By Binoy Kampmark

 

It’s hard to credit, but the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) continues its incessant grumbling about forms of interference across a number of areas of Australian political and economic debate. What stands out in this method of noisy declaration is the tactic of sidelining legitimate public debate. Such interference supposedly impairs the credibility of the argument, given that the argument is also being advanced by sinister external forces. Blame Johnny Foreigner, and you have scored a few points in your favour.

The usual gorilla in the analysis is China, and the US-funded bridgehead in Canberra wants you to know that those devils in Beijing are having enormous sway in influencing Australian debates. There have been such top-of-the-pop hits as Taking the Low Road, a February 2022 publication featuring the entire Australian continent bloody red with spangled gold stars. “What emerges,” write Peter Jennings and Bertil Wenger in the report’s preface, “is an astonishing breadth and depth of PRC engagement.” Such engagement had entailed “covert attempts to influence some politicians and overt attempts to engage states, territories and key institutions in ways that challenge federal government prerogatives and have brought the two levels of government into sharp public dispute.”

Much of this has lashings and dollops of irony, given that ASPI, along with its twin at the University of Sydney, the United States Studies Centre, constitute agents of overt interference in Australian domestic and foreign policy, ensuring that Canberra stays on the straight and narrow. Not a week goes by without some moral effusion about the need to stay the course with the United States, even into suicidal conflicts, or to defeat those dark enemies of authoritarianism who dare play in Canberra’s backyard. But pointing out such facts mean, according to the ASPIstas, that you must be on the take from some foreign power.

On July 24, Albert Zhang and Danielle Cave seemed rather pleased to have identified a number of alien accounts across a range of platforms allegedly hailing from an illicit PRC source. “ASPI has identified a multi-language network of coordinated inauthentic accounts on US-based platforms including Twitter, YouTube, Facebook (archived), Reddit, Instagram (archived) and global sites that we assess are likely involved in an ongoing Chinese Communist influence and disinformation campaign targeting Australian and foreign policies”. These include “amplifying division over the Indigenous voice referendum, and sustained targeting of the Australian parliament, Australian companies (including the big-four banks) and our organisation, ASPI.”

Such commentary has the intentional effect of neutralising critiques (“disinformation” is a favourite) while inflating the credentials of the critic’s sponsor. It seeks to libel legitimate criticism of, for instance, ASPI itself (as an unabashed distributor and disseminator of Made in America gum and rhetoric), not to mention legitimate ripostes to any number of domestic problems. Call it the slut putdown: to dilute, and ultimately vanquish the strength of an argument, accuse the person, notably if that person be a woman, of having loose morals and tendencies towards nymphomania.

Zhang and Cave go on to reproduce examples of what the authors describe as a “CCP-linked account with AI generated profile image quote-tweeting criticism of AUKUS, with replies from legitimate accounts.” The tweet from one “Heather Garcia” goes on to note that “Members of the ALP are mobilising a rebellion in their party against @AlboMP’s #AUKUS deal that sells out of Australia’s sovereignty and pushes us towards war with our biggest and best trading partner.” Far from being disinformation, it is true that various ALP branches have expressed consternation at AUKUS and its insatiable militarism.

Admittedly, the language in some of the posts has the smell of orchestration, a talking point rather than a true flash of insight. But ASPI’s remarks on them effectively denude the veracity of the replies, an effort to cut off the debate. Those engaging with such assertions are not to be taken too seriously. One such respondent, “Ian Gordicans” (incidentally, also an image), finds little sense in AUKUS as a security arrangement, let alone the value of “nuke subs”. “Apparently we’re building defence assets to protect our sea lanes from attack from our biggest trading partners who uses those sea lanes to get to us? Pretty much like shooting yourself in the foot.”

The topics being engaged with under the supposed direction of CCP influence are varied and troubling to ASPI. The “campaign” seeks to amplify “negative messaging upon a broad range of topics, individuals and organisations, including, for example, the Australian Security Intelligence, PwC and journalist Stan Grant.”

Then come those apparently unpardonable slights against Australia’s big four banks, an unhealthy financial oligopoly that has Australian customers by their throats and the financial system teeteringly vulnerable. “Major Australian banks are a key focus for many accounts in the campaign, including the Commonwealth Bank, the National Australia Bank, ANZ and Westpac. This includes claims that Australian banks aren’t serving regional Australia and First Nations customers.”

As with all oligopolies, prices only ever rise in hearty agreement from its members. Services can be reduced at a moment’s notice, and bank closures implemented. But for ASPI, calling this sort of behaviour out, along with the PwC consultancy scandal or shining a sharp light on ASIO, is very much against the Australian spirit of independence. If there is some detectable Oriental devilry going on, then it must be wrong or at the very least, wrong-headed.

Whatever can be said about China’s role in influencing the Australian political and policy landscape, it is dwarfed by the strivings of US administrations that are garrisoning the island continent in anticipation for war. Australian sovereignty has become a museum piece, with its last vestiges of life happily, and treasonously, extinguished on July 29 on the occasion of the AUSMIN 2023 talks. With Australia now a forward base for US militarism, the attempts by any other powers to even sway a single argument, let alone a single policy, will be comically ineffectual.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-aspi-interference-machine-china-is-everywhere/

 

ALL WE NEED IS A US NUCLEAR SUB TO HIT THE REEF.... SEE ALSO:

https://johnmenadue.com/nine-things-australians-are-not-being-told-about-the-us-military-takeover/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgSeH8rN4k

No, the astonishingly expensive tie-up between Australia and the US military deal is NOT about defense of the country, nor is it about bringing stability to Asia. The opposite is true, and Asians know it. The Australians stand to lose a great deal, not just in terms of money, but in the great relationships that they have built with the rest of Asia over many decades, and in the world's understanding of the Australian character.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..........

 

Death of Sovereignty: everyday Australians will pay the cost of US kowtowing, AUKUS, inevitable war

 

by Rex Patrick

 

The spiralling cost of our alliance with the United States goes way beyond the $368B AUKUS deal and joined intelligence and communications facilities. Australia is paying the price of reduced independence, as Rex Patrick reports.

The rent payment on our alliance with the United States used to be the Pine Gap intelligence collecting facility near Alice Springs, the submarine communication station at North West Cape and Five Eyes intelligence co-operation. AUKUS has changed that dramatically, driven in part by the significant changes in our region.

The economies of our big ‘neighbours’ have been growing rapidly over the past decades, especially the very populous countries that have emerged from being poor, less-developed states into industrial powerhouses.

Over the last decade, Indonesia’s GDP has gone from $917B to $3.4T, India’s from $1.8T to $3.4T and China’s from $8.5T to $18.1T. As these countries have grown economically, they’ve taken a more active role on the global stage and have expanded their military and naval forces.

Across our 21 largest Defence projects (pre AUKUS), there’s been a $17.5B in cost increases and more than 34 years slippage.

Most people would agree it’d be unusual not to see an increasing military expenditure as an economy grows.

China’s growth has been the most significant, and with that growth has come a new assertiveness by the ruling Chinese Communist Party that’s rightly caused concern. But while Western economists and politicians in the 1980s through early 2000s hoped Chinese economic growth would bring increased openness, a measure of democratisation and constructive participation in regional and international security, China’s rulers have gone the other way.

Suppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, oppression of democracy in Hong Kong, draconian crackdown on any political dissent, and its blunt use of growing economic power to achieve political and strategic goals are among the worrying signs. Others are the construction and militarisation of islands in the South China Sea, an increasing confrontational attitude in relation to contested maritime boundaries, and a remarkable naval and military build-up heralding the beginnings of a new nuclear arms race. All of this coupled with the regime’s increasingly hardening views on the use of force to return Taiwan to China.

Australian defence failures

Against this backdrop, we’ve seen our economic fortunes rise only modestly off the back of energy and resource exports to Asia, but also faltered in other ways. Our manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 11.5% at the turn of the century to only 5.5% today, while our economic complexity ranking has plummeted.

And as tension in the Asia-Pacific has risen and our strategic circumstances have become more uncertain, our Defence organisation has become something of an international embarrassment.

Across our 21 largest Defence projects (pre AUKUS), there’s been a $17.5B in cost increases and more than 34 years slippage.

We’ve recently seen a number of projects either cancelled or where early replacement has been announced because the capability underperformed; Attack Class submarines (cancelled), Multiple-Role Helicopters (underperforming), Sky Guardian attack drones (cancelled), the Army’s Battle Management system (cancelled), Spartan battlefield airlift aircraft (underperforming) and Tiger helicopter program (underperforming).

That’s eleven and a half billion dollars of taxpayers’ money just thrown away.

 

 

Deterrence and diplomacy

The primary role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is the defence of Australia.

In order to achieve this, it must, at one end of the spectrum, be seen by potential adversaries as a strong deterrent, and at the other end, be able to actually conduct sustained military operations when deterrence and diplomacy have failed. The ADF needs to be well-trained, capable, diversified and agile.

ADF peace time operations must also be integrated into our foreign policy objectives as we seek to be a good international citizen. This means from time-to-time the ADF deploying into the immediate region; to wave the flag, to assist with training and civil emergencies, to participate in joint exercises and, potentially, and to join up with others to assist in conflict where it’s in our clear interests to do so.

 

Outsourcing defence, surrendering sovereignty

But incompetence has denied us the ability to carry out some of those tasks and to choose what’s in our best interests.

Instead of resetting and getting back to basics, the same incompetent bureaucratic leadership that’s delivered acquisition failure has now decided the best solution to the defence of Australia and regional engagement is simply to give up on independence.

Instead of focussing on ensuring Australia has the sovereign capabilities to defend ourselves and ensure we can make our own decisions about war and peace, our Government and the ADF leadership have chosen, in the words of an earlier Prime Minister, to go “all the way” with the USA.

Instead of ensuring our equipment can communicate and work alongside the US’s and other’s equipment, we’ve embarked on a course of total integration into the US Armed Forces. We’ve surrendered interoperability choice to integration and interchangeability (identical equipment) in the context of US controlled operations.

This can be seen in the AUKUS submarine choice and other purchases; purchase that build-up US industrial capability at the expense of Australian industry. Australian industry has been cast aside as we turn to the US for both equipment supply and ongoing maintenance.

 

US presence in Australia

We’ve agreed to station US submarines in the west and we’ve embraced US access and use of facilities in the north, including to where the US will now pay for upgrades at key Australian bases.

One of those bases is RAAF Darwin, where they’ll build a $40M maintenance, mission briefing, intelligence and crew briefing facility. They’re also spending almost $400 million on an aircraft parking apron. This follows $270M spent on 11 giant fuel storage tanks near Darwin port.

 

They’re also spending $130M at RAAF Tindal, 15 kilometres from Katherine, where, from late 2026, they’ll start deploying B-52s (almost certainly with nuclear weapon payloads). This new investment comes off the back of previous investments in a fuel farm and an ammunition bunker.

 

An intent to rotate U.S. Navy Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft in Australia to “enhance regional maritime domain awareness” has also just been announced.

On the ground forces front, Darwin has slowly become a permanent US Marine base, with a ‘rotational’ force having grown from 200 marines in 2012 to 2,500 today, and a number of helicopters, including 10 highly distinctive MV-22B Ospreys.

At the conclusion of recent AUSMIN discussions the Governments announced a proof of principles pre-positioning of U.S. Army stores and materiel in Bandiana, Victoria as a precursor to the longer-term establishment of a Logistics Support Area in Queensland designed to enhance interoperability and accelerate the ability to respond to regional crises.

Meanwhile, in the background, the US is negotiating a space launch Technology Safeguards Agreement to allow for the launch of sensitive U.S. payloads from Australia.

Death of sovereignty by a thousand cuts

All of this is being cast as essential to respond to the changing strategic circumstances by way of collective military power. As a former member of the ADF, this is a concept I understand.

But engaging in any conflict must be our choice.

But it won’t be. The choice is being taken away, one cut at a time.

We’re seeing more US capability turning up on our shores. We’ll have no choice but to be involved when fighting starts. Even if we were to refuse direct involvement, we’ll have capabilities and facilities here that’ll be of (targeting) interest to the opposing side. The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap will be intimately involved in providing intelligence to support US operations, operations which will be staged from Australia.

But our forces will be directly involved, anyway. The integration and interchange marriage that’s under development will demand it. Sovereign choice will be lost.

Cover-up and self-interest

Those in Defence guiding our politicians are just going along with it, because to not do so would be to admit the vulnerability their procurement incompetence has delivered us.

In fact, they’re benefitting from the arrangement. Building the AUKUS alliance is a tremendous career and institutional opportunity for them.

The senior officers and officials who lead our Defence Force can focus on what they see as a much bigger thing; an alliance that involves important meetings, important decisions, trips overseas, and, for some, exchange postings. For them, effective integration of the ADF into the strategic plans of the US involves stepping up to be a part of the big league.

It’s great for defence egos, despite eroding our ability to make our own sovereign decisions.

If only those eleven and a half billion dollars hadn’t been wasted. All the things the US are doing here could have been funded by us and completely without a return obligation to them. If only we’d progressed our submarine project in a measured off-the-shelf way, or our frigate project with a proven design, and invested properly in Australian industry to ensure the ADF could be supported. If only …

To finish off, Defence Minister Richard Marles must take some responsibility for what’s happening.

He came to the portfolio knowing about the Defence procurement shambles. And yet he’s done nothing. The leadership group in Defence has remained untouched in their ivory barracks.

If a conflict involving the US should erupt in the northern hemisphere, and the Cabinet is given no choice on what to do, the blame will sit fairly and squarely with Marles and other members of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

But it will everyday Australians, particularly those in uniform, that will suffer.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/death-of-sovereignty-everyday-australians-will-pay-the-cost-of-us-kowtowing-aukus-inevitable-war/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..........

 

BY Seth Ferris

 

When someone, especially the government, tells me not to worry, or something is not as bad as all that, then I know that I should start worrying. And to give it the added spin, especially when it is coming from the mouth of a spokesperson, e.g., spin doctor, such as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Now it is high time to duck and cover, like before— going back to a time when we knew what a “real threat” was, the period of the Cold War, and we should still know now.

The Daisy Commercial is still vivid in my mind, at least in my wild childhood imagination which was tame by today’s standards. Formally titled “Peace, Little Girl,” but more commonly known as the “Daisy” ad, this famous political commercial was produced primarily by Tony Schwartz for President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater.

It falls on the same level as when a parent beats a child with a leather belt, “This hurts me more than it is hurting you”, and still to this day, I could never follow the logic. However, the imagination is getting all the closer to a doomsday clock that shows the stark reality.

The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been

The stakes are still too high, and perhaps something like this game-changing political campaign ad will be remade for the likely Trump-Biden showdown, so to avert nuclear destruction, if Trump is not locked up and they have thrown away the key.

I cannot also follow the logic of the words of Blinken when he answered the following question:

Risk Management or Going for Bust?

In a recent interview between Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Amelia Adams of 60 Minutes Australia, one of the questions asked has opened up a proverbial can of worms.

“Your job is all about managing risk.  Vladimir Putin is threatening nuclear war, and this month we’ve seen the hottest temperatures on this planet on record.  What is the greater threat to humanity in your mind, war or climate change?”

[Yes] … there’s no doubt that the climate represents an existential challenge to all of us.  It’s one of the reasons we’re so gratified at Australia’s leadership when it comes to combating climate change; that Australia is stepping up in the way that it sends a very powerful message.  It’s both practical in what Australia is doing, but it also is the symbolism of an important country taking a clear stand and also taking action against climate.

It is good to know that Blinken agrees that for us this is the existential challenge of our times, but that doesn’t mean that in the meantime there are not severe challenges to the international community and how “We have to multitask.  Basically, we’re, for better or worse, in a growth industry right now.  We’ve got a multiplicity of challenges, and we have to be able to engage them simultaneously.  It’s again one of the reasons why having such a strong partnership and alliance with Australia matters more than ever.”

But what the US Secretary of State is actually saying remains an open question, as there is no end in sight for either a scaled up war or mitigating the impact of climate change, as both are being held in abeyance, like the movie “Don’t Look Up” when those in charge did not want to face the destruction of humanity seriously, and what you don’t know, or don’t want to believe, can’t destroy you.

Neither side of this proxy war is prepared for quickly striking final blows—it becomes a matter of who can stand and bear the slug fest the longest. Those under the gun in Ukraine from US and Western supplied weapons would beg to differ as to the meaning of an existential threat, especially those who have lived under the constant shelling and random killing in Donetsk and Lughansk since 2014.

It is becoming obvious that there is no end in sight, as the Biden’s administration continues its policy of open-ended support for Kiev’s military by supplying, or threatening to supply, new weapons, even deadlier ones, as one weapon system after another is being neutralized.  What will Kiev be asking for next, as open-ended becomes never-ending?

The US and its NATO allies have armed Ukraine with long-range missiles and are currently discussing the supply of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Kiev; however, now even the arms manufacturers are having second thoughts, as too much in-tack technology is falling in the hands of the Russians.  It should be clear from repeated warnings from Moscow, that such weapons dramatically raise the chances of an all-out war between Russia and the West.

Let us see just how good the Russians are at gleaning what advantages such technology has, or finding more and more flaws and vulnerabilities, and if they can ever catch up with the Americans in reverse engineering of alien technology, tongue in cheek.

However, how much bang for the buck that the US or others who are profiting from the never-ending supply of arms get is really an open question.  It is already apparent that many of the arms supplied to date are substandard and not suited to actual battlefield conditions—often outdated and a mixed bag.

 

Never-Ending War

The US needs and wants a war, a never-ending war. Either a War on Climate,  or  against terrorism, and I have to smile to remember the words of  Gore Vidal — Little Bush says we are at war, but we are not at war because to beat war … It’s like having a war on dandruff, it’s endless and pointless.

But actually, it is a War on Human Intelligence, Common Sense, poking the US’s nose into a region of the world that is a tinderbox. It is beyond my grasp to understand in this day and age how society continues to tolerate war. It is an understatement, as the title implies, “The War in Ukraine is about ready to get worse!”

It is as if Blinken has blinders, and by comparing the risk level threat to nuclear war on the level of climate change. Does he actually believe even the most naïve of people can buy such a line? I guess he does, as how else can you explain it?

Not only is the rank of file starting to regret having voted for Biden and his team. Even controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone regrets it; he says that he fears the US leader may take America into WW3.’

I respectfully beg to differ because I believe we are already facing more dangerous threats than the consequences of climate change, and there are various factors contributing to it. The Ukrainians are well aware of this reality, and which way the wind is blowing, as indicated by the threats they are making over the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The potential of some deranged president to take drastic actions out of sheer desperation could have severe implications. The contamination resulting from such actions, like a dirty bomb, would likely spread far beyond their borders and have long-term effects.

At least, most definitely, many signs are pointing in that direction, something beyond the pale, and not only in terms of the possibility of crossing a line to nuclear confrontation. The title for Stone’s documentary on Ukraine, Ukraine on Fire, may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Biden would be advised to consider not just nuclear fallout, perhaps from giant size nuclear fallout, i.e., dirty bomb, but the political fallout, mostly as a result of higher energy prices in Europe.

Any threat to go nuclear by either side, if push came to shove, should be taken seriously. It may be for now only the childhood game of chicken, so to see who will be the first to blink. But for now, the risks are reduced in the short term, as Kyiv’s efforts to regain any momentum, to push back, however, on the other hand, with US elections coming, the lack of success is a political time bomb—and time is running out for Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan.

Their claim to fame, political fate is being foiled by shifting public opinion and all the revelations that are surfacing, as to what really is transpiring in Ukraine, not to mention the corruption house of cards back in the US.

They would be well advised to take the advice of such pundits, living and dead, such as Steven Cohen, Jeffrey Sacks and John Mearsheimer, as they knew not only the potential for problems long before most people had even heard of Ukraine, and how “the Ukrainian military conflict is a long-term threat?!”

John Mearsheimer, as a prophet back in 2015, pretty much laid out what the West was doing to Ukraine, which goes back to even before 2008 with promises of NATO expansion, when he told “that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked – and I believe that the policy that I am advocating which is neutralizing Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians.”

February 2014, set in motion a wrecking ball for Ukraine which impacted in 2022 – and the aftershocks are being felt.  Meanwhile, the US and NATO will continue with its promises, at least enough to claim that it is not reneging on claims of support to the end, and until the US elections are over.  The bottom line is it is over, and all was predicted, even as far back as 2008, when William J. Burns, who now heads up the CIA, warned that expanding NATO to Ukraine would leave the Russians no choice but to intervene.

It is ironic now to go ahead with the plan of work that is intended to weaken or to destroy Russia, and to dismiss the confidential Embassy Cable “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” and Ukraine is merely an instrument of that attempted destruction. It should be remembered that the proverbial wrecking ball may swing back and hit the US and its NATO allies squarely between the eyes.

 

NATO as Hangman

It is like the saying goes, “Give a person enough rope, and they will hang themselves”, and NATO bears the lion’s share of the responsibility, according to a recent interview with John Mersheimer for putting the rope around the neck of Ukraine.

 It will not be the first time that Nazi collaborating war criminals were publically hanged in Kyiv, 12 former members of the German Police force met their maker for war crimes. There was a huge crowd inside the Ukrainian capital to witness the executions, and the men were placed on trucks before the executioners did their work. These men were sentenced to death for their involvement in the Babi Yar Massacre.

 John Mearsheimer recently told how the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, made it very clear that Ukraine would not be admitted into NATO until it had prevailed in the conflict.  In other words, Ukraine has to win the war, and continue killing and being killed, before it can be brought into the alliance.  Well, “Ukraine is not going to win the war, and therefore, Ukraine is not going to be brought into the alliance.”

The situation on the battlefield, daily reports of even greater losses of what was “much-touted” as game-changing weaponry by the Ukrainians is not performing to expectations, and what comes next? Will the West drop the requirement that Ukraine had to win a decisive victory over the Russians within the borders of Ukraine to get into NATO?

That is not going to happen, in Mearsheimer’s opinion, “Ukraine is not going to become part of NATO.” And not only he thinks like this, as more and more people, even voters, are realizing that NATO is the greatest threat and could bring us to total nuclear destruction.

The political and well-heeled class in Western Europe, especially the UK and Germany, are waking up too, as they might also be  victims, economic ruin is just a sample of the greater havoc and social upheaval that will result as the needless war goes badly for US/NATO proxy Ukraine and threatens the existence of humanity. This conflict is not isolated and may have far-reaching consequences beyond its immediate geographical area, and Africa is just one region that comes immediately to mind.

As I reference in retrospect, the statement “Now it’s high time to ‘duck and cover’, going back to a time when we knew what a real threat was, and we should still know!” seems to be a call for vigilance and preparedness in the face of perceived or real threats. The phrase “duck and cover” refers to a safety measure taught during the Cold War era, particularly in the United States, to protect oneself during a nuclear attack.

The statement makes this historical reference to suggest that people should be aware of and prepared for current threats, beware of what they might be willing to do to save their own backsides, at the expense of the rest of us.  We must be aware that the threat level is real, and in terms of bioweapons as well, as what does the US have left in its arsenal to gift the Ukrainians?

The nature of threats is evolving, and historic memories are too short. That is why there needs to be an open discussion, the need for understanding and addressing them remains crucial to ensure the survival of the species. It is time for people and political leaders to watch Dr. Strangelove, or: “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” the film caused a good deal of controversy, and watching it should be a wake-up call, for the new generation, and for those that survived the Cold War period, the same world-ending scenario is now unfolding before our very eyes—and it is not climate change that is the life-ending threat.

 

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

https://journal-neo.su/2023/08/30/blinken-has-blinders-sheer-madness-high-time-to-duck-and-cover/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN: 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....