Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

File this under, If that is how a country runs its foreign policy, it does not deserve to have one-apologies to Dickens

Our relationship with Turkey has been a problem for a while now and does not look to become smooth anytime soon.  So, let's just fly those nukes at Incirilik out of Anatolia and say au revoir.
It may not be that simple.  At Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz has a post, "Report: US Nukes in Turkey at Risk of Seizure by Terrorists."
Why were they there even five minutes after the end of the last cold war?  Do they serve any purpose?  According to the article, "retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger noting late last month that the tactical nuclear weapons “no longer have any military usefulness.” The low-yield weapons were designed in the 1960s, and very few remain in service anymore, with what’s left mostly just scattered around bases in Europe as a throwback to the Cold War."
So really, why are they there?
The last paragraph nails it,
"This lack of utility has led nuclear powers to dramatically scale back their tactical arsenals, though as with the rest of the nuclear arsenals on the planet, there is considerable momentum behind keeping such costly weapons funded and “modernized.” Keeping the US arms in Europe and Turkey, for no good reason and at substantial risk, seems aimed primarily at retaining the illusion that such arms matter as anything but a sinkhole for billions in funding to fall into."
Follow the money.
Another reason why we need a neutralist ethos.

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

The Daily Chatter-New Shill on the block

The Neutralist loves to see new ventures become successful.  As print dies, news goes online and to see something new and exciting is anticipated with pleasure.  Sadly, most often one is disappointed.

When the Daily Chatter appeared in the inbox, there was hope.  It did not last long.  DC is an email digest that promises the world in a couple of minutes.  A few snapshots maybe, but le monde, non.

What is worse, DC repeats the same goofy anti Russian, dare we say it, chatter that is already all over the media from Vox to the MSM.

Today, they start off with  the piece, Russian Roulette, with the usual media bias.

Negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin must feel a bit like Russian roulette. You know there’s a bullet in the chamber somewhere; you’re just not sure when it will go off.
A bit loaded that, but in setting the tone, the rest does not disappoint either.

With his 2014 invasion of Ukraine and his 2015 bombing campaign in Syria, the crafty Russian leader has pioneered a new sort of post-Cold War diplomacy.His invasion of Ukraine – as indicated by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent gaffe — is all-but forgotten. With the rest of the world’s attention fractured across various conflicts from Afghanistan to Syria, however, his troops and proxies have actually “steadily escalated the fighting” this summer, according to the Washington Post.

Much of the Post article is hinting.  Some of it might be true, but nowhere are the machinations of Nato and the West mentioned.

The Daily Chatter in this and previous postings never mentions who started the whole business.  They do not reference the rioting out of an elected, if unpopular president and the actions of Nuland and Pyatt in the event.

The rest of the article is the same silly speculation and

Ah but we eventually get to the full import of the article,

But the talk percolating in the Trump campaign of rethinking America’s commitment to its NATO allies left many seasoned wonks aghast. And the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, for its part, signaled that it was tired of Putin’s double dealing by approving the so-called STAND for Ukraine Act on July 14. 

If the full House passes the bill, U.S. President Barack Obama (or, more likely, his successor) will only be able to lift sanctions on Russia if Ukraine regains full sovereignty over Crimea or the status of the peninsula has been resolved to the Ukraine government’s satisfaction. 

But that’s only if the U.S. legislators are willing to pull the trigger.
So there it is.  Trump may not think going to war for Ukraine a good idea, but Phil Balboni and team DC, along with the MSM do.

DC is either a lazy cut and paste or it's on the team.

The hysteria promoted by the media never stops.

File another under all news is propaganda.