Vucic might be setting up Putin to take the fall on Kosovo

"Once bitten, twice shy" goes the old saying, and Serbs have been bitten a few more times besides. While the Empire is renewing interest in "finishing the job" in the Balkans, Russia is relying on Empire-made Aleksandar Vucic to be the patriot. What could go wrong?

While Moscow treats President Vucic as a credible partner, he reportedly said he was “satisfied” with the Atlantic Council’s proposals and wished they would become official US policy. Having previously conducted an “internal dialogue” with himself on the topic of surrendering the Serbian claim to Kosovo ‒ in the pages of Western-owned newspapers, no less ‒ he now says he’d be happy to hand the issue over to Russia for mediation.

Read the rest in my latest piece on RT. God help us all.

No, THIS is what meddling in elections looks like

What began as isolated cases of Putin Derangement Syndrome years ago morphed into full-blown hysteria in 2016, when the Clinton campaign and its media enablers latched onto the accusations of "Russian hacking" to explain the humiliating disclosure of their plots and operations via internal emails from the DNC and John Podesta's private Gmail account.

On Friday, January 6, the Director of National Intelligence published a "report" basically asserting the Clintonites were right, and that Putin Himself ordered "interference" in US elections through, um... RT? The lion's share of this amateurish collection of "we assess" and "we believe" was devoted to RT, inexplicably relying on a primer produced in 2012 (so, there goes the argument the current conflict is due to 2014 "Russian aggression" in Ukraine...). The report, however, does say that "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries"  - meaning that the Clintonites lied when they said the purloined emails were being tampered with.

My assessment is that talk of "Russian hacking" is a desperate ploy to argue that Trump's victory was somehow the fault of malicious external forces, rather than Clintonite detachment from reality, logic and the American people. To borrow the Bard's description: A tale told by snarky idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

Now if you want to hear a story of how a country's democracy was actually meddled with... stay awhile and listen.

Turning points

"Things will never be the same as they were just a year ago. For any of us," I wrote this time last year.

I was almost right. For while 2016 was the year of major changes - Brexit, Trump and the victory in Aleppo being the three I would dub the most important - in one corner of the world the Atlantic Empire still reigns supreme.

Serbia is still in thrall of a regime determined to redefine the depths of servility. Its history is still being written by its enemies and kangaroo courts determined to trample all decency in their crusade for global dominion. The Empire has even stretched out its hand to Montenegro, wanting to complete the conquest of the Adriatic.

In that path of that conquest they ran into Russia, which refuses to dishonor its WW2 dead. Moscow seems to have learned the lessons of Yugoslavia, even if Serbia itself has not.

Of course, everything the Empire touches turns to rot, but why worry? It is the natives that suffer all the consequences, and the Imperial leadership that gets all the worshipful attention. Or so the thinking went, until someone appeared to skewer the sacred cow by proposing to restore the Republic.

Those absolutely convinced it was their destiny to rule the Empire refused to learn anything, and kept wallowing in evil in order to maintain the chaos they called order, the desert they called peace. They were so convinced their triumph was ordained in the stars.

They failed. Oh, how they failed. First the British, then the Americans took the off-ramp from ruin that history seldom offers. Now the Imperial elites are flailing about in panic, shrieking conspiracy theories and hatching hapless plots, while Russia holds the high ground.

It is Christmas in Aleppo now, and everywhere the blood-dimmed tide of Empire is receding.

Wake up, my people. We have work to do.

What Putin really said about Trump, Reagan and the DNC

The Atlantic Imperialists really dislike Vladimir Putin. They dislike Russia in principle, as the ultimate "other" - a large, European civilization separate from the post-Roman West. As usual, the Economist is completely wrong: It is really the Empire that sees Russia as an existential threat, because its resurgence provided proof positive that the Western "end of history" paradigm was even desirable, much less inevitable. As for the validity of Western models... how are those working out these days?

Vladimir Putin's goal is to undermine Western democracies whose models present an existential threat to his rule https://t.co/6JUXNKgkTI

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) December 24, 2016

Much has been made of Putin's supposed trolling of the Democrats for being sore losers at the December 23 press conference at the Kremlin. This comes from the same media that kept assuring everyone that Hillary Clinton's presidency was inevitable, so forgive me if I am inclined to take it with a grain of salt. Especially since the actual transcript of Putin's remarks at the marathon year-end press conference paints a different picture (all emphasis mine):

Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

Deir ez-Zor was no accident

I'm going out on a limb with this - and note that this in no way represents anything but my own, personal opinion - but today's airstrike that killed 62 and injured 100 Syrian soldiers outside of Deir ez-Zor was not an accident. Here's why.

First, the US-led "international coalition" has not previously operated in this area. Though the city is under siege by Islamic State (ISIS), it's an enclave held by the Syrian Arab Army (aka "Assad regime forces" for you mainstream media viewers). There are no US-backed "moderate rebels" anywhere near.

Secondly, the US reaction. The official line is that this was "unintentional." I may have bought that if the strike was conducted solely by F-16s flying at a high altitude, but A-10s are ground-attack planes that can get in low and close. They should have known they were striking a Syrian Army base - especially if they had intelligence on the area, which they say they did.

Now, note the Central Command statement on the incident:

“Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit.” 

Not only does the excuse not apply to this particular area, but "would not" does not mean "did not."  

A somber reminder

Last month, I wrote about NATO's takeover of Montenegro as part of the alliance's moves to encircle Russia, arguing that the logical end of this sort of behavior was a "Barbarossa II" invasion. Well, today is the 75th anniversary of the original "Barbarossa,"  which - while spearheaded by Nazi Germany - involved legions of their European "allies and partners."

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is.

Phantom dangers, imperial networks: How Pentagon sees the world (Op-Edge by @NebojsaMalic) https://t.co/7OzqSAOR7p pic.twitter.com/KDkbpnBLZg

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2016

Let's not mince words here, folks. In the West - well, the US, specifically - 75 years is a long time and war has become something that happens elsewhere, to other people. Sure, some American soldiers get killed or maimed or driven insane, but those are "heroes defending our freedoms and way of life" and hey, what's Kim Kardashian doing today?

In Russia, there is no family that was not touched by the war that began with an invasion of their country 75 years ago this day, and went on for 1,418 days to claim the lives of 26.6 million. No wonder the Russians remember.

There is a Russian saying, attributed to Prince Aleksander Nevsky of Novgorod: "Whoever comes to us with a sword, will perish by the sword." He put those words in practice in 1242, defeating the Teutonic Knights in the Battle on the Ice.

Many have since tried taking Russia at sword- and gun-point - the Swedish Empire, Grand Duchy Poland-Lithuania, Napoleon's Grande Armee and Hitler's "Anti-Bolshevik Coalition" are just a few examples. All of them not only failed, but their empires perished in the attempt.

There's a lesson there, for those willing and able to learn.

Montenegro, NATO and 'Barbarossa II'

#NATO in Montenegro: Securing the rear before Barbarossa II? (Op-Edge) https://t.co/cQAgqbvZMI pic.twitter.com/7lbFHZLPy6

— RT (@RT_com) May 26, 2016

Yugoslavia was literally decimated, and the USSR lost almost 27 million people fighting the Nazis, only for the modern map of Europe to look eerily like it did in 1942. Many of Hitler’s allies then are NATO members now, and German troops are once again in artillery range of Leningrad (now called St. Petersburg). Having secured Montenegro and expecting no resistance from “softly” occupied Serbia, NATO may be emboldened to act even more aggressively towards Russia. This is madness, of course, but there is an alarming lack of sanity in Brussels and Washington these days.

That is why Montenegro matters.

Read the rest at RT

The next step in fighting "color revolutions"

Ростислав Ищенко: Девять тезисов о войне, которую мы ведемhttps://t.co/mrxM8N0Fa3 pic.twitter.com/5YZOhK6sIU

— Русский новостной (@ZaGraniu) April 29, 2016

I'm highlighting one of nine points from a presentation by political analyst Rostislav Ishchenko (Ростислав Ищенко) at the Russian Defense Ministry's conference on security, April 27-28, on the topic of "color revolutions" (via The Saker, Russian original here). The readers of this blog will quickly understand why.

"This leads us to thesis eight. Color coup can be stopped neither by consolidation of the national elite (it would simply progress to the next scenario), nor by preparedness of its military to fight (it will eventually be exhausted), nor by effective work of the national media (they will be overwhelmed by the technological capabilities of the aggressor).

The preparedness of the victim-state to resist is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to block the mechanisms of the color coup.

Only the support of the legitimate authorities of the victim-country by another superpower able to confront the aggressor-country with equal force in any way with any means can stop color aggression."

This is obviously based on the Syrian example, as Ishchenko himself notes earlier in his presentation. Now that it's clear that Moscow is aware of the key factor in resisting regime change via "color revolution" in the attempt, I'm curious whether Russian policymakers also have plans for rolling back color revolutions that have already taken place, with catastrophic consequences.

Does the superpower have a role to play in that, too, or would the near-impossible task of curing themselves of the Imperial plague be entirely up to the victims?

2015: The year everything changed

Let's start with the obvious and personal: this is the year I found my home as a writer at RT. That has meant more work behind the cameras, rather than in front - though I've had a few of those as well - and a lot more focus on US and world stories, rather than my usual Balkans beat. Between that and the disclaimer on top of the page, that accounts for the relative scarcity of blog posts.

The Balkans has been the sole exception to the year of change. Though the peace in Bosnia has formally turned 20, the quiet, dirty war continues apace, with no end in sight. In Serbia, the quisling regime has continued the policy absolute surrender to the Empire, however gradual (see "frog, boiling of"). Everywhere else, NATO and the Atlantic Empire have reign supreme.

Until the end of September in Syria.

Just days before, Vladimir Putin thundered from the UN General Assembly dais, asking the arrogant Imperials, "Do you even realize what you have done?" The wreckage of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen testified to the "great success" of Empire's jihad against secular Arab regimes and for Saudi and Turkish interests across the Middle East and Europe.

Then, in just a month, a handful of Russian bombers did more to fight the so-called "Islamic State" than the US-led "coalition" has done in a year. Shamed into actually fighting the terrorists they were hoping to use as proxies, the Imperials still dragged their feet - and had no trouble claiming credit for Russian victories, whether in cutting off the "living pipeline" across the Syrian desert or claiming they were the ones "bringing peace and security to Syria."

The desperate Empire even tried shooting down Russian planes, with Sultan Erdogan clutching NATO's skirts immediately afterwards. The Russian response was polite but firm: air defense systems that have kept the "coalition" mostly out of the Syrian sky, and trade embargoes that have hurt Erdogan's wallet far worse than his pride. If anyone in the Middle East will "have to go," it will be that wannabe-Suleiman, not the Lion of Damascus.

Let it also be said that Erdogan was the one that launched the Great Migration in late 2015, using the trek field-tested by Kosovo Albanians in February. After Angela Merkel of Germany singlehandedly revoked the EU's visa policy, the human wave was all too happy to set off from the squalid Turkish camps towards the promise of German and Scandinavian welfare. The Hungarian fence only diverted them a bit, and temporarily. Along with the Syrians came others, mostly from places where Empire's endless benevolence had established progressive liberal democracy (meaning, feudal oligarchy) through "humanitarian bombing."

With anyone who merely objected to the mass influx was demonized as a bigot, hateful hater, xenophobe or Nazi, the Europeans - and some Americans, too - began to wonder whether they were allowed to have their own countries at all. And so the seeds of the rebellion against the transnational oligarchy were sown, and began to sprout.

Regardless how any of these processes unfold, things will never be the same as they were just a year ago. For any of us.

(again, see the Disclaimer at the top right)

The Essential Saker - now available on Amazon

One of my long-time readers, the Saker soared into prominence last year following the Maidan putsch in Kiev, cutting through the smokescreen of lies about Russia and the Ukraine with his incisive analysis. He has not always been right, but he has been consistently straightforward about his opinions, and that's a rare quality in a blogger these days.

He has also accomplished something that I have only thought about doing, and collected his most important articles into a book. "The essential Saker: From the trenches of the emerging multipolar world" came out yesterday, on Kindle and in hardcover. I would go so far as to describe it as an essential resource for understanding the conflict between the Atlantic Empire and Russia.

I'll strive to post a proper review once I've read through the 600+ pages of the volume, but I confess to skipping ahead to the latter chapters, when he puts the events of Yugoslavia's demise into the context of Empire's war on dissenters. If the Saker's explanation of how the Empire has used Islam and Muslims as a weapon (always to their detriment) is the only thing you take away from the book, it will make a big difference in your understanding of the world today. 

Remember Ukraine?

In the hubbub about the Syrian crisis - on which I will post some thoughts in the next couple of days - the world seems to have forgotten about the fiasco that is Ukraine.

Fortunately, CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle has not - and he was joined by Mark Sleboda, Alexander Mercouris and yours truly to discuss what is going on in Washington's dysfunctional satrapy on the Dnieper.

I'm not sure either that the intent of Minsk was to buy time until the Kiev regime inevitably self-destructed, but that sure seems to be how it worked out in practice. Any sort of progress towards a real solution can only be made after the political spectrum in the US puppet state of Ukropia stops being limited to fifty flavors of fascist.

That may seem like a long ways away... but winter is coming.

Mad about Serbia

Seeing as it's the anniversary of the 1999 armistice that ended NATO's aggression, and began the Alliance's occupation of Kosovo, I wanted to comment on a recent attempt to force Russia into the US narrative about the Balkans.

Shocking, I know.

A few weeks back (May 22, to be precise), the Washington Times ran an opinion piece by L. Todd Wood about why the Russians love Putin regardless of Western propaganda, sanctions, etc. Wood's explanation is that Putin restored Russia's honor by confronting NATO, "mad" (angry, not crazy) over the 1999 war on Serbia.

Left to right: KLA terror boss Hashim Thaci; NATO viceroy Bernard Kouchner; UK general Michael Jackson
KLA "general" Agim Ceku; US general Wesley Clark. Occupied Kosovo, 1999.

Way to discover the obvious! I've said as much a year ago, and Putin has indeed mentioned 1999's evil little war (seriously, read that) time and again. But Wood appears to be so devoted to the mainstream Western narrative about Russia - and Serbia - that he turns Russia's justified anger over NATO's illegal, illegitimate aggression into some kind of proof that Putin is a fascist.

I'm not using that word lightly, either. Wood literally writes: "Russians would much rather have a leader who makes the trains run on time and can stand up to perceived Western aggression." The particular phrase I italicized up there has been commonly used to describe Benito Mussolini, the father of actual fascism.

The other propaganda trick in that sentence is describing Western behavior as "perceived aggression." Yeah, because when Washington backs an illegal coup and endorses a Russian-hating regime dead-set on glorifying its Nazi ancestors - and proceeds to gruesomely murder anyone who objects - everything's just peachy and any idea this might be wrong or objectionable is entirely in Vladimir Putin's head. Right?

Then there is Wood's description of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic (my take on him here):

"[Milosevic] presided over a reign of terror in several of the Yugoslav provinces; that is a fact. He used mass media to delegitimize certain ethnic groups and accused them of fascist tendencies, setting up justification for military action. Sound familiar? He turned a blind eye to genocide, especially in Kosovo, and supported ethnic cleansing of Kosovo for Serbia." 

One sentence at a time, shall we?

He did not; this is not a fact, it's pure fiction. What some Serbian media (others were paid by the West and actually defended any and all Serb-killing) pointed out were not "fascist tendencies" but actual fascism (see here, and here, and here). This only "sounds familiar" because Wood is trying to shoehorn Putin into the "mythical Milosevic" mold. That last sentence doesn't even make sense; for years the West accused Milosevic of committing "genocide," and now he's merely supposed to have looked the other way? Well, which is it? Plus, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" actually originated from an Albanian appalled by Albanian efforts to expel or kill the Serbs in the 1980s - efforts that eventually succeeded only thanks to NATO's aggression and the subsequent trampling of the 1999 armistice.

Wood also mentions that Milosevic died in a holding cell while being on trial for genocide by the ICTY. That "court" has been a bonfire of absurdities since its very beginning, but its greatest "accomplishment" surely has to be using third-hand perjured hearsay to accuse the Serbs of genocide by invoking a Nazi Croatian plot to genocide the Serbs. Enough said.

Anyway, in Wood's telling, Putin is as bad as the Very Evil Milosevic, and Russia is just like Serbia only (a lot) bigger. While he doesn't actually follow through to the natural conclusion of that "logic", I have to: therefore, the West (meaning the US, really) must do to Russia what they have done unto Serbia.

Just to be clear, the mainstream Western narrative is that Serbia was "liberated" in October 2000, when a popular revolution (albeit assisted with "suitcases of cash" and overseen by the National Endowment for Democracy and a series of US ambassadors) overthrew the Very Evil Milosevic and introduced the country to progressive liberal democracy and human rights. Naturally, it took several election cycles to "filter out" the "recidivists" until the country could get its Most Progressive Government Ever.

Washington isn't even bothering to hide that the ultimate objective of the sanctions and the propaganda is "regime change" in Moscow. What they want is a return to the 1990s, when Russia was systematically looted by a cabal of US "advisers", while its president was a drunken puppet who shelled the parliament and stole at least one election.

That's the real reason the noun "democracy" and the adjective "liberal" are considered insults in modern Russian, right there on par with "fascist."

(see the Disclaimer at top right of page)

Minsk

Will the new ceasefire bring peace to Ukraine? I think not.

Reading through the points of the agreement reached this morning in Minsk, I am trying to figure out why it took a marathon, all-night session to essentially resurrect the September ceasefire. Aside from some slightly stronger language and specific timelines, to me this looks basically like the same paper. And the only part of "Minsk 1" ever implemented was the OSCE monitoring mission, which has been worse than useless.

Alexander Mercouris believes that the talks were a Franco-German effort to halt the fighting before the Kiev junta suffered a catastrophic defeat; that would have given Washington a pretext to send weapons to the junta, which in turn would have caused a Russian response - and WW3. Fair enough.

(from Colonel Cassad)

Here's a problem, though: as Andrew Korybko points out, Washington wasn't at the talks. While Mercouris thinks that Merkel and Hollande have kept the Atlantic Empire in the loop, this does not mean Washington is bound by the terms of the paper. Then again, the Empire has a history of oath-breaking, so that's a moot point.

It is important to note, as Mercouris has, that this is not a political settlement - not a peace treaty, then. At best, it's a ceasefire with theoretical potential to grow into an armistice. If Kiev abides by it, within a month we should see some steps towards a political settlement. But honestly, what are the odds of that?

I told you so...

It is that time of the year, when one draws the line and tallies up everything that's happened. My overview of 2014 is up today on Antiwar.com.

While I really don't have a habit of saying "I told you so," or even self-promoting much, this passage from last January leaped out at me in the process of writing that article:

As philosopher Alfred Korzybski famously noted, the map is not the territory. Yet both Imperial and EU officials and their regional clients firmly believe that they can magically alter territory by making alterations on the map. Sooner or later, something will put that belief to the test. It may even happen this year.

I would argue this is precisely what the current conflict is all about. The Atlantic Empire asserts it has the sole right to determine reality, right and wrong, virtue and vice, and impose that on the entire world - because of the divine right of "democracy." Russia - and many others - think this is absurd, unacceptable and perhaps even outright evil.

Until now, nobody who wasn't directly under attack made too much of an effort to resist; nobody wanted to become another Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or any country "improved" by a "color revolution" or two. But now that Russia is under attack, it has no choice but to resist. And others are coming to the realization that "hoping the Empire eats me last" isn't a strategy, but an absence of one.

And when delusions of omnipotence meet the wall of reality, who do you think is going to win? 

The Goal Is Still Regime Change

Last week, when the story came out of USAID's failed “color revolution” in Cuba - using “Serbian music promoters” no less - I thought its airing was just another effort at perception management. For one thing, it was an old story: the initial revelations were made in April. Then there was the fact that everyone was talking about the CIA torture report, so airing this was the perfect way to deflect attention from it, while also ensuring that nobody will pay too much attention to the Cuba fiasco as well.

Instead, the story was a trial balloon for Wednesday's announcement that Washington would lift the embargo on Cuba first imposed during the Kennedy administration.

That's good, right? Uh, not so fast. Consider the phrasing of Obama's announcement: “We will end an outdated approach that for decades has failed to advance our interest.”

Outdated? Why, then, is Washington using the very same approach against Russia, Iran, and other places? Because the US policymakers believe that in those cases, the “sanctions” are working. Just look at the maniacal glee with which Russophobes in the US media are cackling over the manipulated oil price and the equally orchestrated attack on the ruble. Which is, by the way, still a fundamentally stronger currency than the dollar.

So, the blockade wasn't lifted on grounds of the tactic being morally unacceptable for Washington, but because it didn't achieve the desired result (“failed to advance our interest”). That result, however, hasn't changed a bit: it's still “regime change” - in Cuba, in Russia, in any country that continues to believe it is sovereign, free and independent of Washington's commands.

If this all sounds too much like the attitude of the Hunger Games' Capitol towards the rebellious and disenfranchised Districts... well, decide for yourselves whether the resemblance is purely accidental.

An End and A Beginning

I've tried "unpacking" the implications of last week's announcement that the South Stream pipeline is no more, in a column for RT, and another for Antiwar.com.

Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I think the Empire's quisling cult is celebrating prematurely. South Stream's demise was primarily aimed at punishing Bulgaria's treachery, as Gazprom's CEO Aleksey Miller pretty much spelled out over the weekend - but also effectively destroyed all the Western plans to bypass Russia using Turkey.

Andrew Korybko has some interesting thoughts as to why Ankara defected. But I expect Washington and Berlin (Brussels is for show, after all) won't spend much time trying to figure that out, choosing instead to use all means at their disposal to bring the Turks in line. Good luck with that!

As for Serbia, well, notice the Russo-Turkish agreement says nothing as to where the Europe-bound pipes will go through after they reach Greece. Does anyone really think it would be through Albania, a client of Washington ever more than Bulgaria could ever aspire to be? And if not there, then perforce north, through FYROM and Serbia - which would require the stabilization of both, at the very least through the curbing of Washington-backed Albanian aggression. Given that Washington has relied on Turkey (and Germany) to do much of the work in actually supporting the Albanians, while the US sat back and basked in the adulation, let's just say that calculation will now need to be revised.

While it is certainly possible that Russia will just throw Serbia under the proverbial bus, I don't think that's likely. That line about the West wanting to destroy Russia like it destroyed Yugoslavia, in Vladimir Putin's big annual speech, was there very much on purpose. Unfortunately, while I would love to see Serbia take the lead on this, I don't know if the country - infested by the quisling cultists as it is - can muster the strength right now. As one Serbian commentator describes it (link to original, translation mine):

"Looking at Serbia and Russia over the past 25 years, one could say that they are comrades in arms whose mutual understanding has sometimes been better and sometimes worse. But one of them has been left behind, wounded and bleeding out, behind enemy lines. That is why it's Russia's move today, not Serbia's."

Call me naive, but I have faith that Russia will come through. For its own sake, if nothing else. The fact I can't see the signs of it happening doesn't mean it's not in the works: it just means the enemy can't see it either.

RT vs the Western "Media"

Since last November, I have made so many appearances on RT, I've had people ask me if I work for them. I wish! In actuality, I am a guest commentator, who just happens to get re-invited a ton. Maube because I am right more often than not? Certainly not because I'm telegenic...

On Tuesday I was a guest on the episode of CrossTalk about the elections in the Ukraine, which aired today. Three days prior, I chimed in about V. V. Putin's remarks at the Valdai Club forum in Sochi. He identified the Empire-possessed U.S. (and its EU appendage) as the source of instability, violence and chaos in the world. I've said as much myself back in February, so it's no wonder I concur.

The Anglosphere media, predictably, did not. For example, the Guardian's obnoxious (and clueless) Shaun Walker described Putin's remarks as "railing" against the West. Good thing the full transcript of the remarks (in English too) is available via the alternate media.

But something in Walker's piece particularly rankled:

Putin did not face many tough questions from the assembled audience. Peter Lavelle, a presenter on the Kremlin’s Russia Today television channel took the opportunity to tell the president that he is “the most popular man in modern history” and in much of the world is “looked upon as a saviour of sorts”.

I've addressed here before the whole "RT is Kremlin propaganda" nonsense. Walker is simply trying to disqualify RT and Lavelle with a drive-by ad hominem. Worse, though, in this passage he is lying by omission: Lavelle did say the words quoted above, but as part of a question about the Western media's demonization of Putin. Watch and listen for yourselves. Putin's reply, too, for good measure.

Now tell me again why you or anyone else ought to think the Western media is fair, objective, accurate and decent, while "Kremlin's Russia Today" is nothing but evil lies and propaganda. Rubbish.

A Tale of Two Letters

Who would know better about the lies and fabrications of spies than people who used to be spies themselves? A group of ex-intelligence officials, called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), has spoken out against Imperial madness for some time now. On August 30, they sent an open letter to German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel, warning her about falsified claims of "Russian invasion". From the letter:

Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy.
[...]
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days.
[...]
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence.  Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing.
[...]
the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership. Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)

One doesn't have to be an intelligence professional, of course, to realize the timing of the "invasion" propaganda was conspicuously coincidental with Kiev's crushing defeat. In resorting to such transparent lies, the Empire and its mainstream media betray a belief that their citizenry are idiots.

Beslan Remembered

September 1, 2004: first day of school in Beslan, in the Russian Federation's Republic of North Ossetia. Hundreds of children, parents and teachers were trapped by Western-backed jihadists in Elementary School #1, stripped to their underwear, and held hostage for almost three days.

When Russian security forces attempted to rescue the hostages, the terrorists began the killing they had planned all along: 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children. Only one of the terrorists was captured alive; he is serving a life sentence in a Russian prison, unrepentant.

"Memory Wall" at the School Number One (source)

Beslan was the beginning of the end for jihadists in Chechnya. One by one, jihadists leaders were hunted down and killed: Shamil Basayev, who ordered the attack, died in an explosion in 2006. Today, Chechens under Ramzan Kadyrov are some of the most fiercely loyal Russian citizens.

But those who backed the Chechen jihad have neither been forgotten, nor forgiven.

The East Remembers.

Empire's "Fascist Freedom Fighters"

This is what madness of the West looks like:

(click image to enlarge)

This is a screenshot of an article that appeared in Foreign Policy, August 30, 2014. (h/t Mark Sleboda)

As to why they did not opt for the alliterative "fascist freedom fighters," the answer is simple: they had to put "defenders" in there somewhere, so as to reinforce the lie of "Russian aggression."