Thursday, March 27, 2014

Propaganda and Russia

The propaganda coming out of the mass media is ridiculous. Recent news stories appearing on all major US news sites continually speak of "Putin's global territorial ambitions." So, suddenly, Putin is the new "Hitler" is he?

Here's a funny one from ABC

Hillary Clinton told the audience that "if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s".

Really? Total bombast. This stuff would be laughable if these people wrote for Mad Magazine... But, no! Alas, they have a government to feed and an agenda (and you are not part of it!)

For another example, here's a recent Washington Post article

Vladimir Putin’s speech Tuesday — disavowing Russia’s Soviet past, glorifying its Orthodox roots, decrying the unjust price paid by Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed and condemning the West’s hypocrisy — upended the foundations of the post-Cold War narrative. The widespread idea that Crimea could be ceded without cascading consequences arose from the erroneous belief that Putin is reconstituting the Soviet Union. The Soviet past was never his frame of reference. 

Putin’s expeditionary wars are fueled by Russian exceptionalism: a vision for a renewed union based on a common Russo-Orthodox destiny. In other words, Putin’s ambitions range beyond the boundaries of the former U.S.S.R. and into Europe.

"Putin’s ambitions range beyond the boundaries of the former U.S.S.R. and into Europe!!!" Horrors! I guess if we don't stop him now; if we don't fight them over there; we'll all be speaking Russian... Ha! Half of all of today's American high school grads can't even speak proper English!

What a bunch of self-serving selective memory recall! Right! At least they did get the one part about "west's hypocrisy" correct. I'd like to point out that this article was written by Molly K. McKew and Gregory A. Maniatis who were advisers to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his national security adviser during and after the 2008 war with Russia.... As if they don't have an agenda! Ha!) Please refer to: The Real Aggressor by Justin Raimondo

"Putin's territorial ambitions"? Let's not mention US and NATO breaking the deal and pushing a territorial expansionist policy in Eastern Europe right on Russia's doorstep as that would be 'inconvenient!'

The USA and NATO are the true root cause of all of what is going on. 

When the Soviet Union fell, then US president Reagan promised then Soviet leader Gorbachev that NATO would never move into Eastern European countries. But, that was Reagan, every US president since then has pushed the envelope and driven NATO (an alliance against Russia and the former Soviet Union) all the way up to the very borders of Russia.

Gee, who'd a thunk the Russians wouldn't like that?

Of course the Russians don't like it when we talk about a military alliance AGAINST them (NATO) coming to Georgia, Ukraine, etc... Militarist right wing military-industrial complex morons in USA.

It's obvious that Russia is going to lash out when we surround them with a military alliance that goes right to their borders. This isn't rocket science. 

The USA and NATO are nothing but bad news for everyone. What business it it of ours if people on the other side of the world want to be a part of this country or that? 

Who cares? Let them decide by themselves.

Before WWII, the Brits and the French guaranteed the Polish government that they'd go to war to protect them if the Germans invaded. So the Polish government became intransigent in negotiations with Hitler (see: Churchill, Hitler and the Uneccessary War by Patrick Buchanan) and wouldn't deal with Hitler on the return of former German territories. This lead to World War II. (And the loss of Poland anyway!)

If the people of eastern Ukraine want to be a part of Ukraine, or Russia, or Disneyland, let them vote and decide (I hate voting too, but that's a different story). There is absolutely NO NEED for the military to decide this. 

Remember when Vaclav Havel allowed Czechoslovakia to be dived by peaceful secession? That was smart. 

Think about it, folks, we don't care if, say, Texas wants to be a part of Mexico or USA or an independent nation. Let those people decide by themselves. It is their land. It is none of our business!

Peace! No military. Why is it our business what those people wish to do or what abstract national boundaries they want to live in? If they have peaceful relations, then they can live their lives as they wish and go where they want to go.

As for me, I am only concerned with keeping peace and what goes on in my own neighborhood!

We should have dismantled the US and NATO war machine in 1991. That we didn't and the going's on today just go to show that the US empire and the military machine needs war to survive. War is truly the health of the state.

We have zero business in this mess. We never had any business in this European mess. Even in World War I! What business of ours was it if Europe is run by a king or a kaiser? (Of course, yes, I know, big western banks don't like it - they lose money.)

The people do not want this war. The government's do. Government is an abstract, so are national boundaries.

We should try to make peaceful relations and free trade with everyone. 


Inevitably, some statist will complain about what I wrote here as "unrealistic" and ask what I would do.

Here's what I would do and how I see the situation:

I think those people in the Ukrainian government might be a bit more friendly and smarter in negotiations with Russia if they didn't think NATO or the EU or USA was going to back them up (see above).

If they are not careful, the Russians might invade them and kill a bunch of people (as well as killing those in the Ukraine government).

So, if the Ukrainian government were smart (and wanted to save their lives), they'd do like Vaclav Havel did in the former Czechoslovakia and allow the people in all regions decide - not globalist expansionary countries who are actually run by big international banks and monetary systems. 

That's EXACTLY what I would do. 

Half a loaf of bread is better than war or no bread.


Anonymous said...

RE: "we don't give a rat's ass if, say, Texas wants to be a part of Mexico or USA or an independent nation."

A second hand observation relayed to me:

A plastic person with a "prestigious" university degree who lives and works in the Heart of Darkness (D.C.) was asked about Texas in that light.
The response was something like, "If they want to do that, the government should just Nuke 'em and turn Texas into a sheet of glass!"

There really *is* something wrong with a lot of people.

- Helot

Andy "In Japan" said...

Great column Mike san. My life will never be the same now that Crimea is part of Russia instead of Ukraine ((dripping with sarcasm)).

Definitely worth starting WWIII over, if you are a senile arrogant lying neo con Senator from Arizona.

Just one minor error, it wasn't Reagan who was USA president when the Soviet Union fell, Germany was re-united, and promises were made that eastern European countries would not be brought in to NATO.

Actually, Emperor Bush I held the position of USA government president at the time that those lies were made. "Read my lips, no new NATO countries" was what I hear he said.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me, Andy "In Japan".

I remember watching The Wall fall. I'm shocked that The Wall has been resurrected on the border of Mexico and the USSA to the cheers of clueless amreican't's.

I did Not know The Wall was called the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"

That's weird. Or, ironic. Or, something Twilight Zone-ish? Possibly even, the truth? Or, all of the above?

Anyway, there's this from Wiki because my memory isn't as good as it used to be:

"the East German government announced on 9 November 1989 that all GDR citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin. Crowds of East Germans crossed and climbed onto the wall, joined by West Germans on the other side in a celebratory atmosphere. Over the next few weeks, a euphoric public and souvenir hunters chipped away parts of the wall; the governments later used industrial equipment to remove most of the rest."

"Ronald Wilson Reagan (/ˈrɒnəld ˈwɪlsən ˈreɪɡən/; February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989)."

I so miss that decade.

Except for the parts where the Regan empire was blended into the same as the Bush empire, and was the same as the Clinton empire, and was the same as the Bush empire, and was the same as the Obomba empire.

It's a freakin' dynasty of bombers.
I'm so embarresed.

- Helot.

Anonymous said...

Consider this also, Andy "In Japan". "The disintegration of the Soviet Union began on the peripheries, in the non-Russian areas. The first region to produce mass, organized dissent was the Baltic region, where, in 1987, the government of Estonia demanded autonomy. This move was later followed by similar moves in Lithuania and Latvia, the other two Baltic republics.[...} After the initiative from Estonia, similar movements sprang up all over the former Soviet Union. [...] Once this “Pandora’s box” had been opened, nationalist movements emerged in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Byelorussia, and the Central Asian republics. The power of the Central Government was considerably weakened by these movements; they could no longer rely on the cooperation of Government figures in the republics.

Finally, the situation came to a head in August of 1991." ...

George Bush was just a coat tail rider, it was all over by then, except for formalities. The shit had already hit the fan well before he rode into office. I mean, *well* before. Especially if you believe the photos showing him in Dallas when Kennedy was murdered.

Rat bastards all around.

- Helot

Anonymous said...

The case with most politicians, don't listen to what they say, but watch what they do. Yes, Buch agreed with Gorbachev, but no treaty or memorandum was ever signed. Conversely the nuclear powers signed an agreement with Ukraine, that in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, that they would respect Ukraine's borders and territory. That agreement was obviously broken.

I don't believe that the example of Czechoslovakia is a good analogy since Czechs almost 100% lived in Czech, and Slovaks almost 100% lived in Slovakia. A better analogy is the Indians versus the Spanish conquerors.

The Russians more than decimated eastern Europe and western Asia. They would always kill imprison and later deport the native people to depopulate the cities of native peoples. They then would colonise the country land from the cities outward.

Why should some Russian invaders get to vote to dismember a country? What is so magical and good about this?

Why should not the countries that were invaded by Stalin join NATO? Their options after the fall of the Socialist Republics are not very good.

The only options for a realistic view is that if one borders Russia, there are it seems generally only two options, either to have nuclear weapons, or join NATO and live under their dominion, and be under their nuclear weapons.

The lesson for Ukraine is that the easiest to do, they did not, which was to keep nuclear weapons. Since they did not, they should have either kept status, or joined NATO quicker.

Unfortunately, in this part of the world, the Ukraine is compressed between the east and the west, and no options are degrees of good only of less bad.

Top 3 New Video Countdown for March 18, 2023!! Six, the Rouges, Mophing People, The Questions!

    Top 3 New Video Countdown for March 18, 2023!!  Please Follow me at: Also, CALLING ALL INDIES B...