a fatal mistake.”

Calling the sanctions against Moscow “counterproductive,” the diplomat said that they set a dangerous precedent. Such actions, he believes, may result in other big states trying to take “protective measures” and strictly regulate their own markets in future.

When introducing some sanctions or publishing lists of people whose accounts were frozen one should wonder “what will happen next?” the former Secretary of State said rhetorically, because when something begins you cannot lose sight of where it is going to end.

Kissinger also said he would expect more action from Berlin on matter. As the most “important” country in Europe it should be more “proactive” rather than reactive, he said.

 

 

President Obama Post-Election News Conference

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Brendan Smialowski)

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Brendan Smialowski)

November 5, 2014

President Obama Post-Election News Conference

President Obama held a post-election news conference at the White House to talk about why Democrats lost control of the Senate and lost more seats in the Republican-controlled House.

 

People in this video

Hosting Organization

 

You can also watch the following videos:

VIDEOS:

August 28, 2014

Presidential News Conference

President Obama made a statement about the latest developments in Syria and Ukraine and responded to reporters’…

 

August 18, 2014

Iraq Strategy and Shooting in Ferguson, Missouri

President Obama made a statement on the latest developments in Iraq, saying that the Iraqi and Kurdish forces

 

August 1, 2014

Presidential News Conference

President Obama held a news conference following his phone conversation earlier in the day with Russian President…

 

July 18, 2014

President Obama on Situation in Ukraine

President Obama made a statement about the Malaysia Airlines flight shot down over eastern Ukraine near the Russian…