Sunday, July 20, 2014

Blame Russia
Memories, Recollections, Guesses and Speculations About MH17

By The Saker

Like 9/11, there is no way, no amount of evidence, which would affect the unanimous chorus of Imperial doubleplusgoodthinkers in their conclusion that obviously it could only have been "the Russians". 



...Cui bono?

 only the junta in Kiev could have benefited from this tragedy.  For the Russians and the Novorussians, this is something between a real pain and a disaster. 

Just when the Novorussians were winning without any overt help from Moscow and just when Moscow was gradually successful in denouncing the human costs of Poroshenko's murderous policies - suddenly the entire planet focuses just on one downed aircraft and the imperial corporate media blames it all on Russia. 

As for Poroshenko, this disaster is God-sent: not only has everybody forgotten that much promised "surprise" turned out to be a disaster, he can now kill scores of Novorussians with no risks of that being reported in the corporate media. 

Not only that, but that gives the Ukies a golden excuse to ask for ""protection" from their "aggressive and threatening neighbor".  

Again, the only party who can benefit from this disaster is the junta. 


So, in summary, we have this list of candidates:

1) A deliberate or mistaken Russian attack: superlatively unlikely
2) A mistaken Ukrainian attack: most unlikely
3) A deliberate Ukrainian attack: most likely

4) A mistaken Novorussian attack: possible
5) A deliberate Novorussian attack: most unlikely


I don't know about you, but to me #3 is the one blinking red...

Click to read the entire article, and read/post comments


It Was Putin's Missile!
By Pepe Escobar 
July 19, 2014 "ICH" - "Asia Times" - - 

"And here's the spin war verdict: the current Malaysia Airlines tragedy - the second in four months - is "terrorism" perpetrated by "pro-Russian separatists", armed by Russia, and Vladimir Putin is the main culprit. End of story. Anyone who believes otherwise, shut up. 

Why? Because the CIA said so... "

It doesn't matter that President Putin has stressed the MH17 tragedy must be investigated objectively. And "objectively" certainly does not mean that fictional "international community" notion construed by Washington - the usual congregation of pliable vassals/patsies

MH17 was in fact diverted 200 kilometers north from the usual flight path taken by Malaysia Airlines in the previous days - and plunged right in the middle of a war zone. Why? What sort of communication MH17 received from Kiev air control tower? 

Kiev has been mute about it. Yet the answer would be simple, had Kiev released the Air Traffic Control recording of the tower talking to flight MH17; Malaysia did it after flight MH370 disappeared forever.

It won't happen; SBU security confiscated it. So much for getting an undoctored explanation on why MH17 was off its path, and what the pilots saw and said before the explosion. 

The Russian Defense Ministry, for its part, has confirmed that a Kiev-controlled Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational near the MH17's crash. Kiev has deployed several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers; these are all perfectly capable of bringing down jets flying at 33,000 ft…

So assuming the "rebels" had an operational Buk and did it, they would have had not more than five minutes to scan all the skies above, all possible altitudes, and then lock on. By then they would have known that a cargo plane could not possibly be flying that high. 

For evidence supporting the possibility of a false flag, check here. 

So who profits? 

The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in Eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin. 

As for Kiev, they'd have the means, the motive and the window of opportunity to pull it off - especially after Kiev's militias have been effectively routed, and were in retreat, in the Donbass; and this after Kiev remained dead set on attacking and bombing the population of Eastern Ukraine even from above. No wonder the federalists had to defend themselves. 

And then there's the suspicious timing. 

The MH17 tragedy happened two days after the BRICS announced an antidote to the IMF and the World Bank, bypassing the US dollar. And just as Israel "cautiously" advances its new invasion/slow motion ethnic cleansing of Gaza. 

Malaysia, by the way, is the seat of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, which has found Israel [and George W. Bush] guilty of crimes against humanity. 

Washington, of course, does profit. What the Empire of Chaos gets in this case is a ceasefire (so the disorganized, battered Kiev militias may be resupplied); the branding of Eastern Ukrainians as de facto "terrorists" (as Kiev, Dick Cheney-style, always wanted); and unlimited mud thrown over Russia and Putin in particular until Kingdom Come. Not bad for a few minutes' work. As for NATO, that's Christmas in July.

From now on, it all depends on Russian intelligence. They have been surveying/tracking everything that happens in Ukraine 24/7. In the next 72 hours, after poring over a lot of tracking data, using telemetry, radar and satellite tracking, they will know which type of missile was launched, where from, and even produce communications from the battery that launched it. And they will have access to forensic evidence.

Unlike Washington - who already knows everything, with no evidence whatsoever (remember 9/11?) - Moscow will take its time to know the basic journalistic facts of what, where, and who, and engage on proving the truth and/or disproving Washington's spin. 

The historical record shows Washington simply won't release data if it points to a missile coming from its Kiev vassals. The data may even point to a bomb planted on MH17, or mechanical failure - although that's unlikely. If this was a terrible mistake by the Novorossiya rebels, Moscow will have to reluctantly admit it. If Kiev did it, the revelation will be instantaneous. Anyway we already know the hysterical Western response, no matter what; Russia is to blame. 

Putin is more than correct when he stressed this tragedy would not have happened if Poroshenko had agreed to extend a cease-fire, as Merkel, Hollande and Putin tried to convince him in late June. At a minimum, Kiev is already guilty because they are responsible for safe passage of flights in the airspace they - theoretically - control. 

But all that is already forgotten in the fog of war, tragedy and hype. As for Washington's hysterical claims of credibility, I leave you with just one number: Iran Air 655.* 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War(Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. 


* Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai that was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988. The attack took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the Vincennes. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died.

Continue




MH17: World See Tragedy, US Sees “Game Changer”

By Tony Cartalucci

NATO needed a “game changer,” because it was playing a game it was clearly losing. 
Continue



Facts Needed on Malaysian Plane Shoot-Down

By Ray McGovern

The history of U.S. government’s deceptions might be reason to pause and let a careful investigation uncover the facts. 


...Raw Meat for Russia Bashing

But the chance to further demonize Putin and Russia will be hard for Official Washington and its corporate-owned press to resist...

...the death of all 298 people onboard the Malaysian Airline flight, going from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, will surely provide plenty of fuel for the already roaring anti-Russian propaganda machine. 

Still, the U.S. press might pause to recall how it’s been manipulated by the U.S. government in the past, including three decades ago by the Reagan administration twisting the facts of the KAL-007 tragedy.

In that case, a Soviet fighter jet shot down a Korean Air Line plane on Sept. 1, 1983, after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated some of the Soviet Union’s most sensitive airspace over military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island.

Over Sakhalin, KAL-007 was finally intercepted by a Soviet Sukhoi-15 fighter. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity — a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier — Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire. He did, blasting the plane out of the sky and killing all 269 people on board.

The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes fired a missile that brought down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan explained as an “understandable accident”).

But a Soviet admission of a tragic blunder regarding KAL-007 wasn’t good enough for the Reagan administration, which saw the incident as a propaganda windfall. At the time, the felt imperative in Washington was to blacken the Soviet Union in the cause of Cold War propaganda and to escalate tensions with Moscow.

Falsifying the Case

To make the very blackest case against Moscow, the Reagan administration suppressed the exculpatory evidence from the U.S. electronic intercepts. The U.S. mantra became “the deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.”

“The Reagan administration’s spin machine began cranking up,” wrote Alvin A. Snyder, then-director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, in his 1995 book, Warriors of Disinformation.

USIA Director Charles Z. Wick “ordered his top agency aides to form a special task force to devise ways of playing the story overseas. The objective, quite simply, was to heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” Snyder recalled.

Snyder noted that “the American media swallowed the U.S. government line without reservation. Said the venerable Ted Koppel on the ABC News ‘Nightline’ program: ‘This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.’”

On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council (a prelude to a similar false presentation two decades later by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction).

“The tape was supposed to run 50 minutes,” Snyder said about recorded Soviet intercepts. “But the tape segment we [at USIA] had ran only eight minutes and 32 seconds. … ‘Do I detect the fine hand of [Richard Nixon's secretary] Rosemary Woods here?’ I asked sarcastically.’”

But Snyder had a job to do: producing the video that his superiors wanted. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.

Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

The Soviet fighter pilot apparently did believe he was pursuing a U.S. spy plane, according to the intercepts, and he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. At the instructions of Soviet ground controllers, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to force the aircraft down. The pilot said he fired warning shots, too. “This comment was also not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

It was clear to Snyder that in the pursuit of its Cold War aims, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. To these Republicans, the ends of smearing the Soviets had justified the means of falsifying the historical record.

In his book, Snyder acknowledged his role in the deception and drew an ironic lesson from the incident. The senior USIA official wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.” 

[For more details on the KAL-007 deception and the history of U.S. trickery, see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War.”]...

...So, there is, sadly, additional reason to kick the tires of any fancy truck carrying “intelligence” offered by the U.S. with respect to the Malaysian Airline shoot-down on Thursday.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing ministry of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Continue




Harper's One-sided Approach to Gaza is a Betrayal of Canadian Values 

By Linda McQuaig
Certain minimal standards are expected of a national leader in what is known as the ‘civilized world’.

Continue



Saturday, July 12, 2014

What is really going on?
m
IDF's Gaza Assault is to Control Palestinian Gas, Avert Israeli Energy Crisis

By Nafeez Ahmed 
Israel's defence minister has confirmed that military plans to 'uproot Hamas' are about dominating Gaza's gas reserves. 

Israel's long-term goal "besides preventing the Palestinians from exploiting their own resources, is to integrate the gas fields off Gaza into the adjacent Israeli offshore installations." 

"...The Israel-Palestine conflict is clearly not all about resources. But in an age of expensive energy, competition to dominate regional fossil fuels are increasingly influencing the critical decisions that can inflame war."

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. 
He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, 

Read the entire article, and read/post comments





The Strategic Goal of Israeli Offensive against Gaza Is Revenge
As Israel prepares a ground invasion into Gaza, Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal discuss the role of propaganda and the failure of the mainstream media in covering the situation.
Go to story | Go to homepage




by Ira Chernus

"Bombs are falling and people are dying in Gaza. It’s headline news in America’s mass media. As usual, though, we get only today’s events, with no historical context to explain what’s really going on and why. . . 
Hamas is routinely described as “committed to Israel’s destruction.” That, too, is once again part of the prevailing mythology, making it easier for US media to restrict coverage of the current events to the “tit for tat” and “good guys against bad guys” myths.
The combination of these two myths dictates that Americans must be given the Israeli version of events: The kidnappers become not isolated individual criminals but merely “Palestinians,” and the mythic tale of Hamas, or perhaps simply “the Palestinians,” launching a deadly attack on an innocent Israel now passes for reality. Meanwhile, the obvious strategic purpose of Israel’s response is ignored.
Yet the history of the US mass media’s reporting on Israel shows that mythic frameworks can change. Another change, bringing myth closer to reality, is always possible. And if not now, as a famous Jew once said, when?"

This originally appeared at History News Network.




By Robert Fisk           
"...How come all those Palestinians – all 1.5 million – are crammed into Gaza in the first place?..."     
Continue

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Troublemaking Washington
Pushing Ukraine to the Brink

By Mike Whitney

“The unipolar world model has failed. People everywhere have shown their desire to choose their own destiny, preserve their own cultural identity, and oppose the West’s attempts at military, financial, political and ideological domination.”
Vladimir Putin

“While the human politics of the crisis in Ukraine garner all the headlines, it is the gas politics that in many ways lies at the heart of the conflict.”
Eric DraitserWaging war against Russia, one pipeline at a time, RT


July 10, 2014 "ICH" - "Counterpunch" - -  

What does a pipeline in Afghanistan have to do with the crisis in Ukraine?

Everything. It reveals the commercial interests that drive US policy. Just as the War in Afghanistan was largely fought to facilitate the transfer of natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea, so too, Washington engineered the bloody coup in Kiev to cut off energy supplies from Russia to Europe to facilitate the US pivot to Asia...

Can you see what’s going on? Afghanistan, which is central to Washington’s pivot strategy, is going to be used for military bases, resource extraction and transportation. That’s it. There’s not going to be any reconstruction or nation building. The US doesn’t do that anymore. This is the stripped-down, no-frills, 21st century imperialism. 

...It’s alot like Iraq –the biggest hellhole on earth–where “oil production has surged to its highest level in over 30 years”. (according to the Wall Street Journal)

And who’s raking in the profits on that oil windfall?

Why the oil giants, of course. (ExxonMobil, BP and Shell) Maybe that’s why you never read about what a terrible mistake the war was. Because for the people who count, it really wasn’t a mistake at all. In fact, it all worked out pretty well...

In Ukraine, the US is using a divide and conquer strategy to pit the EU against trading partner Moscow. 

The State Department and CIA helped to topple Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych and install a US stooge in Kiev who was ordered to cut off the flow of Russian gas to the EU and lure Putin into a protracted guerilla war in Ukraine. 

The bigwigs in Washington figured that, with some provocation, Putin would react the same way he did when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2006. But, so far, Putin has resisted the temptation to get involved which is why new puppet president Petro Poroshenko has gone all “Jackie Chan” and stepped up the provocations by pummeling east Ukraine mercilessly. It’s just a way of goading Putin into sending in the tanks...

What a bunch of baloney. Putin doesn’t have a monopoly on gas. Russia only provides 30 percent of the gas the EU uses every year. And Putin isn’t blackmailing anyone either. Countries in the EU can either buy Russian gas or not buy it. It’s up to them. No one has a gun to their heads. 

And Gazprom’s prices are competitive too, sometimes well-below market rates which has been the case for Ukraine for years, until crackpot politicians started sticking their thumb in Putin’s eye at every opportunity; until they decided that that they didn’t have to pay their bills anymore because, well, because Washington told them not to pay their bills. That’s why.

Ukraine is in the mess it’s in today for one reason, because they decided to follow Washington’s advice and shoot themselves in both feet. Their leaders thought that was a good idea. So now the country is broken, penniless and riven by social unrest. Regrettably, there’s no cure for stupidity...

The funny thing about gas is that, when you stop paying the bills, they turn the heat off. Is that hard to understand?

So, yes, the State Department crystal-gazers and their corporate-racketeer friends might think they have Putin by the shorthairs by buying up Ukraine’s pipelines, but the guy who owns the gas (Gazprom) is still in the drivers seat. 

And he’s going to do what’s in the best interests of himself and his shareholders. Someone should explain to John Kerry that that’s just how capitalism works.

Washington’s policy in Ukraine is such a mess, it really makes one wonder about the competence of the people who come up with these wacko ideas. Did the brainiacs who concocted this plan really think they’d be able to set up camp between two major trading partners, turn off the gas, reduce a vital transit country into an Iraq-type basketcase, and start calling the shots for everyone in the region?

It’s crazy.

Europe and Russia are a perfect fit. Europe needs gas to heat its homes and run its machinery. Russia has gas to sell and needs the money to strengthen its economy. It’s a win-win situation. 

What Europe and Russia don’t need is the United States. In fact, the US is the problem. As long as US meddling persists, there’s going to be social unrest, division, and war. It’s that simple. 

So the goal should be to undermine Washington’s ability to conduct these destabilizing operations and force US policymakers to mind their own freaking business. 

That means there should be a concerted effort to abandon the dollar, ditch US Treasuries, jettison the petrodollar system, and force the US to become a responsible citizen that complies with International law.

It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, mainly because everyone is sick and tired of all the troublemaking.


Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.


 Click to read the entire article, and read/post comments


Sunday, July 06, 2014

Shadow of Brutal ’79 War Darkens Vietnam’s View of China Relations



Ha Thi Hien along a rail line in Lang Son connecting Hanoi and Beijing.CreditJustin Mott for The New York Times

Ha Thi Hien along a rail line in Lang Son connecting Hanoi and Beijing.CreditJustin Mott for The New York Timesoi and Beijing. Credit Justin Mott for The New York Times

LANG SON, Vietnam  -- She was 14 when Chinese artillery fire echoed across the hills around her home in northern Vietnam, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers swarmed across the border. She remembers sprinting with her parents through the peach trees, her waist-length hair flying, as they fled the invaders. They ran straight into the enemy.
Her mother was shot and killed in front of her; minutes later, her father was wounded. “I was horrified. I didn’t think I would survive. The bullets were flying all around. I could hear them and smell the gunfire,” said Ha Thi Hien, now 49, fluttering her hands so they grazed her head to show how close the bullets came on the first day of the short, brutal war.
The conflict between China and Vietnam in 1979 lasted less than a month. But the fighting was so ferocious that its legacy permeates the current sour relations between the two Communist countries now at odds over hotly contested waters in the South China Sea.e reading the main story
Both sides declared victory then, though neither side prevailed, and both armies suffered horrendous losses.
Photo

The gravestone of Ms. Hien’s mother, who was killed in the 1979 conflict with China. Ms. Hien’s father was wounded. CreditJustin Mott for The New York Times

If a war erupted over territorial rights and the recent positioning of a Chinese oil rig off the coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea, China, with its increasingly modernized navy, would likely win, military experts say. So in a situation some liken to that of Mexico astride the United States, Vietnam must exercise the art of living alongside a powerful nation, a skill it has practiced over several thousand years of intermittent occupation and more than a dozen wars with China.
But with China, far richer, militarily stronger and more ambitious than at any time the two countries have faced each other in the modern era, how far to needle Beijing, when to pull back, and how to factor in the United States are becoming trickier.
During the current tensions, the anti-Chinese sentiments of the Vietnamese people seem to have run ahead of the country’s ruling Politburo.
“People in Vietnam want to be outside China’s grip,” said Pham Xuan Nguyen, chairman of the Hanoi Literature Association, who protested against the oil rig outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi. “But the Vietnamese people are wondering what is the strategy of the government, and wondering if the government is really against China or compromising.”
In 2012, the United States secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, visited Cam Ranh Bay, the site of a major American base during the Vietnam War, but so far the Vietnamese military, still mindful of that war and years of antagonistic relations after it ended in 1975, has kept its distance.
Part of the aloofness is the result of a United States executive order that prohibits the sale of American weapons to Vietnam, a vestige of the Vietnam War. But Washington is showing increasing interest in lifting the ban, and the expected new United States ambassador to Vietnam, Ted Osius, who is awaiting confirmation from the Senate, said in testimony last month that easing the embargo should be considered.

For the moment, Vietnam buys weapons mainly from Russia, Israel and India. It has taken delivery of two Kilo-class submarines from Russia, and has ordered four more. Japan has pledged to provide coast guard vessels. In a move intended to encourage Vietnam to accept more from Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry announced $18 million in nonlethal aid for Vietnam’s maritime security during a visit in December.
Vietnam does not expect, or want, intervention by the United States, said Dang Dinh Quy, president of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. “We don’t expect help from anyone,” he said. “We are confident we can do it ourselves. We will keep to current strategies of trying to prevent a clash, and if it happens we will try to deal with it. We welcome all users of the South China Sea as long as they are conducive to preserving peace, stability and a legal order in the region.”
The shadow of the 1979 war, ordered by the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to punish Vietnam for [helping Cambodians end Pol Pot's genocidal regime in] Cambodia, endures in places along the border. The memories are strong not only because of the death toll but also because the Chinese pummeled towns and villages as they withdrew, destroying schools and hospitals, in what the Chinese military later called a “goodbye kiss.”



Continue reading the main story

MAP

Territorial Disputes in the Waters Near China

China has recently increased its pursuit of territorial claims in nearby seas, leading to tense exchanges with neighboring countries. A map of some of the most notable disputes.


 OPEN MAP







Lang Son has since been rebuilt, and modest high-rises emblazoned with neon give it the feel of a prosperous trading post. But people here still remember a river full of bodies, both Vietnamese and Chinese, and how long it took for the terrible smell to go away. The combined death toll has been estimated at least 50,000 troops, along with 10,000 Vietnamese civilians.
The Chinese soldiers were instructed to be merciless and resorted to a “frenzy of extreme emotions,” according to a former Chinese intelligence officer, Xu Meihong, who immigrated to the United States and whose account appears in a history of the war, “Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War” by Edward C. O’Dowd.
The Chinese decision to destroy Lang Son left a deep impression on a high school student named Luong Van Lang, who now works as a security guard.
“My heart was full of hatred, all the city was destroyed, everything was rubble,” he said. Two years after the Chinese left, he was selected for sniper training in a local defense militia to counter Chinese hit-and-run attacks that continued for most of the 1980s.
“I would get up at 2 a.m., positioned on a high ridge, and I could see the Chinese digging tunnels,” he said. “Their hill was lower than ours, and sometimes they would move higher. We would wait for that moment when they moved and shoot at them.” He killed six Chinese in 10 days, he said proudly.
For his bravery and accuracy, Mr. Lang won three medals that he keeps in a satin-lined box.
After China and Vietnam normalized relations in 1991, the government erased all official commemorations of the 1979 fighting, a contrast to the copious memorials to Vietnam’s wars against the French and the Americans in which the Chinese gave vital assistance.Relations between the fraternal Communist parties thawed, cross-border business flourished and memories were eclipsed.

Relations between the fraternal Communist parties thawed, cross-border business flourished and memories were eclipsed.Those memories resurfaced two months ago with the arrival of the Chinese oil rig in waters claimed by both countries off Vietnam’s coast. 

There were daily skirmishes between Chinese and Vietnamese coast guard vessels, which led to anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam that left four Chinese citizens dead and damaged foreign-owned factories. 

Ms. Hien, who now runs a guesthouse and welcomes Chinese clients, says she still lives with the memories of her teenage terror. After her mother was killed, soldiers found an older woman to look after her, and then told the two lost souls to shelter with others in a limestone cave.

“But several hundred people had been killed in there,” she said. “I saw a woman with her legs cut off, lying on the ground. You could tell from her eyes she was still alive and wanted help, but there was nothing we could do. I will never forget it.”.

By JANE PERLEZ  JULY 5, 2014  -  The New York Times.

A version of this article appears in print on July 6, 2014, on page A4 of The New York edition with the headline: Shadow of Brutal ’79 War Darkens Vietnam’s View of China Relations.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

There are many troubles in our world, and it is good to get things off our chest sometimes. I do try to keep up with politics in Australia, as well as around the world, and much of it is not pretty.

In order to get some frustrations off my chest, I have just written this. It was written in a hurry, and is not fully thought through and correctly expressed, but it might be of some interest anyway.

On the current crisis in Ukraine, I take an entirely different view to the one expressed below by Paul Dibb. I believe his is really just a restatement of Western propaganda, not the actual facts. 

No wonder Australian foreign policy is in such a mess if this is the standard of advice it is based on! ~
International Relations
Paul Dibb | Strategic and Defence Studies Centre
27 June 2014 | This paper analyses the reasons why President Putin decided to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea, the implications of this for Russia’s return as a major power, and the broader geopolitical policy implications
27 June 2014
This paper analyses the reasons why President Putin decided to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea, the implications of this for Russia’s return as a major power, and the broader geopolitical policy implications.
Executive summary
  • This is the worst crisis in Europe since the end of the Cold War. It marks the return of a Russia hostile to the West that is prepared to reject international norms about state sovereignty and risk confrontation with NATO. Under Putin, we can expect protracted and wider confrontation with the West.
  • Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea because he regarded the threat of Ukraine’s membership of NATO as undermining Russia’s vital national security interests.
  • Russia has significantly improved its military capabilities since its invasion of Georgia in 2008. This was demonstrated in the surprise occupation of Crimea. Moscow’s positioning of 50,000 troops on the eastern Ukrainian border threatens further intervention, the risk of civil war and military conflict with Ukraine.
  • The strategic implications for Australia are whether Washington’s pivot to Asia will now be diverted to Europe and whether China also will be encouraged to greater territorial adventurism.
Policy recommendation
  • Australia’s defence strategy should now take account of how major powers such as China and Russia might use conventional force, or threats of use of conventional force, to challenge territorial sovereignty and impose their will more generally.
  • Canberra also needs to factor into its strategic assessments the impact of the Ukrainian crisis on a) China’s strategic policy and regional ambitions and b) the US military commitment to Asia.
  • Given the rise of military capabilities and nationalism in our region, the new Defence White Paper should give appropriate priority to policies of countering conventional threats and coercion, including from major powers.


Paul Dibb's views are consistent with much of the Western news media propaganda, so I guess it will seem familiar and believable to most people. However, there is a wealth of alternative information and analyses available to refute just about everything he has written. Much of this I have already been posting on my blog for months, but I hardly ever see it in the mainstream media.

Simply, as I and many others see it... 

Russia did not "invade" Ukraine - Russian troops were already there, legally under their treaty agreement, and actually in lower numbers than allowed by that treaty.

Russia did not "annex" Crimea - they agreed to accept it back after an overwhelming majority of Crimean people voted for that, which is their right.

The Ukraine crisis was not started by Russia - it was entirely the responsibility of the US and NATO who have been creeping closer to Russia's borders for years, in serious violation of an agreement made with Gorbachev. 

It was the US that admitted to spending 5 billion USD to politically interfere in Ukraine, to stir up and support the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government that was soon to face elections anyway, so they could put their chosen leaders, including extreme anti-Russian nationalists and neo-nazis, into power.  

All this is part of a long term imperial strategy to contain and weaken Russia. 

They tried to provoke a Russian invasion of Ukraine so they could further unfairly demonize Russia, but Putin was too clever to take the bait. 

They also want to end Russia's vital naval base in Crimea (not going to happen!). 

And to impose austerity and imperial plunder on the people of Ukraine to benefit the super rich and Western corporations. The alternative deal offered by Russia, and naturally accepted by the previous Ukrainian government, was much more beneficial to the people of Ukraine, but it did not suit the US and Europe, so that government had to go. 

Etc.

If Russia is "hostile to the West", it has many reasons to be, and that is entirely the fault of the West!

The West complains about Russia placing "50,000 troops on the eastern Ukrainian border" - but they are in Russia! Does a country not have the right to place their own troops inside their own country?! Especially when a hostile superpower has just instigated a violent, anti-Russian coup on their border?!

When US troops are placed inside other people's countries against their wishes in a real invasion, that is ok apparently. If the US kept their own troops inside their own borders, just for defence, instead of invading wherever they choose, we would have less to complain about.

When the West forcibly breaks off Kosovo after a relentless and brutal aerial bombing campaign killing many people, and with no democratic vote by its people, we don't hear them talk about "state sovereignty". That is ok apparently. 

Oh, but when the US instigates an extremist coup in Ukraine, and the people of Crimea vote to join Russia instead of living under a bunch of fascists, then this is Russia "invading and annexing Crimea"! 

Fortunately, it seems Putin is clever enough to understand the Western hypocrisy, and is quietly taking steps to bring the superpower down! 

This is why Russia is wisely moving away from the USD in international trade, strengthening relations with China and others, and becoming more independent of Western financial and banking systems, so Western sanctions will have no serious effect. 

As he should, in Russia's national interest. 

But of course all this is precisely why the West hates Putin so much, and is actively demonizing him as some sort of new "Hitler", a ludicrous proposition considering the decisive role played by Russia in defeating Hitler and fascism in World War 2!

And meanwhile Australia continues its pathetic subservience and grovelling before the imperialist superpower and warmonger, even if clearly against its own long term strategic and economic interests. 

Strategic advice from people like Paul Dibb is predictably unhelpful.

Sorry, but I had to get it off my chest, again. If it seems I am sick and tired of Western economic and war policies, and the lack of intelligent information in the Western mainstream media, it is because I am!


Bruce McPhie
July 3, 2014



Further proof, if you don't believe me...
NYT Dishes More Ukraine Propaganda 

By Robert Parry

As you read or watch the mainstream media accounts of the Ukrainian government’s military offensive against ethnic Russians in East Ukraine, it’s worth remembering that these MSM outlets have been feeding a highly biased narrative of the crisis non-stop from the beginning...

Then, there is the cherished MSM tale of the Russian “invasion” of Crimea, which – unlike every other “invasion” in history – did not involve military forces crossing an international border. Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement with Ukraine’s government.

And, the impetus for Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and rejoining Russia came from the local government and the Crimean people, not from Russian military force. But repetition of the words “invasion” and “annexation” is needed to elicit the desired revulsion from the American people...

It was also the much-maligned Russian press that first reported the secret visit of CIA Director John Brennan to Kiev. Though the White House later confirmed that report, Herszenhorn cited Medvedev’s reference to it in the context of “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” Nowhere in the long article did the Times inform its readers that, yes, the CIA director did make a secret visit to Ukraine.

Now, as the Kiev regime celebrates its bloody conquest of the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk, it might be advisable for Americans who don’t want to continue being deceived by U.S. government/media propaganda to recognize – and reject – these one-sided and false narratives.