Fyodor Lukyanov: UN feedback shows that while the West is hostile to Russia, the world isn’tThe US and its allies are beating a drum that isn’t finding receptive ears. Most states have other priorities

The UN’s High-Level Week – an annual gathering of senior representatives of member states who address the General Assembly – is taking place in New York. It is a period of speeches of varying length and intensive contacts between ministers or even heads of state, depending on the status of the heads of delegation. The more tense the international situation, as it is now, the more valuable the opportunities presented.

The issue that has resonated is reform of the Security Council. It is not the first year, or even the first decade, that people have been talking about the subject, but the current revival of interest is understandable. In conditions of confrontation, the work of the body is extremely complicated – the opposing sides among the permanent members block each other. 

This irritates other states that don’t have a special status, as the big five have given themselves veto power. They are now more concerned about how they compare to each other, and the problems of the rest of the world matter less.

The decisions of the General Assembly are not binding, but are an accurate reflection of the real distribution of opinion. Yet, conflict also spills over there. For example, Western countries, led by the United States, have considerable opportunities to influence developing countries. Ultimately, however, there is more room for maneuver, which means the space for the democratic expression of will is somewhat wider.

The disagreements between members are innumerable, but more and more states are united by one particular position: the rejection of an arrangement based on the balance of power from the middle of the last century, as it emerged after the Second World War.

It is hard to argue with that. Even the size of the United Nations itself has almost quadrupled, and the diversity of states has increased immeasurably. Hence the calls, which began soon after the end of the Cold War, to adapt the institutional design to the new realities.

However, the practical implementation of this wish faces a number of problems. Firstly, any reform of the Security Council is only possible with the consensus of the five permanent members; it is impossible to bypass at least one of them. And they a) are not eager to share their privileges, b) have different ideas about the nature of the transformation of the UN’s highest political body. Second, even if we imagine a compromise between the five main members on principles, there will be an endless debate on the parameters of enlargement: who exactly is worthy of joining the ranks of the “immortals” and why. Geographical location, population, economic size, military strength – what should be the main criteria? And which specific countries should represent their regions and communities – Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Arab world, and so on? It is difficult to imagine agreement on all these issues even in peacetime, let alone today.

All in all, reform of the UN Security Council seems unlikely. But that does not mean the debate on the issue will not become more assertive. Rising centers of influence from India to Turkey, from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia, from Argentina to Nigeria, and others, are increasingly pressing the issue of justice.

Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s slogan “the world is bigger than five” is, as you might expect, in tune with the wishes of the majority of the General Assembly.

And there is now fierce competition for the sympathies of this majority (usually referred to in the West as the Global South). This is the context in which high-level calls for the expansion of the Security Council should be seen. It has inspired US President Joe Biden to make such an appeal – by proposing that the long-discussed quartet of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan be admitted as permanent members.

There is no point in seriously considering the implementation of such an idea. Because it’s merely a slogan and is not meant to be realized.

However, it is not unimportant. In a situation where the entire international system has begun to unwind, a purely protective position of defending the status quo at all costs is unpromising. It will most likely end up with the situation changing spontaneously, or even collapsing.

Russia has never opposed reform of the Security Council, but until recently its proposals were rather ritualistic. Now they are taking on a more concrete form: for example, remarks to the effect that Western countries are already over-represented on the Security Council, so any expansion should not increase that community’s proportional representation. At the same time, we have traditionally expressed the fear that enlargement, and even more so the granting of veto rights to new members, will lead to the devaluation of the Security Council as such.

It probably will. But, to repeat, it will not be possible, anyway, to preserve its value as they have been measured for decades. The UN and its structures, like any institution, is bound to its time. Exclusive status is, of course, a pleasant phenomenon. But it is also conditioned by changing circumstances. Leaving aside the question of prestige, Russia is interested in a significant expansion of the Security Council based on the principle of fair proportionality – so that the whole world is represented.

As the events of the last year-and-a-half have shown, with the exception of a certain segment (by far a minority), most of the world is not hostile to Russia, but rather neutral and focused on its own interests. 

Nevertheless, the resentment of the US-allied states makes diplomatic work more difficult. But it’s still better than a deadlock.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/583366-fyodor-lukyanov-un-russia-west/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO: standing with shithead....

 

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....

 

BY Henry Kamens

Georgian Coup Plot Thickens: “We lost Ukraine BUT Saved Georgia from the Russians.”

 

The West is realizing that Ukraine is lost and that they need to be able to pull a white rabbit out of the proverbial hat, or to shift direction and fix the blame. Basically, this means to be able to claim some success from the ruins, which may be “We lost Ukraine, but we saved Georgia from the Russians.” This may help explain some recent headlines in the Georgians media:

“A coup à la Euromaidan is being prepared in Georgia” – Security Services Claim

There are also suggested links, or too many coincidences, between those closest to the Georgian Legion*, including Nona, sister to the head of the Georgian Legion*, Mamuka Mamulashvili, who gained notoriety for leading up a purported volunteer force fighting on the side of Kiev. He has also bragged on several occasions of executing Russian POWs and the unit’s willingness to not take prisoners.

The work of the Georgian Legion* is highly suspect, as is its Commander, Mamuka Mamulashvili. He told Civil.ge that the Legion “has nothing to do” with the filmed incident [execution] involving Russian prisoners of war in Makiivka village, in the Luhansk region of Ukraine.

Here is what Geoffrey Young, political candidate from Kentucky, USA, just tweeted in support of the research for this article, or X-tweeted:

I got a message from someone in Georgia: Georgian Coup Plot Thickens: “We lost Ukraine, but we saved Georgia from the Russians.” “…Mamulashvili had bragged in a video that executing prisoners was standard practice amongst the Georgian Legion*…”

Mamulashvili stated that the claim represents “Russian disinformation”, and that this is “not the first such case.” However, a few days prior, Mamulashvli had bragged in a video that executing prisoners was standard practice amongst the Georgian Legion*.

The day after, he changed his tune and confirmed that they had, in fact, committed the executions. The IDs of some of those involved, including a confession from Mamuka, are in the above-linked article.

 

Yes, we tie the hands and feet of Russian soldiers. I speak for the Georgian Legion* – we don’t take Russian soldiers as prisoners, nor Kadyrovites (Chechens) – not one!

The New York Times reported the veracity of the videos, but tried to dismiss them and claimed that they showed grisly before-and-after scenes of the encounter earlier this month, in which at least 11 Russians, most of whom are seen lying on the ground, appear to have been shot dead at close range.

TASS News agency reported earlier this year how Ushangi Mamulashvili, AKA Mamuka, prosecuted in absentia as part of a Russian criminal investigation. The investigation centered on the “recruitment and participation of mercenaries in hostilities on behalf of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)” and war crimes.

The Georgian Legion* is also alleged to have been set up by US foreign intelligence services with a regime change in mind, and their time is Ukraine is part of the preparation for such a task. The “Georgian Legion*” was founded by US intelligence services, Saakashvili’s ex-adviser Jeffrey Silverman told Izvestia back in February of this year.

He also explained how it was more than coincidence, that Nona, Mamuka’s younger sister, had worked in the office of Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili when the current president was in the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Zurabishviliis also under suspicion for working for outside interests, and not upholding her Constitutional duties to Georgia, which may be part of the motivation/allegations that are being put forth by the ruling Georgian Dream Party in an attempt to impeach the President.

The party, at least on the surface, is accusing the president of violating the Constitution by visiting foreign countries in the EU without the government’s approval. Apparently, they may know who she is actually working for and who interests she is serving, or the GoG is trying to reduce its carbon footprint by cutting back on foreign travel.

Zurabishvili, with her long history as a French spy, was basically imposed on the electorate as a quid pro quo for not destroying the current Georgian government sooner. Few would disagree with the statement that she is not working for the needs of Georgia, and technically, she is really  an enemy of the Georgian people and its elected representatives.

Her deceased husband, Janri Kašia, gained notoriety because of his alleged intelligence service ties, including with NATO representatives. Kashia wasfrom Tbilisi, and was a television presenter and taught philosophy, history and art history at the Tbilisi Academy of Fine Arts. He received political asylum in France in the 1980s, and became a French citizen in 1992.

Even during the period of the USSR, he had gained a reputation for making prank phone calls to governmental officials and spreading false information, which got the attention of intelligence services in the west and who saw Janri Kašia as a possible human asset, albeit unofficial, to develop.

 

The Plot Thickens

According to former co-workers, Nona Mamulashvili, with connections to Salome Zurabishvili, now a member of the UNM opposition, suddenly appeared with her in the MFA, apparently out of nowhere, and “without the appropriate background” in reality, or “known connections” on a professional level with foreign affairs, diplomacy or a work history with the Georgian Foreign Services. However, her CV and alleged education is impressive.

Much is known of her links, and conflicts of interest, including those with international drug companies, and their human experimental programs, and these networks may have contributed to her having her credentials cancelled by the Georgian government—aside from the activities of her brother and the family business, dating back to the USSR and the Railway Mafia, of main railway stations, and the looting of wagons on the territory of Abkhazia, prior to the 1992 conflict.

It is known from various co-workers and former members of the OSCE staff, that she had personal relations with former high-ranking members of the OSCE Mission to Georgia, especially a Swiss Officer, one with CIA links.

He is alleged to have paid for her and her brother’s education; at the very least, he was the intermediary. Colonel Dominique Saudan, Chief of Information Operations (Chief Info Ops) prior to having made contact with Nona. He was with the NATO led Kosovo Force (KFOR) in a PR position, with close connections with American and Canadian intelligence assets.

It should come as no surprise that Col Dominique Saudan provided the brother and sister, naturally out-of-the-goodness of-his-heart, a flat to live and covered their expenses while they were in Paris, even paying for her brother’s education at a French University, for starters.

He claimed to other OSCE representatives that his connection with Nona was only platonic, nothing sexual, despite the vast sums of money spent on the brother and sister. Saudan went as far as to claim that even if he wanted, he could not be involved, as he had a sexual dysfunction.

His time in Kosovo should be interesting for Georgian intelligence, as the recognition of that breakaway region of Serbia was a nightmare for Georgia and its own territorial integrity.

However, he has been quoted as having said: “I like to serve peace” It was the longest mission to date in SWISSCOY on behalf of the Kosovo Force (KFOR): Colonel Dominique Saudan, Chief Info Ops, returned to Switzerland after four years in Kosovo.

Even after this long time since, it is claimed that Colonel Dominique Saudan still has a lot of passion and drive for his work … and perhaps that will involve Georgia more in the future. I have been told by his former OSCE colleagues he is working for the CIA, and how nice, a Swiss Officer with Kosovo experience with two young pups in Georgia, and both very committed to the cause, however, whose cause?

 

Down to Brass Tacks

But now to discuss more of what is now being openly discussed in Georgia and among the intelligence community at large, and how the information connects dots and comes at an inopportune time.

Is it sheer coincidence, that the information, the allegations, recriminations and array of finger-pointing, is nothing new with NEO readers, as we reported the same information with earlier investigative pieces?

The commander of the Georgian Legion, Mamuka Mamulashvili, reacted to the statement of the Security Service of Georgia (SBG) about his allegedly preparing a coup and violent overthrow of the current Government of Georgia. According to him, the text about the conspiracy and the possibility of a coup d’état was dictated by Russia.

It is good to know that Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Oleh Nikolenko, has denied Kyiv’s involvement in an alleged coup plot to oust the current Georgian government following Tbilisi’s accusations earlier on Sept. 18.

European News and Westerns outlets are closing ranks in how they are describing the revelations, as more as a ploy and red herring, and dismiss the news that plotters allegedly wanted to harness anger among young Georgians to violently topple the government.

Tbilisi has also accused a senior Ukrainian official of trying to topple the Georgian government, amid a time of fraught relations between Kyiv and the Caucasian country. Georgia’s State Security Service (SSS or SUS in Georgian) claimed Georgi Lortkipanidze, the deputy head of Ukrainian military intelligence, was “plotting” to “violently overthrow” those in power this winter. It is alleged that the “plotters” want to harness anger among young Georgians if their country failed to get EU candidate status.

Seemingly, along with the unannounced and unexpected trips of the Georgian President outside of her official duties to Europe, and by connecting dots between those named in this article, this scenario may have likely been the plan, which now appears to have been strangled-in-the-cradle—foiled.

It can only be hoped that such an insane plan has been stamped out before it has a chance to take root, as the consequences for Georgia would be dire. Already in 2008, Georgians learned what it was like to be “Bullets in the gun to be fired at Russia”, a painful lesson the Ukrainians are now learning in full.

 

*-is banned in Russia

 

https://journal-neo.su/2023/09/21/georgian-coup-plot-thickens-we-lost-ukraine-but-saved-georgia-from-the-russians/

 

GUS NOTE: STALIN WAS GEORGIAN.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO: standing with shithead....

 

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....

By Michael Brenner / Original to ScheerPost

 

The United States is being defeated in Ukraine. One could say that it is facing defeat – or, more starkly, that it is staring defeat in the face. Neither formulation is appropriate, though. The U.S. doesn’t look reality squarely in the eye. We prefer to look at the world through the distorted lenses of our fantasies. We plunge forward on whatever path we’ve chosen while averting our eyes from the topography that we are trying to traverse.  Our sole guiding light is the glow of a distant mirage. That is our lodestone.

It is not that America is a stranger to defeat. We are very well acquainted with it: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria – in strategic terms if not always military terms. To this broad category, we might add Venezuela, Cuba, and Niger. That rich experience in frustrated ambition has failed to liberate us from the deeply rooted habit of eliding defeat. Indeed, we have acquired a large inventory of methods for doing so.

 

DEFINING & DETERMINING DEFEAT

Before examining them, let us specify what we mean by ‘defeat.’ Simply put, defeat is a failure to meet objectives – at tolerable cost. The term also encompasses unintended, adverse second-order consequences.

1. What were Washington’s objectives in sabotaging the Minsk peace plan and cold-shouldering subsequent Russian proposals, in provoking Russia by crossing clearly demarcated red lines, in pressing for Ukraine’s membership in NATO; in installing missile batteries in Poland and Rumania; in transforming the Ukrainian army into a potent military force deployed on the line-of-contact in the Donbas ready to invade or goad Moscow into preemptive action? The aim was to either pin a humiliating defeat on the Russian army or, at least, to inflict such heavy costs as to cut the ground from under the Putin government. The crucial, complementary dimension of the strategy was the imposition of economic sanctions so onerous as to implode a vulnerable Russian economy. Together, they would generate acute distress leading to the deposing of Putin – whether by a cabal of opponents (disgruntled oligarchs as the spearhead) or by mass protest. It was predicated on the fatally ill-informed supposition that he was an absolute dictator running a one-man show, The U.S. foresaw his replacement by a more pliable government ready to become a willing but marginal presence on the European stage and a non-player elsewhere. In the crude words of one Moscow official, “a tenant-farmer on Uncle Sam’s global plantation.”
2. The taming and domestication of Russia was conceived as a vital step in the impending great confrontation with China – designated the systemic rival to American hegemony. Theoretically, that objective could be achieved either by enticing Russia away from China (divide and subordinate) or totally neutralizing Russia as a world power by bringing down its stiff-backed leadership. The former approach never went beyond a few desultory, feeble gestures. All the chips were placed on the latter.
3. Ancillary benefits for the United States from a war over Ukraine that would bring Russia low were a) to consolidate the Atlantic alliance under Washington’s control, expand NATO and open an unbridgeable abyss between Russia and the rest of Europe that would endure for the foreseeable future; b) to that end, the termination of the latter’s heavy reliance on energy resources from Russia; and c) thereby, substituting higher-priced LNG and petroleum from the United States that would seal the European partners’ status as dependent economic vassals. If the last were a drag on their industry, so be it.

The grandiose goals stated in (1) and (2) manifestly have proven unreachable -indeed, fanciful – a blunt truth not as yet absorbed by American elites. Those in (3) are consolation prizes of diminished value. This outcome was determined in good part, albeit not at all entirely, by the military failure in Ukraine. We now are about to enter the final act. Kiev’s vaunted counter-offense has gone nowhere – at an enormous cost to the Ukrainian military. It has been bled white by massive losses of manpower, by the destruction of the greater part of its armor, by the ruin of vital infrastructure. The Western-trained elite brigades have been mauled, and there no longer are any reserves to throw into the battle. Moreover, the flow of weapons and ammunition from the West has slowed as American and European stocks are running low (e.g. 155mm artillery shells).  The shortage is being aggravated by newfound inhibitions about sending Ukraine advanced weapons which have proven highly vulnerable to Russian firepower. That holds especially for armor: German Leopards, British Challengers, French AMX-10-RC tanks as well as Combat Fighting Vehicles (CFV) like the American Bradleys and Strykers. Graphic images of burnt-out hulks littering the Ukrainian steppe are not advertisements for either Western military technology or foreign sales. Hence, too, the slow-walking of deliveries to Kiev of the promised Abrams and F-16s lest they suffer the same fate.

The illusion of eventual success on the battlefield (with its envisaged wearing down of Russia’s will and capacity) is founded on a mistaken idea of how to measure winning and losing. American leaders, military as well as civilian, are stuck to a model that emphasizes control of territory. Russian military thinking is different. Its emphasis is on the destruction of the enemy’s forces, by whatever strategy is suited to the prevailing conditions. Then, in command of the battlefield, they can work their will. The aggressive tactics of the Ukrainians entails the throwing of its resources into combat in relentless campaigns to evict the Russians from the Donbas and Crimea. Unable to achieve any breakthrough, they invited themselves to a war of attrition much to their disadvantage. It has been succeeded by this summer’s all-out last fling which has proven suicidal.  They thereby played into the Russians’ hands.  Hence, while attention is fixed on who occupies this village or that on the Zaporizhhia front or around Bakhmut, the real story is that Russia has been dismantling the reconstituted Ukrainian army piece by piece.

In historical perspective, there are two instructive analogies. In the last year of WW I, the German high command launched an audacious campaign (Operation Michael) on the Western Front in March 1918 using a number of innovative tactics (featuring commando squads, stormtroopers, equipped with flame-throwers) to punch holes in allied lines. After initial gains that brought them across the Marne, attended by very heavy casualties, the offensive petered out and allowed the allies to roll over their gravely depleted forces – leading to the final collapse in November. More pertinent is the battle of Kursk in July 1943 wherein the Nazis made a massive attempt to regain the initiative after the disaster at Stalingrad.  Again, after some noteworthy success in breaching two Soviet defense lines they exhausted themselves short of their objective. That battle opened the long, bloody road to Berlin. Ukraine, today, has suffered huge losses of even greater (proportional) magnitude, without achieving any significant territorial gains, unable even to reach the first layer of the Surovikin Line. That will clear the road to the Dnieper and beyond for the 600,000 strong Russian army equipped with weaponry the equal of what we have given Ukraine. Hence, Moscow is poised to exploit its decisive advantage to the point where it can dictate terms to Kiev, Washington, Brussels et al.

The Biden administration has made no plans for such an eventuality, nor have its obedient European governments. Their divorce from reality will make this state of affairs all the more stunning – and galling. Bereft of ideas, they will flounder. How they will react in unknowable. We can say with certainty one thing: the collective West, and especially the U.S., will have suffered a grave defeat. Coping with that truth will become the main order of business.

 

Here is a menu of options for handling it.

1.    Redefine what is meant by defeat/ victory, failure/success, lose/gain. There is a new narrative that is scripted to stress these talking points:

·       It is Russia that has lost the contest because heroic Ukraine and a steadfast West have prevented it from conquering, occupying and reincorporating all of the country

·       By contrast, Sweden and Finland formally have joined the American camp by entering NATO. That complicates Moscow’s strategic plans by forcing a dispersion of its forces across a wider front

·       Russia has been politically isolated on the world scene (MB: that is because North America, EU/NATO EUROPE, Japan, South Korea, Australia & New Zealand have backed the Ukrainian cause. Not a single other country has agreed to apply economic sanctions; the “world” does not include China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa et al).

·       The Western democracies have displayed unprecedented solidarity in responding as one to the Russian threat

    This narrative already has been given an airing in speeches by Blinken, Sullivan. Austin and Nuland. Its target audience is the American public; nobody outside the Collective West buys it, though – whether Washington has registered that fact of diplomatic life or not.

2.    Retroactively scale back your goals and stakes.

·       Make no further reference to regime change in Moscow, to toppling Putin, to crashing the Russian economy, to breaking the Sino-Russian partnership or to fatally weaken it.

·       Speak of safeguarding the integrity of the Ukrainian state by denying that the Donbas and Crimea have been permanently severed from the ‘mother country.’ Emphasize that your friends in Kiev are still titular, legitimate leaders of Ukraine.

·       Aim for a permanent ceasefire that would freeze the two sides in existing positions, i.e. a de facto division a la Korea. The Western portion then would be admitted to NATO and the EU, and rearmed. Ignore the inconvenient truth that Russia would never accept a ceasefire on those terms

·       Maintain the economic sanctions on Russia but look the other way when needy European partners make under-the-table deals for Russian oil and LNG (mostly through intermediaries like India, Turkey and Kazakhstan) as they have been doing throughout the conflict

·       Put the spotlight on China as the mortal threat to America and the West while disparaging Russia as just its auxiliary.

·       Highlight symbolic gestures like the strikes by top-of-the-line supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles transferred from the U.S., Britain and France that can inflict damage on prominent targets in Russia itself and Crimea (with crucial technical support from American and other NATO personnel). MB: this act is akin to rabid fans of a football team that just lost to a hated rival who puncture the tires on the bus scheduled to take them to the airport

·       Pull out all stops to keep Anna Netrebko – a citizen of Austria – from singing in major capitals. Threaten with heavy sanctions those concert halls which break the boycott – e.g. the Staatsoper in Berlin (ban from visiting Disneyland General Director Herr Matthias Schulz and his progeny unto the fourth generation?)

3.    Cultivate AMNESIA

 Americans have become masters in the art of memory management.

Think about the tragic shock of Vietnam.  The country made a systematic effort to forget – to forget everything about Vietnam. Understandably; it was ugly – on every count. Textbooks in American history gave it little space; teachers downplayed it; television soon disregarded it as retro. We sought closure – we got it.

In a sense, the most noteworthy inheritance from the post-Vietnam experience is the honing of methods to photoshop history.  Vietnam was a warm-up for dealing with the many unsavory episodes in the post-9/11 era. That thorough, comprehensive cleansing has made palatable Presidential mendacity, sustained deceit, mind-numbing incompetence, systemic torture, censorship, the shredding of the Bill of Rights and the perverting of national public discourse  – as it degenerated into a mix of propaganda and vulgar trash-talking. The “War on Terror” in all its atrocious aspects

Cultivated amnesia is a craft enormously facilitated by two broader trends in American culture: the cult of ignorance whereby a knowledge-free mind is esteemed as the ultimate freedom; and a public ethic whereby the nation’s highest officials are given license to treat the truth as a potter treats clay so long as they say and do things that make us feel good. So, our strongest collective memory of America’s wars of choice is the desirability – and ease – of forgetting them. “The show must go on” is taken as our imperative. So it will be when we look at a ruined Ukraine in the rear-view mirror.

The cultivation of amnesia as a method for dealing with painful national experiences has serious drawbacks. First, it severely restricts the opportunity to learn the lessons it offers. In the wake of the inconclusive Korean War where the United States suffered 49,000 killed in action, the mantra in Washington was: no war on the mainland of Asia ever again. Yet, less than a decade later we were knee-deep in the rice paddies of Vietnam where we lost 59,000 people. After the tragic fiasco in Iraq, Washington nonetheless was gung-ho about occupying Afghanistan in a 20-year enterprise to construct a similar Western-leaning democracy out of the barrel of a gun. Those frustrated projects did not dissuade us from intervening in Syria where we failed once again to turn an intractable, alien society into something to our liking – even though we went to such an extreme as a tacit partnership with the local al-Qaeda subsidiary. As Kabul showed, we didn’t even take away from the Saigon denouement the lesson in how to organize an orderly evacuation.

At the very least, one might have expected that a reasonable person would have come away with an acute awareness of how crucial is a fine-grain understanding of the culture, social organization, mores and philosophical outlook of the country we were committed to reconstituting. Still, we manifestly have not assimilated that elementary truth. Witness our abysmal ignorance of all things Russian that has led us to a fatal miscalculation of every aspect of the Ukraine affair.

NEXT: CHINA

Ukraine, in turn, is not cooling the ardor for confrontation with China. An audacious, and by no means a compelling, enterprise that is ensconced as the centerpiece of our official national security strategy. Senior Washington officials openly predict the inevitability of all-out war before the end of the decade – nuclear weapons notwithstanding. Moreover, Taiwan is cast in the same role as that played by Ukraine in the American scheme of things. So, having provoked a multi-dimensional conflict with Russia which has failed on all counts, we hastily commit ourselves to the nearly exact same strategy in taking on an even more formidable foe. This could be classified as what the French call a fuite en avant – an escape forward. In other words: Bring it on! We’re geared up for it.

The march to war with China defies all conventional wisdom. After all, it poses no military threat to our security or core interests. China has no history of empire-building or conquest. China has been the source of great economic benefit via dense exchanges that serve us as well as them. Therefore, what is the justification for the widespread judgment that a crossing-of-swords is inescapable?  Sensible nations do not commit themselves to a possibly cataclysmic war because China, the designated number one enemy, builds radar warning stations on sandy atolls in the South China Sea. Because it markets electric vehicles more cheaply than we can. Because its advances in developing semi-conductors may outclass ours. Because of its treatment of an ethnic minority in western China. Because it follows our example in funding NGOs that promote a positive view of their country. Because it engages in industrial espionage just the way the United States and everybody else does. Because it wafts balloons over North America (declared benign by General Milley last week).

None of these are compelling reasons to press hard for a confrontation. The truth is far simpler – and far more disquieting. We are obsessed with China because it exists. Like K-2, that itself is a challenge for we must prove our prowess (to others, but mainly to ourselves), that we can surmount it. That is the true meaning of a perceived existential threat.

The focal shift from Russia in Europe to China in Asia is less a mechanism for coping with defeat than the pathological reaction of a country that, feeling a gnawing sense of diminishing prowess, can manage to do nothing more than try one final fling at proving to itself that it still has the right stuff – since living without that exalted sense of self is intolerable. What is deemed heterodox, and daring, in Washington these days is to argue that we should wrap up the Ukraine affair one way or another so that we might gird our loins for the truly historic contest with Beijing. The disconcerting truth that nobody of consequence in the country’s foreign policy establishment has denounced this hazardous turn toward war supports the proposition that deep emotions rather than reasoned thought are propelling us toward an avoidable, potentially catastrophic conflict.

A society represented by an entire political class that is not sobered by that prospect rightly can be judged as providing prime facie evidence of being collectively unhinged.

Second, amnesia may serve the purpose of sparing our political elites, and the American populace at large, the acute discomfort of acknowledging mistakes and defeat. However, that success is not matched by an analogous process of memory erasure in other places. We were fortunate, in the case of Vietnam, that the United States’ dominant position in the world outside of the Soviet Bloc and the PRC allowed us to maintain respect, status and influence. Things have now changed, though. Our relative strength in all domains is weaker, there are strong centrifugal forces around the global that are producing a dispersion of power, will and outlook among other states. The BRICs phenomenon is the concrete embodiment of that reality.   Hence, the prerogatives of the United States are narrowing, our ability to shape the global system in conformity with our ideas and interests are under mounting challenge, and premiums are being placed on diplomacy of an order that seems beyond our present aptitudes.

 We are confounded.

 

https://scheerpost.com/2023/09/21/michael-brenner-defeat/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO: standing with shithead....

 

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.

 

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

 

During the disastrous Vietnam War, it was said that the US government treated the public like a mushroom farm: keeping it in the dark and feeding it with manure. The heroic Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers documenting the unrelenting US government lying about the war in order to protect politicians who would be embarrassed by the truth. A half century later, during the Ukraine War, the manure is piled even higher.

According to the US Government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the New York Times’ favourite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidentally blurted out the truth.

In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. 

So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.” 

To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former US Ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.

Burns, now CIA Director, was US Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it.

Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the US military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the US placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the US unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

Russia also does not welcome the fact that the US engaged in no fewer than 70 regime change operations during the Cold War (1947-1989), and countless more since, including in Serbia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, and Ukraine. Nor does Russia like the fact that many leading US politicians actively advocate the destruction of Russia under the banner of “Decolonizing Russia.” That would be like Russia calling for the removal of Texas, California, Hawaii, the conquered Indian lands, and much else, from the U.S.

Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”

Arestovych claimed that even without NATO enlargement, Russia would eventually try to take Ukraine, just many years later. Yet history belies that. Russia respected Finland’s and Austria’s neutrality for decades, with no dire threats, much less invasions. Moreover, from Ukraine’s independence in 1991 until the US-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, Russia didn’t show any interest in taking Ukrainian territory. It was only when the US installed a staunchly anti-Russian, pro-NATO regime in February 2014 that Russia took back Crimea, concerned that its Black Sea naval base in Crimea (since 1783) would fall into NATO’s hands.

Even then, Russia didn’t demand other territory from Ukraine, only fulfilment of the UN-backed Minsk II Agreement, which called for autonomy of the ethnic-Russian Donbas, not a Russian claim on the territory. Yet instead of diplomacy, the US armed, trained, and helped to organise a huge Ukrainian army to make NATO enlargement a fait accompli.

Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft US-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of US missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.

The continuing US obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The US would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the US has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the US is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.

So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by US arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the US acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace. The deeper truth is that European security depends on collective security as called for by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), not one-sided NATO demands.

First published in OTHER NEWS September 19, 2023

https://johnmenadue.com/nato-admits-that-ukraine-war-is-a-war-of-nato-expansion/

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

The US should not endlessly pour money into Ukraine, especially since Kiev has “nothing to show for it,”Senator Josh Hawley has said, following President Joe Biden’s request for additional funds. 

“If there’s some path to victory in Ukraine, I didn’t hear it today. And I also heard that there’s going to be no end to the funding requests,” Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, told reporters following a closed-door Senate briefing on the situation in Ukraine on Wednesday. “What we were basically told is ‘Buckle up and get out your checkbook.’”

“It’s American people’s money. They’ve spent $115 billion, and, so far, they have basically nothing to show for it,” the senator said, arguing that Germany and other European allies should “step up to the plate” in terms of aiding Kiev in its conflict with Russia.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/583370-josh-hawley-ukraine-aid/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

While the Biden administration does not seem keen to stop funneling arms and funds to the regime in Kiev, Republican House Representative Paul A. Gosar raised concerns that at least a portion of this generous aid may make it into the hands of Ukrainian neo-Nazis.

In a letter addressed to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, US Congressman Paul Gosar voiced his misgivings about the Section 8138 of Public Law 117-328 that specifically prohibits the provision of US funds to the Azov Battalion, an infamous Ukrainian neo-Nazi unit*. 

In the missive dated September 20 and obtained exclusively by Sputnik, Gosar pointed out that not only does the Azov Battalion continue to exist despite having a “long history of human rights abuses,” it has been incorporated into the Ukrainian military and National Guard. 

“Thus, US aid of any type sent to Ukraine is being delivered, in contravention of the law, to this Nazi battalion. It is immoral and illegal for the United States to send money to a Nazi regime,” the congressman wrote.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230921/us-may-be-supporting-neo-nazis-by-aiding-ukraine-congressmans-letter-to-blinken-and-austin-1113566796.html

 

WE KNOW....

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

US intelligence analysts believe that Ukraine has given up on its counteroffensive against Russia and the only thing prolonging the conflict is the unwillingness of Washington and Kiev to acknowledge its failure, a source has told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Writing on Substack on Thursday, the veteran reporter cited an unnamed source, who “spent the early years of his career working against Soviet aggression and spying” as rejecting the Ukrainian narrative about slow but steady progress in its counteroffensive.

“‘It’s all lies,’” the source said, according to Hersh. “‘The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going.’”

This sentiment is shared by many figures in the US intelligence community, and the CIA in particular has been skeptical of Kiev’s claims of a continued push forward, unlike the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he explained.

https://www.rt.com/russia/583351-ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-hersh/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has pegged his nation’s continued fight against Russia to sustained US military assistance, according to US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“There was a single sentence that summed it all up, and I am quoting him verbatim. Mr. Zelensky said: ‘If we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war,’” the lawmaker told journalists after meeting Zelensky on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

The Biden administration has requested an additional $24 billion in spending for Ukraine, but this proposal faces resistance from Republican lawmakers. A group of over two dozen GOP senators and representatives sent a letter to the White House on Thursday, expressing concerns about the allocation of funds and seeking clarification on the progress of the counteroffensive.

“The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going?” the letter read.

Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president’s exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine?

The message was penned after Biden officials briefed Congress behind closed doors on Wednesday evening about their plans for Ukraine. Senator Josh Hawley, a skeptic of the White House’s policy, said the executive branch wanted indefinite funding with no clear path to a Ukrainian victory.

“What was it, $24 billion? That is not the end, they made it very clear. It’s not close to the end,” he said of the briefing. “What we were basically told is ‘Buckle up and get out your checkbook.’”

While bipartisan support for funding the Ukraine war remains intact, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has faced resistance within his party, according to US media. He opted for a private meeting with Zelensky during his visit to Washington, D.C., instead of convening a formal House session.

During its summer ongoing counteroffensive, the Ukrainian military has encountered strong Russian resistance and suffered significant losses in manpower and weaponry, resulting in a failure to make substantial territorial gains. Both the Zelensky government and the White House have shifted their messaging to emphasize slow but steady progress in the long term.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/583381-zelensky-aid-defeat-schumer/

 

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....

President Volodymyr Zelensky went to the 78th General Assembly of the United Nations (New York), then to Washington to speak before both chambers of Congress, as he had done in December 2022.

However, the Speaker of the House of Representatives objected to it, given “the heavy workload of the lawmakers”.

It escapes no one that, in 2022, the House was presided by Democrat Nancy Pelosy, who championed the war (photo), while today the Speaker is Republican Kevin McCarthy, who opposes it.

 

https://www.voltairenet.org/article219707.html

 

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....