Sunday 17th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the fallout.....

The disturbing and detailed reportage by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh on Washington’s sabotage of the Russian Nordstream 2 gas pipeline to Germany now provides new perspective on the momentous series of geopolitical trends that began with the war in Ukraine.

My own assessment of the Russian invasion written one year ago offered an analysis that was, and still is, markedly at variance with the Washington-dominated narrative of the course of Ukraine events.

 

By Graham E. Fuller
grahamfuller.com

 

A few thoughts from then:

—I condemned the Russian military invasion of Ukraine, and indeed of any government that launches a war (President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq included).

—My belief that the Russian invasion was nonetheless far from “unprovoked” but rather quite clearly provoked by Washington in its longstanding willful insistence on pushing NATO’s armed alliance ultimately right up to the very borders of Russia, where ancient Kievan/Russian cultural roots are deeply linked with early Russian/Orthodox Slavic civilization. 

Yet Washington denies the validity of any Russian “sphere of influence” in Ukraine while the U.S. itself still maintains its own strong sphere of influence throughout Latin America — witness the Cuban missile crisis. (And can you imagine a Chinese military base in Mexico to bolster Mexican sovereignty?)

—Russia repeatedly warned over the years that  implacable NATO expansion into Ukraine was a real red line; knowledgeable American scholars and many former American ambassadors to Moscow consistently warned of those dangers. Yet their voices were ignored; even today calls for U.S. strategic caution are outside of any discussion in Washington.

—In short, this was a war that never had to be. 

—But whatever the pros and cons of NATO expansion , there is little doubt that Washington has triumphed in the information and “spin” battle in the Western media, hands down. All mainstream media parrot the same Washington narrative — an extraordinary media unanimity in a supposedly “independent” Western press.

(It might be nice to believe that the near total unanimity of voices in the Western media is simply the result of ringing support for “democracy” in Ukraine. But might it be amiss to consider all this unanimity as part of the growing power of government-influenced corporate media to dominate the public agenda?)

—I stated my belief last year that Russia would prevail in the war. I still believe that. But I did not foresee the degree to which the war would morph into a  massive and growing confrontation between Western and Russian arms.

—The unprecedented sweeping vilification of Russia, of Russian President Vladimir Putin personally, and Russian culture and arts in general had no parallel even during my long years at C.I.A. during the Cold War — making peaceful resolution of this now “civilizational war” ever more distant.

– I  even speculated that once the fighting settled on the Ukraine battlefront that NATO would emerge, not strengthened, but weakened and more divided reflecting deepening European doubts about the wisdom for Europe in following Washington into dangerous and costly wars in pursuit of American self-perceived strategic interests. 

I believe Europe will come to experience deep buyers’ regret over Washington’s risky policies, but I am far less confident now, for reasons below.

 

The Nordstream Sabotage Watershed 

The stunning recent and detailed reportage of direct American sabotage of the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline represents a major geostrategic watershed in two senses:  

First, the implications of Washington’s act of war with disastrous economic impact upon Europe will not subside easily. But more importantly this event has demonstrated America’s successful cowing of any public commentary on the event — across U.S. media but more so across all European media itself, including in the most economically victimized state —Germany. We observe stunning, nearly inexplicable silence over this major international event.

And Russia has gotten the message — American policies and statements have deeply reinforced Russia’s long-standing belief that the West is implacably hostile to any Russian role in the West — going back to the bitter and irrevocable split of Christendom between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. That was later followed up by two devastating European invasions of Russia  (Napoleon and Hitler).

Growing European trade ties — especially Germany — with Russia since the end of the Cold War have been thrown on the trash heap by NATO expansion east. The hostility of East-West relations has been reinforced and deepened. 

Washington has no desire to work out a new common-European security policy that includes Russian interests as well. And these U.S. policies have helped ensure that Russia’s future now firmly lies in the East–Vladivostok and with China in a shared rejection of U.S. global hegemony.

 

The New East-West Great Wall

The rise of a new Great Wall that blocks off Russia from Western Europe is one of the most striking outcomes of this war: European officialdom seems to have cast in its lot, perhaps reluctantly but irrevocably, with the American strategic goals in the world. 

Those goals now even speak of creating a new “NATO Pacific” designed to challenge Chinese power economically and strategically in China’s own backyard — at great potential economic cost to Europe.

But for all this demonstration of Washington’s hold over Europe, it is also striking to note how the great majority of the world has indeed not gone along with U.S. strategic ambitions to weaken and humble Russia or to impose Washington’s own geopolitical architecture on most of the rest of the world. 

Broadly speaking Latin America, the Middle East and Africa do not perceive their strategic interests as aligning with Washington’s. Apart from some lip service criticism of Russia, few states including large segments of Asia and India itself have imposed any meaningful sanctions against Russia. 

More vividly, we see the emergence of new non-Western alliances such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) with many other major states lining up to include Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. These states of the Global South are also developing plans for new international reserve currency designed to undercut the ability of Washington to dictate international policy through U.S. dollar-based sanctions.

 

Redefining Eurasia

A new Eurasia is rising, driven by the bold and geopolitically visionary Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. But just what is this new Eurasia now? 

With a new Great Wall between Russia and the West, where now is the “Euro” in Eur-asia?  Europe ceases to be even at the tail end of “Eurasia,” potentially cut off physically from the Belt and Road that runs through Russia and much of the Global South. 

Europe may have to find its way strategically and economically elsewhere in the world. For Washington that’s just fine; the U.S. will consistently seek to constrain ties of other countries with Russia or China. 

The stunning silence of U.S. and European media reportage on the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline sadly represents a clear sign that Europe frankly lacks the courage or vision to pursue a policy independent of Washington’s strategic game plan. 

Washington’s power so far has heavily constrained Europe’s global ties, and intensified Washington’s dominance over Europe politically, economically and above all psychologically. It is hard to see how Europe will be able to extract itself from this restrictive American embrace to become a constructive  and needed independent player on the international scene.

Indeed America itself seems sadly to have lost any kind of positive vision in how to deal with the rest of the world. The essence of American foreign policy now is almost entirely negative: block Russia, block China, and prevent their development and expansion of their international reach. 

This does not present a very inviting menu of positive policy options for most of the rest of the world — a world that seeks to avoid costly involvement in Western wars and to pursue their own economic development. They show signs now of visceral negative reactions to the perpetuation of Western ex-colonial powers seeking to impose their own stale geopolitical and economic agendas on the rest of the world.

This is the reality of the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Washington seems determined to pursue its increasingly illusory goal of maintaining international hegemony, now packaged in spurious claims of supporting “democracy versus authoritarianism.” Not many buyers there. 

How long will the U.S. continue to flail in endless foreign wars to desperately prove to itself and the world that it is still No. 1? 

Graham E. Fuller is a fluent Russian speaker, former C.I.A. operations officer and former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council at C.I.A. for long term forecasting.

This article is from grahamfuller.com

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/02/16/implications-of-us-destruction-of-nordstream-2-pipeline/

 

IMAGE AT TOP FROM BATMAN C.1939? MISCHIEFED BY GUS LEONISKY.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

worldwide importance.....

Si pour nous progressistes et communistes français, la véritable urgence est la paix et celle-ci passe par la dénonciation de la responsabilités de nos propres gouvernants et de l’OTAN, on peut s’interroger sur les chances de cette paix qui devient une revendication mondiale. Depuis avant-hier, la stratégie des USA et de l’OTAN a été annoncé une fois de plus avec une cynique clarté comme un « tournant stratégique » : quel qu’en soit le prix, les USA paieront et l’OTAN, l’UE fournira les armes, du moins jusqu’au printemps où devraient intervenir des négociations dans le contexte espéré le plus favorable pour la guerre de l’OTAN, à partir de là, les États-Unis consacreront toute leur attention à la Chine et il faut que l’allié russe soit exsangue quitte à ce qu’il ne reste rien de l’Ukraine, l’idée du point de « basculement » fait partie de la propagande otanesque. « Les analystes russes concluent que la dépendance des politiciens occidentaux à l’égard du relais médiatique des messages et de la croyance économique capitaliste classique les transforme en quelque chose qui ressemble à des acteurs boursiers ou à des acteurs d’un film à succès hollywoodien, obsédés par des fins importantes et concluantes ».

Du côté russe, si la paix peut-être négociée à chaque moment, cela ne cesse d’être répété, il faut tenir compte du terrain, celui-ci est de plus en plus favorable. Il est interdit par la Constitution russe de céder la moindre parcelle du territoire et les terres sur lesquelles se déroulent les combats sont russes désormais, donc la paix ne se fera pas à n’importe quel prix. Ce qu’il faut bien mesurer c’est que sur ces grandes lignes, à l’intérieur de chaque camp, il y a des divisions, des choix spécifiques par nations et forces politiques à l’intérieur des nations et que loin d’être isolée comme le voudrait le théâtre médiatique, l’exigence d’une paix durable est partout présente. 

Danielle Bleitrach

 

--------------------

If for us progressives and French communists, the real urgency is peace, and this requires the denunciation of the responsibilities of our own rulers and of NATO, we can wonder about the chances of this peace which becomes of world-wide importance. Since the day before yesterday, the strategy of the USA and NATO has been announced once again with cynical clarity as a "strategic turning point": whatever the cost, the USA will pay and NATO, the EU will supply the weapons, at least until the spring when negotiations should take place in the hoped-for most favorable context for the NATO war, from then on the United States will devote all their attention to China and we must that the Russian ally is bloodless even if there is nothing left of Ukraine, the idea of ​​the “tipping” point is part of NATO propaganda. "Russian analysts conclude that Western politicians' reliance on media relay of messages and classic capitalist economic belief turns them into something akin to stock market actors or actors in a blockbuster Hollywood movie, obsessed by important and conclusive purposes".

On the Russian side, if peace can be negotiated at any time, it does not stop being repeated, we must take into account the territory, this one is more and more favorable. It is forbidden by the Russian Constitution to cede the smallest plot of territory and the lands on which the fighting takes place are now Russian, so peace will not be achieved at any price. What must be taken into account is that along these broad lines, within each camp, there are divisions, specific choices by nation and political forces within nations, and that far from being isolated as the media theater would have it, the demand for a lasting peace is present everywhere. 

Danielle Bleitrach

 

https://reseauinternational.net/la-defaite-de-lukraine-a-soledar-et-la-conscription-forcee-des-recrues-militaires-dans-les-rues-du-pays/

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

POTUS is a terrorist.....

 

BY TED RALL

Corporate ownership of media outlets and consolidation have deteriorated the quality of reporting in numerous ways: accelerating access journalism, gutting local news and investigative reporting, a decreasing willingness to take chances or to invest in projects without a quick return on investment.

Now there’s a new problem, one so baked into the equation that we should have seen this coming all along: newspapers and other media organizations acquired by corporations are themselves acting like corporations.

For an earlier generation of journalists, ignoring a major news event after it broke at another outlet was out of the question. The movies “All the President’s Men” and “The Post” depict the rivalry between the New York Times and the Washington Post as they crosschecked one another’s scoops on Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and built on one another’s reporting. 

Despite pressure to the contrary from their friends at the highest levels of the political and financial establishment, publishers Arthur Sulzberger and Meg Greenfield set aside their usual caution and helped bring down former US President Richard Nixon. They worried about repercussions but the news always came first.

This culture didn’t always play out to the benefit of journalism’s ostensible endless quest for truth. Reporter Gary Webb, who broke much of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal in the pages of the San Jose Mercury News, was attacked by major competitors who nitpicked his writing to death in a “tawdry” campaign to discredit him over minor errors, by the Post, Times and the Los Angeles Times. Webb was basically right—but they destroyed him and his career, pushing him to commit suicide.

In the aggregate, however, reporters’ drive to learn more and do better served readers well.

Unlike a news organization, in which uncovering the truth - whatever it may be - is the prime directive, a corporation’s mission is first and foremost to maximize profits to shareholders. So corporate news organizations put revenue first as well. Reporting has been pushed down the list.

Most major news organizations are owned by people and parent companies with far-ranging interests that conflict with news gathering. The formerly family-run Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos, whose Amazon cloud business has billions in secret contracts with the NSA and CIA; would he let his pet newspaper mess up his cozy relationship with the White House and the deep state by kneecapping the president?

Bezos’ massive conflicts of interest may not be the sole reason the Post hasn’t touched a blockbuster story: Seymour Hersh’s allegation that President Joe Biden personally ordered one of the biggest acts of state terrorism in modern history: the bombing of the Nord Stream 2 natural-gas pipeline. But it’s a safe bet they are a contributing factor.

Under normal circumstances, or more accurately the circumstances that prevailed in the previous century, a detailed allegation written by the legendary Pulitzer-winning reporter who exposed the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, that a sitting president risked World War III and allowed Europeans to freeze—not to mention deliberately created a massive environmental disaster—would be a bombshell no reputable news outlet could ignore. 

Indeed, they’d run with it, try to verify it, build upon it, comment upon it. Instead, there has been a near 100% US media blackout. If it wasn’t so Orwellian you’d have to be impressed by how thorough and disciplined the effort to quash Hersh in a vacuum of obscurity has been.

I’ve been running Google News searches on Hersh and Nord Stream every day since the story broke about a week ago. No big-name US newspaper, radio network or cable news channel has mentioned it, not even to say it’s false.

None.

Unless you are a news geek of epic proportions it’s unlikely that you would have noticed one of the few mentions in right-wing sources like the Murdoch-owned New York Post, the Washington Times and Fox’s Tucker Carlson, which can’t resist anything that bags on the president, or a blog like New Left Review, UnHerd and Firstpost. Times, Post, NPR, CBS—nada.

It’s entirely possible that Hersh is partly or totally wrong about how the pipeline was bombed and who was responsible. What arouses suspicion that he’s right is the militant incuriosity of the press. You can’t even find an op-ed speculating on who might have done the deed.

The West initially and hilariously blamed Russia, which co-owns the pipeline, for blowing up its own multibillion-dollar property. That story quickly fell apart.

So who did it? You’d think some enterprising reporter would try to find out—but you’d be wrong. Hersh’s story relies on a single anonymous source. But at least he’s got a source and a willingness to quote them. That’s more than anyone else. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has not categorically denied involvement - Washington-speak for we 100% didn’t do it. Back in the not-so-old days, that would make many an ink-stained wretch’s ear perk up.

 

I’m with my former colleague Mark Ames: “If anyone has a more convincing story then come out with it, show us the goods,” he says.

No matter the outcome, a reporter who proved what really happened a few hundred feet under the North Sea would score a delicious scalp: Biden’s or Hersh’s. Either the president is a war criminal who should be arrested immediately or a gadfly journalist has become a lying hack to whom no one should pay attention. Which is it? No one in American corporate media seems to want to nail this generation’s Nixon ... or Gary Webb.

Why not?

A free press has the right to print or not print anything as it pleases. But the decision of thousands of editors and producers not to touch Hersh’s pipeline story doesn’t feel like a coincidence or such an easy call as to be unanimous. It feels like a hard chill.

Media critic Robert Wright thinks the self-imposed blackout remains in force because the (sorry) explosive truth might undermine US political, corporate and media support for Ukraine: 

 

“Not even using the Hersh story as an occasion to revisit the question of who blew up the pipeline (which they could have done even while treating the Hersh story skeptically)—are more evidence of how committed much of the elite media now is to serving the official American narrative [on the Ukraine war],” says Wright.

 

It’s also a reflection of corporate ownership of the media. When a corporation faces bad or inconvenient news it refuses to comment, counting on the American people’s infinite vulnerability to the distraction machine.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)

 

READ MORE:

https://sputniknews.com/20230217/potus-is-a-terrorist-or-a-journalist-is-a-fraud---why-doesnt-anyone-want-to-find-out-which-is-true-1107558080.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

squeezing the EU.....

US President Joe Biden has ordered a pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from new projects in the country, citing their potential contribution to climate change. Energy costs in Western Europe have skyrocketed since nations such as Germany switched from Russian gas to American LNG, but Biden insists the continent doesn’t currently need additional supplies. 

The pause will allow the US Department of Energy (DOE) to update the economic and environmental guidelines it uses when approving new export licenses, and will last for several months. 

“During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment,” Biden said in a statement on Friday. The president added that the pause “sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”

According to the White House, roughly half of American LNG exports went to Western Europe last year, and the US has exceeded its annual delivery targets to the EU for each of the last two years. “Today’s announcement will not impact our ability to continue supplying LNG to our allies in the near-term,” Biden claimed in his statement.

Europe remains mired in an energy crisis. The continent’s former industrial powerhouse, Germany, is “in a particularly difficult situation”after abandoning Russian gas supplies, Economy Minister Robert Habeck told lawmakers last week. Prior to the imposition of sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Germany received 40% of its gas imports from Russia. Replacing this fuel with LNG from the US, as well as energy from Norway and the Netherlands, has come at a cost, with the German government forced to roll out massive subsidy packages to prevent its largest industrial firms from leaving the country.

German industrial output fell by 2% last year, while the entire economy shrank by 0.3% in the same time period, the country’s Federal Statistical Office reported last week. The office blamed the decline on high inflation, soaring energy prices, and weak foreign demand.

LNG is transported on large tanker ships to regasification plants, where it is heated to return it to a gaseous state. Germany has rushed to bring three such offshore plants online since early 2022, and plans to open three more over the coming months. The US has also built out its LNG export infrastructure to cope with the demand, including the Calcasieu Pass 2 project in Louisiana, which once certified will be the nation’s largest export terminal.

The Calcasieu Pass 2 facility will likely come before the DOE for approval in the coming weeks, where it will be stalled indefinitely by Biden’s pause. With half of the terminal’s output set to go to Germany, a spokesman for the project’s developer, Venture Global, told Reuters last week that the pause would send a “devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States.”

 

https://www.rt.com/business/591337-biden-halts-lng-exports/

 

 

WHEN DID JOE BIDEN BELIEVE IN THE "ENVIRONMENT"? WITH HIS DEMANDS FOR $60 BILLION OF WAR BOOMBOOMS FOR UKRAINE, HIS CONCERN FOR GLOBAL WARMING WOULD MAKE A BOILING FROG JUMP OUT OF THE PAN INTO THE FIRE....

JOE (NOT HIM BUT THE GEEZERS WRITING SHIT ON HIS TELEPROMPTER) WANTS TO SHOW WHO IS BOSS...

THE EU HAS ONLY ONE WAY TO GO: BUY LNG AND PIPED GAS FROM RUSSIA.... AND TELL JOE AND HIS TELEPROMPTER TO GO TO HELL....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....