Thursday 25th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the war criminals in Washington and in Europe...

criminalscriminals

An article by Geoff Raby AO on Pearls and Irritations is more like getting a deadly rash from eating peanuts, than an irritation… It's vile… Geoff Raby AO is an Australian economist and diplomat. He served as the Australian Ambassador to the People's Republic of China from February 2007 until August 2011.

 

Here he goes:

China’s top people see a successful country standing tall in the world. Now their leader is tarring it all by association with the wrecker and war criminal in Moscow.

 

GusNotes in ROMAN:

THIS IS SLANTED AND CROOKED LIKE A CARROT GROWING IN CONCRETE. PUTIN IS NOT A WAR CRIMINAL UNLIKE BUSH, BLAIR AND OUR OWN JOHN HOWARD. XI would be humouring the West at the moment because not only HE VALUES NEUTRALITY and cheap Russian oil, he is also under SEVERE AGGRESSION FROM THE USA and its lackeys, such as Aussieland. 

 

 

In politics a catchy phrase can be used to devastating effect, such as John Howard’s assertion that his Labor opponent Kim Beazley ‘‘had no ticker’’. With this, the Liberals could focus on Labor’s perceived weakness on national security and border protection. It may well have cost Beazley the 2001 election.

 

 

Xi HAS FAR MORE TICKER THAN THE IDIOT LIVING IN THE White House. The Australian federal election was held in Australia on 10 November 2001… 9/11 had happened a couple of months before hand — and John Howard benefitted from the kerfuffle, then he lied, sent Australia to war in Afghanistan and joined the other liars, Bush and Blair against Saddam...

 

 

 

In international relations, such glib catchphrases can frame serious policy choices, divide countries and lead to countervailing reactions.

In 2002, president George W. Bush’s ‘‘axis of evil’’ linking North Korea, Iran and Iraq led to the creation by Iran of the ‘‘axis of resistance’’ – and concern among key US allies not to be seen standing too close to Washington.

 

All this “axis of Evil" was BULLSHIT. The whole thing was designed TO CONQUER THE WORLD UNDER FALSE PRETENCES and carry on destroying the Muslim world on the side. 

 

With the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, our Prime Minister’s speechwriters have come up with ‘‘arc of autocracy’’, linking Russia and China in an alliance opposed to democracies. Without nuance or subtlety, it presupposes a neat alignment of interests, divides the world order into two hostile groups, and implies undifferentiated policy responses towards the autocracies.

 

OUTRAGEOUS? FOR WHOM? THE WEST WAS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED IN THE DONBASS REGION BY “THE LITTLE PRETTY BOY” (ZELENSKY-Y) AND HIS AZOV BRIGADES… NATO WAS BULLSHITTING WITH NO END IN SIGHT, and UNDER THE LITTLE HITLER, Jen Stoltenberg, WAS PUSHING EASTWARDS contrary to promises made to Russia. Yes I know, the promise was made to the USSR, not Russia, thus it’s okay to twist the turd...

 

 

 

It is worth recalling that after the Sino-Soviet split in 1961, it took a decade for the West to look beyond the ‘‘communism’’ tag to understand that China and the Soviet Union had indeed fallen out.

The world is much more complex than a simple slogan can capture.

Far from alignment among autocracies, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a foreign policy nightmare for China that may carry serious political consequences within China, and for Xi Jinping in particular.

 

CONTRARILY TO WHAT RABY SAYS, Xi would be amused that the US is being distracted by Ukraine… while having to still “contain China"...

 

 

The invasion is a moment of moral clarity. One can oppose or support, but cannot be neutral. Neutrality is complicity and therefore support for Vladimir Putin’s atrocities. No amount of weasel wording can obscure that simple choice.

 

UNDER THIS THEORY, The US was pure weasel at the beginning of WW2…It TOOK THE DISASTER OF PEARL HARBOUR TO GET THINGS MOVING...

 

 

This, of course, also applies to India and others who have sought to fudge their culpability by not unequivocally condemning the invasion. As some predicted long ago, groupings such as the Quad, purportedly based on shared values, would turn to water as soon as real interests came into play. The Quad has fallen at the first hurdle. Does Australia want India to remain a member when it can’t even criticise Putin’s invasion?

 

INDIA IS A GOOD FRIEND OF RUSSIA. IT NEEDS RESOURCES. RUSSIA PROVIDES. INDIA DOES NOT NEED TO SHOW ALLEGIANCE TO A BUNCH OF DELUDED WESTERN NATIONS that think that the “Little Nice Boy” (Zelensky-y) is pure as snow.... His armies have killed more than 3,000 people in the Donbass region since he came to power. 

 

 

 

In China’s case we harbour no such naive illusions. The US and the West do, however, look to hold China to a higher standard. Rightly, we call on it to condemn unequivocally the invasion of Ukraine.

 

 

RIGHTLY? Fuck! China is next on the list of countries to be destroyed by the ANGLO-SAXON HEGEMONY. Xi knows this. If he didn’t, he would be out on his arse.    

 

 

By not doing so at the outset, Xi has made a major foreign policy blunder that he may long rue. He has missed a historic opportunity to reset relations with the US, and the West more generally.

While the uninformed look at China as a political monolith with Xi at the centre and all bowing before him, the reality is far from this. Elite politics in China are dynamic. As in democratic systems, rival factions compete for influence and power.

Many of China’s elites would be extremely unhappy to find China aligned in this way with Russia. While most buy into the narrative of a rising China, righting historical wrongs visited on the country by a hostile West, they also have a vision of a China that stands tall in the world, respected by all, especially by its benchmark, the US.

Dangerously for Xi, he has made the elites, and China more broadly, lose face. They would be horrified to find themselves lumped together with rogue states such as Russia and North Korea. This is not the China that 40 years of reform, opening to the world and integrating into the international system was intended to create.

 

 

Rabi should watch the DOCUMENTARY MADE BY JOHN PILGER ABOUT ALL THIS… Xi is aware of the delicate balance of power, designed to destroy China AS WELL AS DESTROY RUSSIA. Xi's style is to maintain a happy serenity under the threats and the abuses from the West, especially from our little turds, Dutton and ScoMo-Schmo. Xi is building China’s commerce, its defences and technologies, while we philosophise about which hole to use for fucking someone. 

  

Of course, like Russia’s oligarchs, China’s elites also have their children at the best Western universities and much of their wealth safely invested in Western assets. They are also patriotic, proud of China’s considerable achievements, and by and large comfortable with China’s one-party political system and Communist Party rule.

But their image of themselves and for China is modern, sophisticated and as part of the international system, not one of war criminals and wreckers of generally agreed norms of behaviour between states.

 

SOPHISTICATION IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO WESTERN NATIONS. THE USA HAS MANY “UNSOPHISTICATED” major PROBLEMS WHICH WOULD SHAME OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING CHINA, but seem to be the pride and joy of this stupid nation called the USA. CHINA’S SOPHISTICATION does not need the “Western values”… The elite in China have benefited from the Chinese system of controls: In China, CAPITALISM IS ALLOWED BUT IT DOES NOT CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. In the US, every administrations have been enslaved by CAPITALISM. This is big difference which allows Xi to help the poorest Chinese get out of poverty and reduce the rich/poor gap which in the West is MASSIVE.

 

 

China’s ‘‘wolf warrior’’ diplomacy did not play well with such people. It is noteworthy that over the past six months this seems to have been wound back, notwithstanding continuing provocations from Australia and the US.

These people also did not like Xi removing the fixed term on the president. It was not so much whether they liked or did not like Xi, but rather that by removing the agreed institutional mechanism for transferring power, they felt it made China’s political system look backward. Xi had made them lose face by reverting to a hick autocracy.

It is true that not all of China’s elites share the same view, but many would. 

 

How does RABY KNOW that many would? China has been under constant humiliation since the Opium Wars, and does not care two hoots about the political games of the West — as long as the nations of the world KEEP BUYING CHINESE GOODS and that most of the Chinese people are happy AND HELP EACH OTHERS,  unlike the competitive spirit that kills even the best in the West.... 

 

 

These concerns and humiliations would play into domestic political dynamics. Faced with the potential threat of Western economic coercion and international isolation, these could become powerful voices in opposition to Xi. Everyone in China, from Xi down, would be amazed by the unity, decisiveness and effectiveness of the West’s response to the invasion.

 

AMAZED? BLINDFOLDED INTO A US GROUPTHINK ALLA Orwell’s Big Brother 1984. THE WESTERN NATIONS HAVE A FEW ROGUES WHO HAVE SEEN THE TRICKS OF NATO. MANY OF THE WESTERN NATIONS DO NOT WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT BY FEAR OF NOT SELLING CARS TO THE USA — OR SUCH. AT LEAST PUTIN HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: STOP HERE. HERE IS MY DEMANDS FOR RUSSIAN SECURITY AND THE WEST TOLD PUTIN TO FUCK OFF!

 

 

Xi has staked a great deal of political capital on his handling of COVID-19 but omicron, as experienced outside China, was bound to challenge his core claim of competency in managing the pandemic. Zero COVID-19 is not an option.

 

Xi is not a dummy. HE WOULD KNOW THAT THE WEST HAS BEEN ABUSING RUSSIAN PATIENCE — in a similar way that the West has been ABUSING CHINA’S PATIENCE… And the way CHINA WAS ABUSED IN REGARD TO COVID-19 BY AUSTRALIA ON BEHALF OF THE YANKS would have shown Xi on which side his bread is buttered. 

 

 

China’s economy was already weakening under the pressures of adjusting balance sheets in the property sector and anaemic consumer demand. Xi is heading towards his moment with destiny, with COVID-19 becoming rampant, major cities locked down, and the economy faltering.

Putin’s invasion has made Xi’s big year a most dangerous one.

 

 

————————

 

This article by Geoff Raby is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. "Xi is heading towards his moment with destiny”???…. WHAT A FUCKING CLICHE!~!~!~!… This article by Geoff Raby is odious, smelly, crappy, not worthy of a medal… and not worth of the standards of P&I…

 

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

blood-soaked fantasies…..

The US imperium will dispose of leaders and prominent figures it does not like, even if it fails along the way.

Wars disturb and delude. The Ukraine conflict is no exception. Misinformation is cantering through press accounts and media dispatches with feverish spread. Fear that a nuclear option might be deployed makes teeth chatter. And the Russian President Vladimir Putin is being treated as a Botox Hitler-incarnate, a figure worthy of assassination.

The idea of forcing Putin into the grave certainly tickled South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Liberated by more generous rules regarding hate speech (freedom in Silicon Valley is fickle), Graham took to Twitter to ask whether Russia had its own calculating Brutus willing to take the murderous initiative. Moving forward almost two millennia for a historical reference, the Senator pinched an example from the Second World War (when else?). “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” The only way to conclude the conflict was “for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”

In support of the proposition came Fox News host Sean Hannity, using long discredited logic in dealing with the leaders of a country. “You cut off the head of the snake and you kill the snake. Right now, the snake is Vladimir Putin.”

Armchair psychologist types tend to suggest that homicidal fantasies are fairly common. Julia Shaw of University College London told those attending the Cheltenham Science Festival in 2019 that this was to be expected from humans, enabling them to think through “the consequences” of their actions, obey a moral code and “develop our empathy.”

Shaw might have missed a beat on this one, especially regarding the harm wished upon the Russian leader from a certain number in self-declared Freedom’s Land. Empathy has been in short supply, and the moral code, if it can be called that, has gone begging.

Graham’s homicidal call did bring out its critics, but the outrage was far from unconditional. To have shown balance would have betrayed the cause and revealed solidarity for wickedness. There were the mild, spanking rebukes from Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota. “As the world pays attention to how the US and its leaders are responding, Lindsey’s remarks and remarks made by some House members aren’t helpful.”

Republican Senator Ted Cruz thought it “an exceptionally bad idea”, preferring “massive economic sanctions”, boycotts of Russian oil and gas, and the provision of military aid to Ukraine. Democratic Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, wondered if a certain number of people had lost their minds. “I have seen at least a half a dozen insane tweets tonight. Please everyone keep your wits about you.”

Billionaire financier Bill Browder, the inspiration behind the Magnitsky Act of 2012, preferred to diminish Putin as “a very little man. He’s very scared of everybody, and he’s very vindictive. And so he’s constantly looking around for betrayal.” Hardly worth assassinating, it would seem.

One should give Graham some leeway here, despite the flat assertion by White House press secretary Jen Psaki that assassination was “not the policy of the United States.” Given that the US has not been averse to assassinating leaders or prominent figures, why be squeamish now? President Abraham Lincoln thought it morally appropriate to condone the assassination of leaders who had caused suffering for an extended period of time, and could not be ousted by peaceful or legal means. With Cleo’s irony, he would himself be assassinated along the lines of such logic by thespian John Wilkes Booth.

For decades, Washington wished to do away with Cuba’s obstinately resilient Fidel Castro, bumbling along and eventually failing. (Such oafish, nursery incompetence surely demands a Netflix production.)

With the People’s Republic of China starting to make its mark in the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower thought it appropriate that a blow be struck by singling out one of the Communist state’s brighter lights, Premier Zhou Enlai. The Central Intelligence Agency’s murderous effort involved blowing up an Air India flight for Bandung in 1955, killing 16 passengers. Zhou never boarded the flight. A second effort at attempted poisoning was aborted.

The CIA did not always fail, even if it gave an excellent impression of doing so. There was more success in operations against Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo.

During the absurdly named “Global War On Terror”, drones became the weapon of choice to target high profile figures, a murderous policy given a bubble wrapping of weasel words. As recently as January 2020, President Donald Trump went so far as to order the killing of one of Iran’s most popular figures, the legendary leader of the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani.

At stages, US officials have shown remarkable candour on the policy of targeting heads of state, despite the existence of Executive Order 12333 which states that, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”

In 1990, Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Dugan promised that, in the event of war between the two countries, US planes would make a special point of targeting Saddam Hussein, his family and his mistress. It must have then come as a surprise to him that a certain Secretary of Defense, the usually amoral Dick Cheney, would sack him for making comments possibly in violation of the assassination ban. Dugan should have stuck to generalities, such as targeting the country’s leadership. It’s all in the presentation.

What of the point of assassination, that most severe form of censorship? Stephen Kinzer is solid in pointing out that liquidating that man in the Kremlin will hardly guarantee a more accommodating replacement. “No one who hopes to secure power in Moscow […] could ever accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO or the presence of hostile troops on Ukrainian soil.” But Kinzer is even more on the mark for pointing out that US efforts tend to be hallmarks of stunning failure.

All this chat about purported tyrannicide should not detract from the pattern of US history, which has affirmed that the imperium will dispose of leaders and prominent figures it does not like, even if it fails along the way. Little wonder that Graham and his ilk are urging Russians to fulfil their blood-soaked fantasies.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/homicidal-drives-us-dreams-of-killing-putin/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

downhill USA…..

 

By James O’Neill

 

Last week the Chinese Premier Chou En Lai [sic: I think James O'Neill is trying to see if we're awake. Chou En Lai died in 1976] had a telephone conversation with United States president Joe Biden. The Chinese have provided an extensive report on the conversation. It appears that the main reason for the telephone call, initiated by Biden, was to pressure the Chinese not to assist Russia its present confrontation with Ukraine. It appears from the Chinese account of the meeting that the threats issued by the Americans were not well received.

It is extraordinary that the Americans could feel that they were in any way entitled to put pressure on China. China has a sovereign government that makes decisions based on its interpretation of its own best interests. They have clearly made a decision that their alliance, there is no better word for it, with the Russians is more important than capitulating to any American demands.

In the telephone conversation the Chinese made it very clear that they would conduct their own foreign policy, and it was not up to the Americans to dictate with whom, and under what conditions, that foreign policy would be conducted. It would not have enhanced the Chinese view of the Americans that United States newspapers have been publishing stories about Chinese assistance to the Russian government in its confrontation with the Ukrainians.

Xi would also have been very conscious of his last telephone conversation with Biden, in which the American made various promises about their views on the status of Taiwan. None of these promises have been kept, a factor the Chinese, who are sticklers for complying with their promises, would have been very conscious of.

The Chinese are also very conscious of what is happening in Ukraine and the role of the Americans and their allies, including Britain and Australia, are playing in providing material military support to the Ukrainian regime. The use of the term “regime” is entirely appropriate. It is impossible to call them a government, because that term implies a body that governs on behalf of all its citizens.

The blunt truth of the matter is that the regime in Kiev has waged war on a significant part of its population ever since the coup d’état overthrew the legitimate government in 2014. What is extraordinary about the present situation is that Russia has been so patient with the manifest non-compliance of the Kiev regime with the promises that were made in the Minsk agreement of 2015.

Part of the outstanding hypocrisy of the French and German governments, who were also parties to the Minsk agreement, essentially did nothing since 2015 despite Ukraine’s manifest non-compliance with its obligations under the Minsk agreements. For both countries to now join in the sanctions against Russia is the height of hypocrisy.

For the Americans, the war between Russia and Ukraine is a golden opportunity for it to oppose yet more sanctions on Russia. It needs to be remembered that sanctions were first imposed on Russia following the return of Crimea to Russia. This is almost invariably described in the western media as an “annexation” which is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts. Following the undemocratic coup in Ukraine the Crimeans held a vote as to their future. An overwhelming majority opted for a return to Russia from whom they had been arbitrary separated in 1954.

The Australian media are equally guilty disregarding the actual history. They have completely sent down the memory hole the fact that their troops participated in the Crimean war the 1850s when they fought none other than the Russians in that particular war.

A similar historic blindness applies to the Americans and their attitude toward China’s claims to the island of Taiwan. They conveniently forget that from 1949 to 1972 China’s seat on the United Nations Security Council was held by the island of Taiwan which was happy to represent itself is the legitimate representative of the billion plus Chinese people on the mainland but on whom they exercised the least control. The United States, along with Australia and other European countries, actually voted against the mainland taking China’s role on the Security Council and as a member of the General Assembly.

The Chinese have long memories. One is reminded of Chou en Lai’s comment when asked by a French reporter of his view of the effects of the French Revolution. He replied, “too soon to tell” which is a perfect illustration of the difference between the Chinese view of history and that of the Americans and their European allies.

That difference of view is a major reason why the United States will never accept China’s claim to the island of Taiwan (as it is now called) as a legitimate part of China, despite their nominal service to the “one China” principle.

In fact, the United States’ attitude to China constitutes the greatest threat to world peace, far-outreaching their contemporary differences with the Russians. It is the Chinese who represent the greatest threat to United States pretensions to world hegemony. The Chinese economy, in parity purchasing terms, is already larger than that of the United States. The Chinese originated and inspired the Belt and Road Initiative which is by far the world’s largest trading group. United States claims to world hegemony rest to a large degree on the role of the United States dollar as the world’s largest trading currency.

In a relatively little noticed development this past week the Saudis and the Chinese have agreed that China’s payments for Sandi oil (and they take 15% of the available supply) are to be traded in Yuan rather than the United States dollar. The implications of this are huge. The role of the dollar as the world’s largest traded currency has been central to United States control of multiple countries and its control of the world’s financial system. This is now changing at a pace that a few years ago would have been unimaginable.

The demise of the role of the dollar represents the demise of United States control of much of the world’s economy. This is not a process the Americans are likely to take lightly. It would not be surprising to see the Americans take action against the Saudi government, perhaps extending to an invasion or some other means to enforce regime change.

That will be a process that will expose to the whole world the truly hypocritical and self-serving nature of the whole United States enterprise. It is an exposure that in this writer’s view cannot come soon enough.

 

 

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/03/21/the-end-of-united-states-world-hegemony-looms-large/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW......

 

Please note that all the Western media is presently seeing Russia as being "bogged down" in this war, because the Russians are not advancing... Pictures of a few Russian tanks hit by Ukrainians are showing "why"... In fact, the Russian army is awaiting...

A) many Ukrainians are forming columns of refugees going to a) the EU and b) to Russia.

B) Russia is waiting for Zelensky-y to negotiate. Zelensky-y would have to know that Ukraine has not seen the full blast of Russian power. 

C) the idiot Zelensky-y wants WW3 to start, so he can save his bacon. How MAD is this?