John Mearsheimer lays out what has happened in Ukraine.

 For those not paying attention, or mindlessly pro Uke, this is a corrective.

Watch and learn.

Dan Kovalik's The Plot To Scapegoat Russia - from the September, 2017 Sturbridge Times Magazine

Human rights lawyer and law professor Dan Kovalik has written about events in the world with US fingerprints on events. Below is the review of his The Plot To Scapegoat Russia, but there is a more timely discussion at the Neutrality Studies Youtube.

 Return of the Red Scare

The Plot To Scapegoat Russia

By Dan Kovalik

Skyhorse Publishing, 2017 

Paperback, 240 Pages

ISBN-10: 151073032X

ISBN-13: 978-1510730328

List: $18.99 Amazon: $12.78

Review by Richard Morchoe

 

Dan Kovalik probably never thought that he would have written The Plot To Scapegoat Russia the way he did. Not that he believed the Central Intelligence Agency was beyond any skullduggery in promoting foreign adventures.  Indeed, he has spent years observing the agency’s antics in Latin America.

 

Mr. Kovalik must be surprised by the fact that the only man we can pin our hopes on to stop the march to conflict, if not nuclear war is Donald Trump.  Trump, being a reactionary plutocrat is the type of person Kovalik would normally have nothing but disdain for.  

 

It can’t be anything he is too happy about.  Dan Kovalik is an old-school lefty.  He cut his teeth protesting U.S. involvement south of the border, traveling to Nicaragua in 1988 to oppose the Contras.  There may a social program he’s against, but that is hard to imagine.  The Trump agenda must gall him.

 

Except for one aspect.

 

Donald Trump was suggesting, in his campaign utterances, that it may not be a bad idea to actually try and get along with Russia.  He suggested as well that maybe we did not have the solution to the Syrian imbroglio.

 

In that one aspect at least, Donald stood head and shoulders above the competition.  

 

How did we get to a point in history where a progressive activist could see Donald Trump as preferable to the Democrat’s standard bearer?  It’s a long story and in no way travels a straight line.

 

He spends much of the book discussing his activities in Latin America.  Kovalik identifies with the Sandinistas and opposes United Fruit (i.e. Chiquita Brands International) Company and their pervasive and destructive influence in Guatemala going back to the 1954 coup.  His account takes the side of the poor and indigenous peoples.  At first, I thought his narrative dwelt a little bit too much on the past.  It does become obvious that he sees U.S. policy as continuing from the past into the present and all cut from the same cloth.

 

In his coverage of the Cold War between NATO and the Soviets he is also somewhat kind to the memory of the Eastern Bloc.  Not that there is not sufficient blame to go around.

 

When he does get to the subject of the book’s title, the author is on solid ground.  His detail of the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and the role of people from the West in looting the corpse, as well as the continuing demonization of the Putin regime is worth the price of the book for the uninformed.  That would be most Americans. 

 

On Page 132 he begins the story of how we started on the road to the new cold war and though he does not say it, the origins of 911.  

 

“Another momentous and arguably disastrous, Cold War maneuver of the US was its support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, which at the time shared a 1000-mile-long border with the Soviet Union.”

 

Without our support for what turned out to include many fanatical Islamic extremists, including Bin Laden, the Soviet Union would probably still have had a lot on its hands, but would have had been better able to manage any changes necessary. 

 

Our support for the Mujahideen insured, like for us in Vietnam, that the Soviets could never defeat the enemy.  It would be a slow bleed and would fatally weaken the U.S.S.R.

 

Things had to change and they did. The Reagan Administration and Mikhail Gorbachev came to a modus vivendi.  On Page 111 the author quotes the LA Times,

 

“In early February 1990, US leaders made the Soviets an offer.  According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9th then- Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation, US could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”  Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.”

 

Kovalik notes the promise was quickly broken and most of the old Warsaw Pact are now NATO members.  The expansion continues with the U.S. trying to enlist former Soviet Republics.  It is hard to argue that the world is better for NATO enlargement.

 

Chapter 7 CLINTON MEDDLES IN RUSSIA WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES gives an account of the machinations of Bill Clinton’s presidency as regards the Yeltsin regime.  He did not do us proud.  Yeltsin was essentially our stooge until he knew he could not continue.  This led to Putin whose big sin is not being our patsy. 

 

Chapter 11 THE US EXPANDS AS RUSSIA CONTRACTS: BROKEN PROMISES AND HUMILIATION explores the project to extend our influence at the expense of Russia.  None of it is anything we can brag about, but the worst bit is our Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland deciding the fate of the Ukrainian government after we had helped riot out an elected, if corrupt, president.  The pair were recorded doing just that and the heavy-handed discussion is rightly attacked by Kovalik.  He does not mention that the recording went “viral.” *

 

Mr. Kovalik eventually reaches the reality show of the recent American election.  The desire to blame the Russians for the inept campaign of Hillary Clinton is explored at length as are the commonsense pronouncements of The Donald.  

 

Suggesting that we not bug the Russkies and maybe overthrowing Syria was not a genius level idea appealed to a population that was tired of wars without result.  The Putin is the devil campaign left something to be desired with many including an old socialist like the author.

 

Post-election, Trump has not lived up to his better nature.  Kovalik notes on Page 170 that “it is never clear what Trump is truly thinking or intending.”  This is true and whether it is a good strategy or evidence of a scattered mind is a matter for debate.  Trump was quick in throwing some token bombs at a Syrian air base after a supposed chemical attack.  

 

Since the book has been published, the new president has not bombed North Korea.  He worked out an agreement with Putin for a ceasefire in South West Syria that is holding and cannot make the neocons in or out of his government happy, so we live in hope.

 

In his short book, Dan Kovalik covers a lot of ground.  The continuing demonization of a nuclear power makes his book an important resource for anyone who wants to understand what is going on.

 

Some of the author’s views are a bit one sided.  His favoritism of the now Soviet Ancien Regime can seem a bit overboard.  It is at odds with your reviewer’s memory of the brutal repression of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, and certainly the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn.  Still, his account of the anti-Russian hysteria is well sourced with ample footnotes.  Unfortunately, with the media’s parroting of the hostile narrative, from NPR to The New York Times, do not expect him to get glowing reviews.

 

*The recording is still extant and one can hear it here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k .  After listening you may be forgiven for wondering if State recruits at clown colleges.

 

 

the Timid call for talks and retraction by House "Progressives" speaks volumes about "Our Democracy"

Actually, we all know the US is an oligarchy, but sometimes it just exposes itself and the incident can't be unseen.

We need to change the country's name from the United States to Oligarchia America

 

George Will blathers about Putin with the worst of them

Wicked Shockah, George Will does not like Putin. Yeah, like you're going to lose a gig for going after the Russian leader. Remember how he got Iraq right? No, he was goofy then, he is goofy now.

Anyway, linked below is my article on how silly the George Will WAPO column is. the man compares Mussolini and Putin.  The comparison is ridiculous.

 

George Will speaks ex-cathedra at WAPO-Actually, he just mails it in. 

 

Avoiding Aegospotami

 The Z Man has an interesting piece at Taki's Magazine The Last War for the Neocons .   Since the Peloponnesian War, many have considered wars between two major powers as epic life and death struggles.

The Ukrainian War is seen as this as no one with an above average IQ and some tether to reality sees it as anything but a war between the big Us and Them.

What I got out of Z's article, is what, for better or worse, I get out of most them. It wasn't worth it, and didn't have to happen.

As usual, projecting further, we could do ourselves a big favor and leave NATO and come home.

Aegospotami was the last battle of the Peloponnesian War.

We have no intention of fighting Russia so stop arming Ukraine for battle-Anatol Lieven

 The title says it all.  At the website of the Quincy Institute, Responsible Statecraft, Anatol Lieven about the US poking the Bear to no purpose.

To quote the Professor:

"Simply put, the Georgia-Russia War of 2008 should teach us that to arm other countries for war with more powerful neighbors when you have no intention of fighting to save them is not only irresponsible, it is deeply immoral."

Post-Cold War American foreign policy has a lot of immorality about it and needs to stop.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration seems to be blundering in a lot of places.

Links - Tuesday November 26, 2019

Stuff to read or watch:

On Asron Maté's Grayzone Pushback show, Professor Stephen Cohen explains how Ukrainegate impeachment saga worsens US-Russia Cold War.  This has been out there awhile, but is worth watching.

Ron Paul's weekly column:

The Real Bombshell of the Impeachment Hearings is about the deep state (like we don't it exists by now) and how it does not want to let go of its bad foreign policy.  ht Antiwar.com.

In the National Interest Professor Lyle J. Goldstein writes"

The War in Ukraine Must End 

Washington should seek a grand bargain with Moscow over Crimea.

The article is good the deal is suggests is reasonable, however as a neutralist we believe the US should just leave and let the two parties solve their problems by themselves.

ht ACEWA

If you bring up Joe Biden and his kid the mantra is "debunked."  That is, of course, ridiculous on the face of it, or why doesn't your kid get an easy money board of directors spot?

Anyway, Colonel Pat Lang does a good job debunking the debunking of Joe and kid at his Sic Semper Tyrannis Committee of Correspondence.

Chickenhawk Victor Davis Hanson knows an aggressor when he sees one

I was reading a blog post that linked to a Victor Davis Hanson attack on Putin.  Vic was essentially nominating Vlad to the Bad Guy Hall of Fame.

He damns Putin for many sins, but claims he is just another dictator playing the democratic dupes like violins.

In his two big examples of feint and distract are Philip of Macedon and Hitler.  Of course, every shill gets around to comparing the object of their attack as Hitler.  Phil, that's kind of new and a great compliment to Vlad.

The Neutralist also read Liddel Hart's account of the two rulers and their tactics.  Vic should have cited L H as his source.  Then again, someone might look L H up and realize that Putin is not really following the evil incarnate playbook exactly as Vic would have it.

Let's look at a VDH quote that is just a bit misleading, "Once the Obama administration had reset the mild punishments of the Bush administration for carving out parts of Ossetia, Putin went back on the move."

Mr. Hanson knows the Georgians were the aggressors in South Ossetia.  Vic also knows that the leadership in Stalin's homeland had, if not an overt greenlight, at least a not or wink from us for the adventure.  If he doesn't, that would be embarrassing both for him and National Review Online.  He must hope his and NRO's readers are not too aware.  The Neutralist will not comment on the discernment of NRO patrons.

And, how did Putin go back on the move?  Vic lays it out,

"Obama’s reset was a green light for Putin. Who in the real world of serious diplomacy shows up in Geneva with a red plastic toy reset button, complete with a mistranslated Russian label? When Putin soon sized up the Obama administration’s appeasement around the globe — from fake red lines for Syria, to a scramble out of Iraq, to chaos in Libya — he moved into Crimea. And then he waited."

Conveniently, Mr. History leaves some out.  Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt abetting a coup against an elected government.  This questionable move was what led to the secession of Crimea.  We Americans are touchy on the matter of secesh, but whatever we may think, bogeyman Putin did not send tanks rumbling across the border in  a brutal war of conquest.  The Crimeans were happy to be appropriated.

He goes on to compare Putin to every other evil that has existed and finds they pale in comparison to Vlad.  The only thing Hanson proves is he is no Thucydides.

Nobody at the Neutralist would petition the Vatican to open a case for Putin's canonization.  We caution readers who have read Hanson's diatribe to remember the agitation near Russia has a Western element.  This is a fact ignored by most news outlets from MSNBC over to Fox as well as most of the commentariat.

the question we ask again is why, in a supposedly free country, does the press speak as one with mere token dissent?  One can understand how in a totalitarian regime the media must toe the line, but why here?

Oh well, I've heard there is a book, They thought they were free.

If you run into Vick, Please tell Vick, it was Hilary who brought the reset button.

A Bezos Newsletter article (AKA The Washington Post) wants more war in Ukraine!

A couple of sinecuristas at the Brookings Institution have joined the call for more intervention in the Ukraine.  Why, well because as the title of the WAPO article reads, Ukraine needs America’s help.

Brookings is a 501(c)(3) non profit.  that means if you have a couple of farthings you want to donate tax deductible, Brookings will take it and turn it into impartial research.  If you have gazillions, well there is impartial and there is impartial.

It's not just any staffers blowing charge on the bugle.  No they sent their heavy hitters.  Senior fellow Steven Pifer and, if that were not enough, institution pres, Strobe Talbott, a D.C. barnacle if ever there was one.

Of course, in the case of the Ukraine, who would gainsay that august institution.  It is only out of goodness of heart that they support "lethal aid."  I know, I only feel noble when I hear the words "lethal aid."

The lads aren't the only ones beating the drum.  This is so urgent that they have come together with six other "former U.S. national security practitioners" to call for action.  This is big, I had no idea there was such a title as national security practitoner.  With the crummy foreign policy record over the last decades, they should try for a more humble title.

The expert practitioners are telling us why The Ukraine needs us, but never get around to why we need the Ukraine.  Please, someone enlighten the Neutralist.  How will the world end for our country if we say the Ukraine is not our problem?  Will Putin start the tanks rolling west to not stop until he has loaded the nouveau Red Army on his carrier fleet and landed in New Jersey?

Pifer and the Strobster are practitioners, but as we consider this a family blog, we refrain from saying what they practice.

The drumbeat continues-piling on Russia continues

The media from top to bottom keeps up the anti-Putin Russia hate.  At the top, Frontline had a hit piece, Putin's Way.  Our Ministry of Information outdid itself.  Hey, at least they didn't accuse him of stealing from the poor boxes.

Crazy John McCain was warmongering for more pro-Ukie involvement.

Stratfor is sure on the case, the last two email updates were, RED ALERT: Rocket Fire Could Signal New Offensive on Mariupol and then RED ALERT UPDATE: At the Heart of the Mariupol Crisis.  Who knows, maybe it's all true and the Russkies are on the march. Too many outlets have cried wolf too often.  Maybe it's just that our clients are too inept to use the equipment and training.

Ilan Berman in Forbes also thinks the Russians are on the march.

It all smacks of the drumbeat before Iraq.  You remember all that.  The Neutralist remembers it in all aspects.  First, Iraq was mentioned as part of a fictitious Axis of Evil. Then, the WMD that never were.  There was no goofiness that was not referenced such as this little jewel,

One talk show host, Jay Severin was shilling for the war big time. One afternoon he breathlessly intoned that it was reported that the anthrax involved in the letters had the footprint of an Iraqi lab and that if it did have that footprint, then, "We are at war with Iraq." Cut to a break.

Plus ça, you know.  Different administration, same ragtime.  

The Neutralist does not have the resources to say definitively what Russia, or for that matter, Europe or the US is up to.  Really, for us Americans, how much does the Ukraine matter?  Why did La Nuland feel the need to push a coup?

Refreshingly, Forbes also publishes someone who addresses the question of Why the Ukraine?  Doug Bandow's U.S. Should Stay Out Of The Russo-Ukrainian Quarrel: Why The Conflict In Ukraine Isn't America's Business, Part I is good enough that he could rest on his laurels and skip Part II.

Bandow makes the points following:

1) Ukraine isn’t important geopolitically. 

2) Russia matters more than Ukraine to America. 

3) Blame is widely shared for Ukraine’s travails. 

4) Washington never guaranteed Ukraine’s security. 

5) Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and Russia is not Nazi Germany (or Stalin’s Soviet Union). 

6) There’s no genocide. 

He explains each one convincingly.  Please read the article.  The Neutralist certainly agrees.  If there is someone out there who has a cogent argument against Bandow's points, I'd love to hear it.

The Neutralist is not holding his breath.

Ukraine, the story behind the story

So there is a lot of Putin is the devil and the angels are in the Ukrainian government repeated in the American Press.  The drumbeat of propaganda against Russian and the separatists is too obviously orchestrated that there has to be a reason other than the inherent evil of the the Eastern Slavs.

According to one website it is due to the South Stream Pipeline.  According to Sylvia Todorova at WhoWhatWhy, The US has become the largest producer of Natural Gas and would like to sell it across the pond in liquefied form.

The Neutralist cannot say this is the real story.  We do, however, agree that the idea we really care for justice may not be the complete truth.

Ukraine, Time for America to exit World War I

Woodrow Wilson's crusade to make the world safe for democracy has gone beyond absurd.  The echo chamber has been reverberating about what we have to do in the Ukraine.  No one in the media is saying the answer is to just leave.  The implication is that if we do, The Russkies are at the Atlantic in a week.  So what?  Europe becomes their problem instead of ours.

If the Old World wants to be sans Rus, their taxpayers can pay for defense.

Anyway, in the words of Will Smith in Men in Black, "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."  The trouble has our fingerprints all over it.  (see here, but I suspect my few readers already have).

Justin Raimondo has an account at antiwar.com of our new  millennium stupidity.  I am linking if anyone needs a history lesson.  We've been over the territory here before.

It's time to bring back all the boys from "Over There."  Cohan could write a catchy tune, but it was dumb then, it's dumber now.