Monday, September 3, 2018

A Book For Our Time, A Time That Perhaps Has Run Its Course Paul Craig Roberts

 A Book For Our Time, A Time That Perhaps Has Run Its Course



A Book For Our Time, A Time That Perhaps Has Run Its Course
Paul Craig Roberts
American post-WW 2 supremacy, writes Andrei Martyanov in his book, Losing Military Supremacy just published by Clarity Press, has been destroyed by America’s narcissism.https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-Strategic/dp/0998694754/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1535577199&sr=1-1&keywords=andrei+martyanov
The arrogant hubris of American exceptionalism and the myths that sustain it are subjected to devastating analysis in this long overdue book. Martyanov has no patience with American strategic thinkers, Russian experts, American war myths, and General George S. Patton. No nation has ever assembled a greater collection of ignorant fools than the US and trusted them with the leadership of the country.
The consequence for America of the unreal image of itself in which the ruling elites live is a “very dangerous decline of American cognitive faculties” and “a complete loss of sound reasoning across the whole spectrum of national activities from foreign policy, to economics, to war, to culture.” The hegemony claimed and pursued by neoconservatives, liberal interventionists, and garrulous patriots is inconsistent with the incompetence and delusion of the ruling American elites.
Take something as simple as a military power. Without a modern manufacturing and industrial base, a country has no prospects of being a military power. This fact escaped Wall Street, titans of American industry, and political leaders who enabled the offshoring of American manufacturing and industrial jobs to Asia, thereby building China’s might and deindustrializing the United States, an alleged “superpower” that is dependent on Russian rocket engines and titanium for its aircraft production.
It has also escaped the American elites that the sanctions applied to Russia have built up the capability and self-sufficiency of Russia. Washington’s sanctions make Russia more powerful.
Consider education. A modern military requires people capable in physics and advanced math, subjects in which Russians have always led, as US Admiral Hyman Rickover recognized as long ago as 1953. In pre-Putin Russia, Washington’s effort to “Westernize,” that is, to destroy, Russian education did not succeed. But it has succeeded in America, where politically correct demands for equal performance from a diverse student body with different talents and motivations has watered down course content. Everyone has to make the same grade, or heavens forbid, politically incorrect differences exist. In public high schools, standardized testing has produced memorization of the ruling shibboleths in place of ability to reason. Indeed, in the US the term, “public education,” has become an oxymoron. Jobs offshoring has also taken a toll on America’s technological cadre. Most people involved in digital activities in the US are probably people from India on work visas.
When a country’s elites see themselves as above others—remember the applause given to John McCain’s reference to Russia as a gas station pretending to be a country—they tend to dispense with diplomacy and rely instead on threats and coercion, such as the threat delivered to the President of Pakistan by a State Department official, “do as you are told or we will bomb you into the stone age.”
Washington cloaks its intentions in moral terms, presenting itself as a defender of democracy and human rights while it destroys in whole or part seven countries in the 21st century in its pursuit of hegemony culminating in an irresponsible and reckless assault on Russian national interest.
Martyanov finds incomprehensible the massive American military miscalculation that in dealing with Russia America is dealing with an insignificant military power. In fact, it is America that has invested the country’s wealth in a “hollow force,” while Russia has capabilities against which the United States has no defense whatsoever.
In a March 1, 2018, address to the Federal Assembly of Russia, President Vladimir Putin described some of this capability, some of which is currently deployed with the Russian forces that are present in Syria. The crux of the matter is this: Currently deployed Russian weapons make the entire US Navy, all the carrier fleets, everything, totally defenseless and obsolete. Russian superiority in the Syrian arena is so total, so complete, that the US cannot attack Syria without Putin’s permission.
Martyanov mentions the infatuation with “Western civilization” of a stratum of the Russian Elite, an elite created by American and Israeli influence. The question is whether this time Putin will permit, as he has in the past, another American strike against his ally that Russia has enabled to clear from Syrian territory the American organized and equipped forces sent to overthrow Syria.
In the past, Putin influenced perhaps by the American-worshipping Russian neoliberals, permitted Washington’s strikes, strikes that Washington justified by lies that Putin knew were lies.
The question is whether Putin will forever in his pointless desire to appease Washington again permit Washington’s strikes against Russia’s ally. Did he send to the combat arena Russian forces that can annihilate at will all American forces present at zero cost to Russia to do the required job, or did he send them as a potential threat that he does not intend to exercise, hoping against hope that the Americans in their world of total unreality will realize their impotence and back off?
Bogdasarov says that the only thing that will stop the constant and increasing provocations against Russia is for Russia not only to destroy all incoming US missiles into Syria but also to destroy every launching platform. https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/08/a-russian-response-to-a-new-us-attack-on-syria-should-include-sinking-the-carriers-not-just-shooting-at-their-missiles/
Bogdasarov is correct. Putin has let American gratuitous aggression go too far. It needs to be stopped now before Putin’s only alternative is the surrender of Russia to Washington or nuclear war.
The Russian military will not permit Putin to surrender Russia to Washington.
Nuclear war raises the question whether planet Earth survives.
If Putin backs down again over Syria, the prospects for nuclear war increase dramatically.
The most dangerous enemy that Russia and human life face is not Washington but the Western brainwashed, Western worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists in Russia. These utterly stupid people, unless they are eliminated, will destroy the world.


Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War

Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War




Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War
Can War Be Avoided and the Planet Saved?
Paul Craig Roberts
The Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin’s non-confrontational responses to Washington’s never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian patriots don’t want war, but they do want their country’s honor defended, and they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.
This disillusionment with Putin, together with Putin’s endorsement of raising the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia’s neoliberal economists, have hurt Putin’s approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be tested by Washington in Syria.
In many columns, I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia or China, much less against both. Putin also understands that the sanctions are damaging Washington’s European vassals and could eventually force the European vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington’s belligerence. Even with Russia’s new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.
So, as I have suggested in many columns Putin is acting intelligently. He is in the game for the long term while protecting the world from dangerous war.
Whereas I endorse Putin’s strategy and admire his coolness as a person who never lets emotion lead him, there is nevertheless a problem. The people in the West with whom he is dealing are idiots who do not appreciate his statesmanship. Consequently, each time Putin turns the other cheek, so to speak, the insults and the provocations ratchet upward.
Consider Syria. The Syrian Army with the help of a tiny part of the Russian Air Force has cleared all areas of Syria but one of the American-instigated-financed-and-equipped forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government.
The remaining US proxy force is about to be eliminated. In order to save it, and to keep a Washington foothold that could permit a restart of the war, Washington has arranged yet another false flag “chemical attack” that the presstitute and obedient Western media will blame on Assad. President Trump’s National Security Adviser, a crazed, perhaps insane, Neoconservative, has told Russia that Washington will take a dim view of the Syrian/Russian use of chemical weapons against “Assad’s own people.”
The Russians are fully aware that any chemical attack will be a false flag attack orchestrated by Washington using the elements it sent to Syria to overthrow the government. Indeed, Russia’s ambassador to the US explained it all yesterday to the US government.
Clearly, Putin hopes to avoid Washington’s orchestrated attack by having his ambassador explain the orchestration to the American officials who are orchestrating it. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-30/russian-ambassador-gave-intel-us-officials-showing-planned-chemical-provocation
This strategy implies that Putin thinks US government officials are capable of shame and integrity. They most certainly are not. I spent 25 years with them. They don’t even know what the words mean.
What if, instead, Putin had declared publicly for the entire world to hear that any forces, wherever located, responsible for an attack on Syria would be annihilated? My view -— https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/29/a-book-for-our-time-a-time-that-perhaps-has-run-its-course/ — and that of Russian patriot Bogdasarov— https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/08/a-russian-response-to-a-new-us-attack-on-syria-should-include-sinking-the-carriers-not-just-shooting-at-their-missiles/ — is that such an ultimatum from the leader of the country capable of delivering it would cool the jets of Russophobic Washington. There would be no attack on Syria.
Bogdasarov and I might be wrong. The Russian forces deployed around Syria with their hypersonic missiles are more than a match for the US forces assembled to attack Syria. However, American hubris can certainly prevail over facts, in which case Putin would have to destroy the sources of the attack. By not committing in advance, Putin retains flexibility. Washington’s attack, like its previous attack on Syria, might be a face-saver, not a real attack. Nevertheless, sooner or later Russia will have to deliver a firmer response to provocations.
I am an American. I am not a Russian, much less a Russian nationalist. I do not want US military personnel to be casualties of Washington’s fatal desire for world hegemony, much less to be casualties of Washington serving Israel’s interests in the Middle East. The reason I think Putin needs to do a better job of standing up to Washington is that I think, based on history, that appeasement encourages more provocations, and it comes to a point when you have to surrender or fight. It is much better to stop this process in its tracks before it reaches that dangerous point.
Andrei Martyanov, whose book I recently reviewed on my website, recently defended Putin, as The Saker and I have done in the past, from claims that Putin is too passive in the face of assaults. https://russia-insider.com/en/russia-playing-long-game-no-room-instant-gratification-strategies-super-patriots/ri24561 As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker. Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender or war.
So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?
I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphasize in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let’s give this a moment’s thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arrogance and belief in their “exceptionalism,” the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington’s belief in its hegemony.
The Zionist neoconservatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.
When confronted with such a deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?
This is the question before the Russian government.
Perhaps the Russian government will understand the meaning of the orchestrated eulogies for John McCain. It is not normal for a US senator to be eulogized in this way, especially one with such an undistinguished record. What is being eulogized is McCain’s hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington is eulogizing is its own commitment
to war.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

Facebook Is An Intolerant Authoritarian Organization That Suppresses Free Speech

Facebook Is An Intolerant Authoritarian Organization That Suppresses Free Speech
Facebook Is An Intolerant Authoritarian Organization That Suppresses Free Speech
Facebook, Twitter, Google are information monopolies that intentionally violate the US Constitution’s protected First Amendment right. These organizations are evil and they are destroying the public’s right to know. These organizations should be nationalized without compensation and put under the governance of known and committed defenders of the First Amendment. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are inconsistent with a free society. They are functionaries of Big Brother’s police state.
If an investigative journalist looked into these organizations, I believe many links to the CIA and the deep state would be found.
Read more:


Saturday, September 1, 2018

Lincoln As He Really Was

Lincoln As He Really Was
Lincoln As He Really Was
Thomas DiLorenzo
The following is the foreword that I have written for the outstanding new piece of Lincoln scholarship, Lincoln as He Really Was, by Charles T. Pace.
Despite the fact that there are well over 10,000 books in print about Abraham Lincoln it is almost impossible for the average American – or anyone else – to know the truth about the real Lincoln.  Having given hundreds of public presentations, appeared on dozens of radio talk shows (including the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show), and participated in numerous debates on the subject of Lincoln, I have learned that the average American knows nothing at all about the man except for the few slogans and platitudes that we are all taught in elementary school (and then repeated endlessly in the popular culture).
As an elementary school student in the Pennsylvania public schools, I was taught that Lincoln was so honest that he once walked six miles to return a penny to a merchant who had mistakenly undercharged him.  Decades later, when I debated Harry Jaffa who, like the man he called “Father Abraham,” was a student of rhetoric (but not of American history), Jaffa assured the Oakland, California audience of several hundred that Lincoln’s political speeches were in fact “the words of God.”  (This presumably did not include his dirty jokes, for which was famous).
Abraham Lincoln is the only American president that has literally been deified like a Roman emperor (Like Julius Caesar, his image is the first to be placed on his country’s coinage).  Lincoln’s deification eventually spread to the presidency, and then to the entire federal government.  The Lincoln myth is thus the ideological cornerstone of the global American empire and has been for generations.  As Robert Penn Warren wrote in The Legacy of the Civil War, the deification of Lincoln (and of the government in general) has been used to argue that the “Civil War” left the U.S. government with “a treasury of virtue,” a “plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future.”  Consequently,  American foreign policy intervention anywhere in the world is said to be always virtuous, by definition, because it is, well, American.
For more than 150 years this “treasury” of false virtue has been invoked to “justify” the slaughter of the Plains Indians from 1865-1898; the mass murder of some 200,000 Filipinos at the turn of the century; the imperialistic Spanish-American War; entry into Europe’s war in 1918; and myriad other interventions, from Korea to Vietnam to Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and on and on.  It is all a part of “our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal spiritual rehabilitation for others” (emphasis added), wrote Robert Penn Warren.  Professor Mel Bradford called the Lincolnian rhetoric that is the ideological basis for all this interventionism “the rhetoric of continuing revolution.”
This revolutionary rhetoric is alive and well today.  When Newt Gingrich authored a Wall Street Journal article in which he advocated the military invasion of Iran, Syria, and North Korea during the George W. Bush administration, he naturally titled the article “Lincoln and Bush,” implying that such belligerence would be “Lincolnesque” and therefore should not be questioned.  When the Marxist historian Eric Foner of Columbia University opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union in an October 1991 article in The Nation magazine he titled the article “Lincoln’s Lesson.”  Unlike Gorbachev, he said, Lincoln would never have let the Soviet satellite states secede in peace.
The Communist Party USA used to hold “Lincoln-Lenin Day” rallies and had a giant portrait of Lincoln in its New York City offices.  Even the former dictator of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, invoked Lincoln’s unconstitutional suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus to “justify” martial law in his country.  The deification of Lincoln has become a useful rhetorical tool for tyrants, militarists, and enemies of freedom everywhere.
Americans have been progressively dumbed down about Lincoln thanks to the avalanche of myths, superstitions, and propaganda produced by generations of “Lincoln scholars.” It wasn’t always that way, however.  During his lifetime Lincoln was actually the most hated and detested of all American presidents, as documented by historian Larry Tagg in The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America’s Most Reviled President.  For example, on page 435 of his book, Larry Tagg cites an 1864 Harpers Weekly article that compiled a list of terms that the Northern press used to describe Lincoln including “Filthy Story-Teller, Ignoramus Abe, Despot, Old Scoundrel . . . Perjurer, Liar, Robber, Thief, Swindler, Braggart, Tyrant, Buffoon, Fiend, Usurper,
This all changed after the assassination as the Republican Party revealed in what Larry Tagg calls a “propaganda windfall.”  They would rewrite history with the help of the New England clergy in order to impose on Americans their version of what is essentially a New England theocracy composed of a government of nannies, pests, busybodies, tyrants, and money-grubbing plutocrats (known as “Yankees” by some).
New England pastors who had excoriated Lincoln for four years all of a sudden “rewrote their Easter sermons to include a new, exalted view of Lincoln as an American Moses, a leader out of slavery, a national savior who was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land” himself.  Senator James Grimes of Iowa boasted that the Republican Party’s deification of Lincoln “has made it impossible to speak the truth about Abraham Lincoln hereafter.”
Senator Grimes was right.  In his 1943 book, The Deification of Lincoln, historian Ira D. Cardiff wrote that by then Americans were not even “interested . . . in the real Lincoln.  They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man . . . a savior, leading us to democracy and liberty – though most said readers are not interested in democracy or liberty.”  Moreover, said Cardiff, “a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty in finding a publisher.”
Well, no longer. Lincoln as He Really Was by Charles T. Pace is a refreshingly truthful antidote to the standard Lincoln mythology.  It is refreshing because it is so fact-based and well documented and devoted to historical truth.   Lincoln as He Really Was is not your typical boring, voluminous biography filled with thousands of disconnected (and often irrelevant) facts dug up by a dozen graduate research assistants and published by a card-carrying member of the Ivy League Lincoln cult.  It is the first book since Edgar Lee Masters’ 1931 classic, Lincoln the Manto attempt to reveal the truth about what kind of man Abraham Lincoln really was.
Based on voluminous research of Lincoln’s actions, first and foremost, and not just his rhetoric, Pace describes how Lincoln was an expert manipulator of people; extremely lazy when it came to physical labor (contrary to the “rail splitter” legend!); was not at all well read; and what he did read was almost exclusively books about speech-making and rhetoric, with titles such as Lessons in Elocution.   The book confirms in spades what economist Murray N. Rothbard once said about Lincoln in an (online) essay entitled “Just War”: Lincoln was a “master politician,” said Rothbard, defined as one who is a masterful “liar, conniver, and manipulator.” He makes any “master politician” or our time look amateurish by comparison.
Lincoln never joined a church, and both his law partner William Herndon and his wife Mary Todd said he was not a Christian.  His White House assistant, Colonel Ward Lamon, called him “an infidel.”  His close associate Judge David Davis, whom he appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote that Lincoln “had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term.”  But his mother read him Bible stories as a child, and later in life he studied the Bible for political purposes – to use religious rhetoric to sway the masses to favor his political positions.  These positions were almost exclusively the Whig economic program of protectionism, corporate welfare, and a government-run national bank to dispense subsidies to politically-connected corporations, especially his former employers, the railroad corporations.  He boasted of always being a “Henry Clay Man,” Clay being the leader of the party of the corrupt, corporate welfare-seeking plutocracy – the Northern Whigs and then the Republicans
Pace shows what a political animal Lincoln really was, a “zealous party man” who honed his skills, such as they were, of personally attacking his political opponents with often over-the-top ad hominem assaults, similar to how the Marxists of his day, and our day, argue(d).
None of Lincoln’s family members voted for him, nor did 20 of the 23 ministers in his hometown of Springfield, Illinois.  He did not even carry his own county in the 1860 election.  These are the people who knew him best.
Lincoln was a master storyteller, many of which were notoriously vulgar and crude.  He never passed up an opportunity to make a speech, writes Pace, as he spent years honing the skills of the master politician.  He could sound like an abolitionist in front of a Massachusetts audience, and the exact opposite in Southern Illinois.  His speeches were always vague and his positions hard to pin down, the hallmark of a successful politician.  He viewed politics as “life itself” and was intensely partisan, routinely denouncing his political opponent as “villains.”  He was a “born politician,” writes Pace.  He was, in other words, the very kind of man that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison warned their fellow citizens about with their admonitions about how the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution” (Jefferson).  “[I]t is of great importance,” Madison wrote in Federalist 51, “to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers.”
Lincoln invited no family members to his wedding; chose not to attend his own father’s funeral; and is said to have never had a real friend.  He had a “preacher’s voice” with a practiced “metaphysical tone” and was not afraid to tell outrageous lies for political purposes.  For example, he insisted that the South wanted to begin enslaving poor whites and immigrants and bring slavery back to New England, where it had ended for purely economic reasons.  He denied that he wanted war, or to destroy the union, or to destroy the South, and then proceeded to do every one of those things. The Real Lincoln: A Ne...Thomas J. DilorenzoBest Price: $2.96Buy New $7.51(as of 01:10 EDT - Details)
Lincoln as He Really Was ends with a masterful exposition of how Lincoln used all the skills of the master politician, accumulated over three decades, to incite South Carolinians into firing on Fort Sumter in order to use the incident (where no one was harmed or killed) to “justify” waging war on the South.  His war cost the lives of as many as 750,000 Americans according to the latest research in order to “save the union,” his professed war goal, and that of the U.S. Congress as well.  Of course, in reality, his war destroyed the voluntary union of states created by the founders and replaced it with a more Soviet-style, compulsory “union” held together by violence, death, mass killing, and coercion.
You, dear reader, may believe that there is something fishy about The Official History of Abraham Lincoln.  Or perhaps you are incensed that you have been lied to all your life by the politically-controlled/politically-correct education establishment.  If so, Lincoln as He Really Was is a must-read as the first step in your rehabilitation as an educated American citizen – or as the citizen of any other country.  It will be especially helpful in allowing your children and grandchildren to have an opportunity to learn the truth about this important aspect of American history.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and the author of The Real LincolnHow Capitalism Saved AmericaLincoln UnmaskedHamilton’s CurseOrganized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; and most recently, The Problem With Socialism.


DE -- Manlio Dinucci -- "DIE KUNST DES KRIEGES" -- Eingestürzte Brücken und bombardierte Brücken

"Nachdem alle Brücken zerstört waren, mussten die Einwohner von Novi Sad die Donau mit einer Pontonfähre überqueren. Weitere Fotos finden Sie HIER

" DIE KUNST DES KRIEGES "
Eingestürzte Brücken und bombardierte Brücken
von Manlio Dinucci

« Das Bild ist wirklich apokalyptisch. Es sieht so aus, als sei eine Bombe auf diesen Straßenabschnitt  gefallen, der eine Hauptschlagader ist" - so beschrieb ein Journalist die Morandi-Brücke in Genua kurz nach ihrem Einsturz, der das Leben von Dutzenden Menschen zerstörte[1].
Diese Worte erinnern an andere Bilder, die von etwa 40 serbischen Brücken, die 1999 durch NATO-Bombenangriffe zerstört wurden - darunter die Brücke über die Morava in Südserbien, wo zwei Raketen einen Zug trafen und die Passagiere massakrierten. 78 Tage lang starteten 1.100 Flugzeuge, hauptsächlich von italienischen Stützpunkten, die von der Regierung D'Alema geliefert wurden, 38.000 Einsätze und zündeten 23.000 Bomben und Raketen. Sie zerstörten systematisch serbische Strukturen und Infrastrukturen und forderten Tausende von zivilen Opfern. 54 italienische Flugzeuge nahmen an den Angriffen teil, wobei 1.378 Einsätze und Angriffsziele vom US-Kommando angegeben wurden. "In Anbetracht der Anzahl der beteiligten Flugzeuge waren wir nach den Vereinigten Staaten an zweiter Stelle. Italien ist ein bedeutendes Land, und es sollte keine Überraschung sein, dass wir uns in diesem Krieg engagieren", erklärte D'Alema.
Im selben Jahr, in dem sie an der endgültigen Zerstörung des jugoslawischen Staates beteiligt war, hat die Regierung D'Alema das öffentliche Eigentum der Società Autostrade (auch Manager der Morandi-Brücke) abgebaut, indem sie einen Teil davon an eine Gruppe von Aktionären übergab und den Rest an der Börse notierte. Die Morandi-Brücke ist unter der Verantwortung eines auf Profit ausgerichteten Systems zusammengebrochen, dasselbe System, das im Zentrum der mächtigen Interessen der NATO steht.
Der Vergleich zwischen den Bildern der eingestürzten Morandi-Brücke und den bombardierten serbischen Brücken, der auf den ersten Blick erzwungen erscheinen mag, ist im Gegenteil sehr begründet.
Erstens sollte die schreckliche Szene der Opfer, die durch den Zusammenbruch unter den Trümmern begraben wurden, uns über die schreckliche Realität des Krieges nachdenken lassen, die uns die großen Medien als eine Art "Kriegsspiel" präsentieren, wobei der Pilot auf die Brücke zielt und die ferngesteuerte Bombe sie in Stücke reißt.
Zweitens sollten wir uns daran erinnern, dass die Europäische Kommission am 28. März einen Aktionsplan vorgelegt hat, der die Instandsetzung und Instandhaltung der EU-Strukturen, einschließlich der Brücken, vorwegnimmt, aber nicht, um sie für die zivile Mobilität sicherer, sondern für die militärische Mobilität effizienter zu machen[2].
In Wirklichkeit wurde dieser Plan vom Pentagon und von der NATO beschlossen, die die EU aufforderten, "die zivilen Infrastrukturen zu verbessern, damit sie besser an die militärischen Erfordernisse angepasst werden können" - mit anderen Worten, Panzer, selbstfahrende Kanonen und andere schwere Militärfahrzeuge so schnell wie möglich von einem europäischen Land in ein anderes zu verlegen, um gegen die "russische Aggression" vorzugehen. Zum Beispiel - wenn eine Brücke das Gewicht einer Panzerkolonne nicht tragen kann, muss sie verstärkt oder umgebaut werden.
Wir könnten glauben, dass die Brücke in diesem Fall, wenn sie verstärkt wird, auch für zivile Fahrzeuge sicherer wird. Aber die Frage ist nicht so einfach.
Diese Änderungen werden nur für die militärische Mobilität auf den wichtigsten Landverbindungen  vorgenommen, und die enormen Ausgaben werden vom jeweiligen Land übernommen, das genötigt  sein wird, die Kosten von seinen Ressourcen für die allgemeine Verbesserung seiner Infrastrukturen abzuziehen.
Ein finanzieller Beitrag der EU ist in Höhe von 6,5 Milliarden Euro vorgesehen, aber - laut Federica Mogherini, die für die "Sicherheitspolitik" der EU zuständig ist - nur, um "sicherzustellen, dass Infrastrukturen von strategischer Bedeutung den militärischen Erfordernissen angepasst werden".
Aber die Zeit vergeht schnell - bis September muss der Europäische Rat (im Auftrag der NATO) die Liste der Infrastrukturen festlegen, die für die militärische Mobilität in Frage kommen. Wird die Morandi-Brücke aufgelistet und wieder aufgebaut werden, damit die Panzer der USA und der NATO sicher über die Köpfe der Bevölkerung von Genua fahren können?

1] Die Morandi-Brücke, ein wichtiger Autobahnviadukt in Genua, der von einem privaten Unternehmen verwaltet wird, brach am 14. August zusammen und forderte mehr als 40 Opfer. Die wahrscheinliche Ursache ist ein struktureller Zusammenbruch, dessen Anzeichen jedoch jahrelang ignoriert wurden. (Anmerkung der Redaktion).
2] "Die Militarisierung der Europäischen Union: Schengen-Raum an US-NATO-Streitkräfte übergeben", von Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto (Italien), Voltaire Network, 7. April 2018.
il manifesto, 28. August 2018

Übersetzung: K.R.
NO WAR NO NATO

Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War

 Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War


Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War
Can War Be Avoided and the Planet Saved?
Paul Craig Roberts
The Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin’s non-confrontational responses to Washington’s never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian patriots don’t want war, but they do want their country’s honor defended, and they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.
This disillusionment with Putin, together with Putin’s endorsement of raising the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia’s neoliberal economists, have hurt Putin’s approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be tested by Washington in Syria.
In many columns, I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia or China, much less against both. Putin also understands that the sanctions are damaging Washington’s European vassals and could eventually force the European vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington’s belligerence. Even with Russia’s new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.
So, as I have suggested in many columns Putin is acting intelligently. He is in the game for the long term while protecting the world from dangerous war.
Whereas I endorse Putin’s strategy and admire his coolness as a person who never lets emotion lead him, there is nevertheless a problem. The people in the West with whom he is dealing are idiots who do not appreciate his statesmanship. Consequently, each time Putin turns the other cheek, so to speak, the insults and the provocations ratchet upward.
Consider Syria. The Syrian Army with the help of a tiny part of the Russian Air Force has cleared all areas of Syria but one of the American-instigated-financed-and-equipped forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government.
The remaining US proxy force is about to be eliminated. In order to save it, and to keep a Washington foothold that could permit a restart of the war, Washington has arranged yet another false flag “chemical attack” that the presstitute and obedient Western media will blame on Assad. President Trump’s National Security Adviser, a crazed, perhaps insane, Zionist Neoconservative, has told Russia that Washington will take a dim view of the Syrian/Russian use of chemical weapons against “Assad’s own people.”
The Russians are fully aware that any chemical attack will be a false flag attack orchestrated by Washington using the elements it sent to Syria to overthrow the government. Indeed, Russia’s ambassador to the US explained it all yesterday to the US government.
Clearly, Putin hopes to avoid Washington’s orchestrated attack by having his ambassador explain the orchestration to the American officials who are orchestrating it. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-30/russian-ambassador-gave-intel-us-officials-showing-planned-chemical-provocationThis strategy implies that Putin thinks US government officials are capable of shame and integrity. They most certainly are not. I spent 25 years with them. They don’t even know what the words mean.
What if, instead, Putin had declared publicly for the entire world to hear that any forces, wherever located, responsible for an attack on Syria would be annihilated? My view -— https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/29/a-book-for-our-time-a-time-that-perhaps-has-run-its-course/ — and that of Russian patriot Bogdasarov— https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/08/a-russian-response-to-a-new-us-attack-on-syria-should-include-sinking-the-carriers-not-just-shooting-at-their-missiles/ — is that such an ultimatum from the leader of the country capable of delivering it would cool the jets of Russophobic Washington. There would be no attack on Syria.
Bogdasarov and I might be wrong. The Russian forces deployed around Syria with their hypersonic missiles are more than a match for the US forces assembled to attack Syria. However, American hubris can certainly prevail over facts, in which case Putin would have to destroy the sources of the attack. By not committing in advance, Putin retains flexibility. Washington’s attack, like its previous attack on Syria, might be a face-saver, not a real attack. Nevertheless, sooner or later Russia will have to deliver a firmer response to provocations.
I am an American. I am not a Russian, much less a Russian nationalist. I do not want US military personnel to be casualties of Washington’s fatal desire for world hegemony, much less to be casualties of Washington serving Israel’s interests in the Middle East. The reason I think Putin needs to do a better job of standing up to Washington is that I think, based on history, that appeasement encourages more provocations, and it comes to a point when you have to surrender or fight. It is much better to stop this process in its tracks before it reaches that dangerous point.
Andrei Martyanov, whose book I recently reviewed on my website, recently defended Putin, as The Saker and I have done in the past, from claims that Putin is too passive in the face of assaults. https://russia-insider.com/en/russia-playing-long-game-no-room-instant-gratification-strategies-super-patriots/ri24561 As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker. Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender or war.
So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is:
Ø  How long does turning your other cheek work?
Ø  Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation?
Ø  Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor?
Ø  Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission?
Ø  Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?
I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphasize in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let’s give this a moment’s thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arrogance and belief in their “exceptionalism,” the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington’s belief in its hegemony.
The Zionist neoconservatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.
When confronted with such a deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?
This is the question before the Russian government.
Perhaps the Russian government will understand the meaning of the orchestrated eulogies for John McCain. It is not normal for a US senator to be eulogized in this way, especially one with such an undistinguished record. What is being eulogized is McCain’s hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington is eulogizing is its own commitment to war.
What is being eulogized is McCain’s hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington is eulogizing is its own commitment to war.


The President of Russia delivered the Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took place at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall.

January 15, 2020

ERDOGAN

MANLIO

State of the Nation

PISA BOOK FESTIVAL



Imagem

PT -- VLADIMIR PUTIN na Sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

Excertos da transcrição da sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

índice


“Copyright Zambon Editore”

PORTUGUÊS

GUERRA NUCLEAR: O DIA ANTERIOR

De Hiroshima até hoje: Quem e como nos conduzem à catástrofe

ÍNDICE

me>

FOX NEWS

TRIBUTE TO A PRESIDENT


NA PRMEIRA PESSOA

Um auto retrato surpreendentemente sincero do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin

CONTEÚDO

Prefácio

Personagens Principais em 'Na Primeira Pessoa'

Parte Um: O Filho

Parte Dois: O Estudante

Parte Três: O Estudante Universitário

Parte Quatro: O Jovem especialista

Parte Cinco: O Espia

Parte Seis: O Democráta

Parte Sete: O Burocrata

Parte Oito: O Homem de Família

Parte Nove: O Político

Apêndice: A Rússia na Viragem do Milénio





Pigeon's comment: I'm very lucky to have the chance to meet my leader
 ...


Daniele Ganser

Açores


Subtitled in EN/PT

Click upon the small wheel at the right side of the video and choose your language.


xmas





“Glory to God in the highest,

and on Earth

Peace, Good Will toward men.”

This Christmas, Give Peace