RADIO WNYC Stephen Cohen about Fake News, Neo-McCarthyism, Aleppo, CIA hacking allegations and Rex Tillerson

ABOVE IMAGE: STEPHEN COHEN HAS BEEN PATIENTLY BATTLING TO INJECT SOME TRUTH AND SANITY IN A NATIONAL DEBATE CONTROLLED BY NEOLIBERAL DISINFORMERS.

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP. JUST CLICK HERE.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Obama’s outrageous snub to the Russian people

BRYAN MacDONALD

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]arack Obama’s decision to play political games with the 70th anniversary of Victory Day was probably intended as a snub to Vladimir Putin. However, it’s actually an outrageous insult to the Russian people.

I remember my first Russian May 9th very well. For the simple reason that following a rather raucous Saturday night, I plain forgot about it. Waking up slightly the worst for wear, I took Kris Kristofferson’s advice and flung on my “cleanest, dirty shirt” before heading to downtown Khabarovsk on that Sunday morning sidewalk. The problem was that the otherwise innocent garment was something I’d picked up at World Cup 2006 in Berlin. Emblazoned across the front were the words, “Deutschland” and on the rear “Germany” for those who had initially missed the point.

Dozily trotting down the Far Eastern capital’s wide central thoroughfare, Karl Marx Street, I noticed a few strange looks alright. By the time I passed the viewing platform at Lenin Square, my paranoia levels had peaked as people kept smiling at me, a very un-Russian trait. Eventually, I reached the Steakhouse where I’d arranged to meet my friend Vova and his buddy Max. Seeing my attire, they both laughed so hard that they doubled over.

“Oh my god! Is there a shop open, I need to buy a new T-Shirt,” I nervously said.

“No, you don’t. It’s just funny. You are not doing anything wrong,” Vova replied.

“Are you sure? I won’t get attacked by Russian nationalists or anything?”

“Not unless you put über alles after the Deutschland!”

In my homeland, St Patrick’s Day is a very big deal. The Irish have a love/hate attitude to it and many resent its association with heavy drinking. However, it remains our national holiday and despite the odd cringe, we are proud of its global appeal. To be honest, I’m not sure how safe it would be to wear an England soccer shirt in Dublin or a provincial Irish city on March 17. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t personally be inclined to volunteer as a guinea pig either.

Russians respect Germany

The point here is that Russians, despite the horrors of the “Great Patriotic War,” as its known there, don’t hate Germans. In actual fact, they quite like them. I can only give my personal experience, but I find that when you ask Russians which foreign country they most admire, a few will plump for the USA, a couple more for Japan or France but the majority will say Germany. Back home, I’d have to travel a long way before I’d find an Irishman who would admit to reverence for England.

Angela Merkel knows this too. She also understands how much “Victory Day” means to Russians. For that reason, despite humungous pressure from the US, which effectively colonizes her nation militarily, she will visit Moscow this weekend to commemorate the dead. The Chancellor is skipping the army parade on the 9th and instead will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with President Putin the following day. Of course, a lot of Russians feel she should appear at both events. Indeed, one Vadim Raskin, a doctor from Novokuznetsk, organized a campaign which saw thousands write to her Berlin address expressing dismay.

While Merkel feels that the blowback from the Ukraine crisis means she can’t attend the military display, she’s at least acknowledging Russia’s gigantic war sacrifice. Smaller NATO members, Greece and the Czech Republic, are sending their heads of state and Slovakia will be represented by its Prime Minister, Robert Fico. Many in Moscow, including President Putin, accuse the US of coercing other European states not to send delegations. (And they are right.—Eds)

However, while Europe cowers under American duress, the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa will be present in Moscow. What should have been a day for solemn commemoration of humanity’s most tragic waste of life, has been turned into an interstate ‘brannigan’, worthy of a putative new Cold War. The man responsible for this is Barack Obama. It’s less the “audacity of hope” and more the timidity of doltishness.

Obama’s own goal

Like an Englishman taking a penalty at a World Cup, Obama has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and handed his great rival, Vladimir Putin, the moral high ground. Let me explain why the White House’s petty snub is a major strategic blunder and also an error of principle.

What most European and North American commentators don’t fully understand is just how all-consuming memories of the “Great Patriotic War” are for Russians. Defeating German fascism and repelling the Nazi invasion is regarded as their finest hour as a people. Some in the West may perceive Yuri Gagarin’s first space flight as the crowning glory, but the natives don’t. There’s a simple reason for this, almost every Russian either has a living or dead relative who fought in the conflict. On the other hand, not many Russians can boast of a family member who has been to outer space.

1941-1945; wartime photo; World War two; seizure of Berlin. (RIA Novosti)

The UK and the USA also lean heavily on the memory of World War Two, the latter aided by Hollywood which often re-writes the accepted history. While both made huge contributions to the war effort, even the most myopic would not dare suggest that either’s suffering was comparable to what the USSR endured. Total Soviet deaths numbered around 27 million.

By comparison, Britain lost 450,000 and the USA 420,000. The main aggressor, Germany, counted around six million casualties. In 2004, Russian historian Vadim Erlikhman estimated that around 14 million of the Soviet fallen were from Russia with other massive losses sustained by Ukraine (6.8 million) and Belarus (2.3 million). The central Asian countries, former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan suffered greater loss of life than the UK or USA. Poland was also a victim of the war. In 1987, Dachau survivor Franciszek Proch concluded that 3.3 million ethnic Polish and 2.5 million Polish Jews died.

Obama – hope we can’t believe in

For Barack Obama to use the specter of a civil war in a failed, corrupt state on the edge of Europe as an excuse to water the graves of Russia’s war dead is an absurdity. Especially after his own representatives promoted the violent coup – against a freely elected government – which created the conditions for the conflict.

“A man who likes to preach about democracy and freedom should surely realize that those values he, outwardly, holds dear survive in part because of the Russian and Soviet sacrifice 70 years ago…”

A man who likes to preach about democracy and freedom should surely realize that those values he, outwardly, holds dear survive in part because of the Russian and Soviet sacrifice 70 years ago. I actually suspect he doesn’t acknowledge this. US policy towards Moscow is so harebrained that one would venture that a team of monkeys, armed with ‘ogham’ stones, would do a better job than the State Department’s current Russia team.

A country that celebrates its own national holidays with such fervor as the Americans exhibit on Thanksgiving and the 4th of July should be aware of how other nations feel about theirs. That said, Victory Day is more than a regular national holiday. It’s living, breathing history.

This 70th anniversary is probably the last major milestone that a significant number of veterans will be able to attend. The fact that Barack Obama was unable to find it in his heart to come to Moscow and doff his cap to men and women who did more for the values he purports to hold dear than he ever will, speaks volumes about his character. The worst American President since Jimmy Carter has not only destroyed relations between the White House and the Kremlin, he may also have obliterated any residual goodwill that still existed from the ordinary Russian people towards America. That’s a poisonous legacy.

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish writer and commentator focusing on Russia and its hinterlands and international geo-politics. Follow him on Facebook

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[printfriendly]

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

‘We’re not interested in a fair fight’ – US army commander urges NATO to confront Russia

A DISPATCH FROM RT.COM

US forces in southern Afghanistan Operations Director General Frederick ‘Ben’ Hodges.(AFP Photo / Ed Jones)

[dropcap]U[/dropcap]S army commander in Europe says Russia is a “real threat” urging NATO to stay united. The alliance is not interested in a “fair fight with anyone” and wants to have “overmatch in all systems,” Lieutenant-General Frederick “Ben” Hodges believes.

“There is a Russian threat,” Hodges told the Telegraph, maintaining that Russia is involved in ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. A key objective for NATO is not to let Russia outreach it in terms of capabilities, the general said.

“We’re not interested in a fair fight with anyone,” General Hodges stated. “We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don’t think that we’ve fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don’t want them to close that gap,” he revealed.

“The best insurance we have against a showdown is that NATO stands together,” he said, pointing to recent moves by traditionally neutral Sweden and Finland to cooperate more closely on defense with NATO.

[pullquote]The US military doesn’t like an even playing field. They prefer overwhelming power or nothing. Sometimes they are irritated that the enemy should even have the audacity to shoot back. This attitude was seen frequently among pilots flying over Vietnam. Gen. Hodges is at least honest about it. [/pullquote]

Moscow has expressed “special concern” over Finnish and Swedish moves towards the alliance viewing it as a threat aimed against Russia.

“Contrary to past years, Northern European military cooperation is now positioning itself against Russia. This can undermine positive constructive cooperation,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Laugh if you like, but Gen Hodges‘ beliefs mirror perfectly the utmost untruths peddled by the official US propaganda playbook, including the idea that it is the Russians, and not the Americans, who specialize in the Big Lie.

Hodges also said US expects its allies to contribute financially to the security umbrella provided by the NATO alliance, as its member states have been failing to allocate 2 percent of every member nation’s GDP to NATO budget.

“I think the question for each country to ask is: are they security consumers or security providers?” the general demanded. “Do they bring capabilities the alliance needs?”

However, the general does not believe that the world is on the brink of another Cold War, saying that “the only thing that is similar now is that Russia and NATO have different views about what the security environment in Europe should be.”

“I don’t think it’s the same as the Cold War,” he said, recalling “gigantic forces” and “large numbers of nuclear weapons” implemented in Europe a quarter of a century ago. “That [Cold War] was a different situation.”

“We did very specific things then that are no longer relevant. We don’t need 300,000 soldiers in Europe. Nobody can afford that anymore,” General Hodges acknowledged.

However, there was a sharp increase in the intensity of the training of NATO troops near the borders of Russia last year, Russian General Staff reported.

“In 2014, the intensity of NATO’s operational and combat training activities has grown by 80 percent,”said Lieutenant General Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Main Operation Directorate of General Staff.

[printfriendly]

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Did Obama just declare war on Syria?

Eric Draitser

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he news that President Obama has formally asked US Congress to authorize military force against ISIS is not surprising. What may come as a shock to Americans oblivious to these developments is that the administration has de facto declared war on Syria.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama presented the US Congress with a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force.Liberal pundits have lauded the Obama administration for observing the Constitutional requirement for congressional approval of military action, while many conservatives have predictably pilloried the administration for presenting a “weak” and “flawed” strategy that will be doomed to failure. However both these lines of argument are, in fact, distractions from the far bigger, far more dangerous, and far more criminal action being taken by the White House: an aggressive war against Syria, a sovereign nation.

Distorting the reality of US aggression

While the corporate media is framing the request for authorization as being limited in scope, there are key clauses that should worry anyone interested in peace and stability in Syria, and the Middle East generally.Naturally, after a series of aggressive wars waged by the US (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.), many Americans are understandably skeptical of yet another open-ended conflict that will cost American lives, not to mention billions of dollars (note that the countless innocent civilians who will be killed as a result of US operations are almost never mentioned as they are not deemed noteworthy by policymakers or the media).

A careful examination of some key provisions of the president’s proposal reveals that, contrary to the rhetoric, this is in fact a declaration of war on Syria. The internationally, and legally, recognized government of Syria, led by Bashar al-Assad, has provided no such authorization, nor have they been consulted, let alone asked for consent, in the US decision. Therefore, any US military action occurring within Syria’s borders would unquestionably be a violation of international law.

According to the NY Times, Obama’s proposal “would prohibit the use of ‘enduring offensive ground forces’ and limit engagement to three years.” The understandable reaction from a casual reader would be that Obama is trying to avoid any kind of real war, and is instead just looking to engage in limited combat operations against a specific threat. However, that is simply not true for, were one to continue reading the NY Times article, one would find the following:

The resolution also requests authority to wage battle beyond the fight against the Islamic State to include “associated forces.” It would contain no geographic limitations… The omission of any language setting geographic boundaries appeared to anticipate the possibility of attacking the group should it gain a foothold in Lebanon or Jordan, which has fought off sporadic attacks from Islamic State fighters. It could also be used to address future threats from small bands of violent Islamist militants in Libya, Yemen and other Middle Eastern and North African countries that have “rebranded” their identities to take the Islamic State name, and benefit from its notoriety, American officials said.

So this resolution being touted as “limited” and “short-term” is anything but. Rather than cautiously authorizing very specific action, it instead provides Washington carte blanche to engage in a full-scale regional war that could include a number of countries in the region. The transnational character of the Islamic State virtually guarantees such an outcome. However, while Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, and Yemen are explicitly named in the Times article, the real target here is Syria – the only country that has actually been fighting (and winning) a war against IS.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Syrian President Assad responded to a question as to the possibility of his country cooperating with the United States by stating, “No, definitely we cannot and we don’t have the will and we don’t want, for one simple reason — because we cannot be in an alliance with countries which support terrorism.” A more clear rejection of US military action in Syria could not possibly be given.

And so, international observers are left with a central question: when the US inevitably violates Syrian sovereignty in this new phase of the war (they’ve been doing this for months already), will there be an outcry from those who still cling to the seemingly outdated notion of international law? Will there be any leaders who remind Washington and the world that there are clear and unmistakable precedents in international law which define this move as “aggressive”?

Who will stand up and defend the decision of the International Law Commission in 1951 which, after being tasked by the UN to develop a definition of aggression, ultimately decided that: “Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations”?

Syria, a sovereign state currently at war against multiple external enemies that have infiltrated the country with the covert support of international actors, is now subject to invasion, bombardment, and other forms of aggression by the United States without ever having even threatened to attack the US, its allies, or its interests.

Naturally, the Obama administration would claim that IS beheadings and killings are ample justification for launching an aggressive war. However, no ethical observer or legal scholar would argue that these incidents, which pale in comparison to many other horrific crimes all over the world that the US has conveniently ignored, justify a war of aggression. For, as the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg unequivocally stated in 1946, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Taking this as the precedent, is there any doubt as to the illegality of what President Obama is proposing?

Questions for President Obama

Yet again the drumbeat of war becomes audible. Yet again Americans can rest assured that their elected officials and corporate media mouthpieces will do everything but ask incisive questions that challenge the militarist consensus that exists in Washington. And so, it falls upon those outside of the corporate mainstream to ask such questions, to challenge the false narrative, and to cut through the rhetoric and obfuscation of the bipartisan warmongers. And it is in this spirit of truth-telling, to say nothing of morality and justice, that I submit the following questions to President Obama:

1. Your proposed resolution explicitly prohibits “enduring offensive ground forces” being utilized in this so-called war against IS. Can you clearly and specifically explain what the word “enduring” actually means, and more to the point, how offensive ground forces differ from other ground forces? Put another way, what will stop you or your successor from simply waging offensive campaigns under the moniker of “defensive” campaigns? We’ve seen countless times before, both with President Bush and your administration, the shift in terminology that is in fact no change in actual tactics or policy. So, with that in mind, will you or your successor be guilty of violating this authorization by engaging in such deliberately misleading policies?

Obama asks Congress for permission to strike ISIS anywhere in world (RT.com)

2. This resolution grants you the authority to fight not only IS, but also so called “associated forces.” What or who exactly are the associated forces? Does this include the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusra Front which has been documented as collaborating with Israel? Does this make Israel an “associated force” considering that they are in league with a known al-Qaeda group?

What about the so called “moderate rebels” which your administration has so ardently supported? Thousands upon thousands of these fighters have defected to IS, bringing their US weapons and training with them. Are you now suggesting that US military will be fighting against the forces that our own government has armed? Will anyone in the CIA or any other agency be held accountable for having provided the weapons and training that are now being employed by “the enemy”?

3. You’ve declared that a time limit of three years must be placed on US military operations against IS. However there seems to be no clear objective other than the abstract and intangible goal of “defeating ISIS.” Considering that the Islamic State is a transnational fighting force with a vast network of resources, allied factions, and regions under its control, how is it possible to defeat such a force without a full scale regional war far larger than the criminal war against Iraq by your predecessor? Isn’t it true that you’re simply waging yet another unwinnable war, to say nothing of it being an overtly criminal war?

Are you prepared to be morally and legally responsible for the costs of this war, both in lives and resources? And what happens when the three year time limit has expired and IS still exists, as this is undeniably going to be the result? Will you be prepared to have your war and your policy deemed a failure, just as Bush’s have been?

4. Considering the fact that this resolution will grant you the authority to wage war inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government, are you prepared to wage war against Damascus if it defends its people from your bombs? As a legal scholar who has focused on international law, you’re undoubtedly aware of the inviolable right of self-defense as enumerated in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter which states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” And so, the Syrian government will be well within its legal rights to defend with military force against US aggression, be it from ground forces, aerial bombardment, etc. What will you do in the event that this happens?Will you compound your grave breach of international law with yet another “supreme crime”?

5. You claim to be conscientious when it comes to international law, and yet you have already violated it countless times, long before the words “Islamic State” were on your lips. You refused to get a UN Security Council resolution authorizing war in Libya, and instead distorted the meaning of Resolution 1973 which authorized a No-Fly Zone over Libya, transforming it into a de facto declaration of war.Similarly, you’ve waged secret wars in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Mali and all over the world. Honestly, why should anyone trust you, or any of the “guarantees” and “limits” that will purportedly guide the military action?

Your administration has fomented the civil war in Ukraine, and its policies have brought the US and Russia into direct confrontation for the first time since the Cold War. Your war on Libya has created a failed state and hotbed for terrorism where there was none before.Your drone war in Pakistan has achieved nothing but needless civilian deaths and created endless fodder for new terrorist recruitment. Your secret drone war in Yemen has been a failure, and is one of the principal reasons for the fall of the puppet government that your administration put in place during your first term.Your policy in Somalia has achieved little more than more innocent Somalis being killed, to say nothing of the criminal policy that led directly to deaths of at least 250,000 Somalis from starvation.

Considering all of these wars that you are directly responsible for, how can the American people, let alone the people of Iraq, Syria, and the region broadly, trust anything you say? Considering all of the above wars, and the new regional war you have planned, how can you still claim to be a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? Shouldn’t you consider returning it?

And finally, Mr. President…are you prepared to be remembered for having started yet another endless war? Are you prepared for the irreparable damage that this will cause to your own legacy? Are you prepared for the inevitable blowback of these policies? Moreover, will you take responsibility for it now, and in the future?

Mr. President, I await your response.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Lavrov: West may use ISIS as pretext to bomb Syrian govt forces

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in Moscow, September 9, 2014. (Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin)

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“There are reasons to suspect that air strikes on Syrian territory may target not only areas controlled by Islamic State militants, but the government troops may also be attacked on the quiet to weaken the positions of Bashar Assad’s army,” Lavrov said Tuesday.

Such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa, Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with the foreign minister of Mali.

Moscow is urging the West to respect international law and undertake such acts only with the approval of the legitimate government of a state, Lavrov said.

“Not a single country should have its own plans on such issues. There can be only combined, collective, univocal actions. Only this way can a result be achieved,” he said.

His comments came shortly after Washington announced plans to go on the offensive against the Islamic State jihadist group. The US military has already launched over 100 airstrikes against militant targets in Iraq, including a new series that the military said killed an unusually large number of Islamic State fighters, AP reported.

US military launches airstrikes near Iraq’s Haditha Dam

Following the beheading of two American journalists, President Barack Obama is considering a military strike against Islamic State in Syria. The plans are expected to be announced in a speech Wednesday.

Moscow has repeatedly voiced its readiness to cooperate with Washington in countering terrorism, Lavrov said. Secretary of State John Kerry, in response, has proposed that the US, Russia and countries in the region cooperate to work out “a balance of interests so that they could eliminate terrorism threat,” he added.

“However, this hasn’t got beyond words,” Lavrov said.

Militant Islamist fighters parade on military vehicles along the streets of Syria’s Raqqa province June 30, 2014. (Reuters/Stringer)

Russia has long warned its western partners about the threat posed by Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups that later merged into the Islamic Front, Lavrov said.

“We have repeatedly suggested to the US, the EU and leading European states to realize the extent of this threat. We have called on the UN to resolutely condemn terrorist attacks staged by Islamists in Syria. But we were told that it was Bashar Assad’s politics that gave rise to terrorism, and that denouncing such acts was possible only alongside with the demand for his resignation,” Lavrov said.

In Moscow’s view, this represents “a double standard” and an attempt to justify terrorism.

Up until the Syrian conflict, Russia and the West were unanimous that terrorism cannot be justified “no matter what motive was behind them,” Lavrov said. But in case with Syria the West had a “different, two-faced stance.” It was only when the terrorism threat which originated in Libya crept to Lebanon and then Iraq that Western countries realized it was time to deal with that, Lavrov said.

“Having admitted it with a huge delay, western partners for some reason think that this threat should be eliminated on the territory of Iraq, while on the territory of Syria it might be left to the consideration of those who conduct the operation,” Lavrov said.

The US agreed its airstrikes against Islamic State militants on Iraqi territory with Baghdad, Lavrov said. However, “it was rumored… no such permission was required from the government of Syria because they claim ‘Assad should resign and his regime should be overthrown’.”

Lavrov said that there could be no different interpretation when it comes to the common interests of the West, Russia and other states: “Terrorist threats must be eliminated and terrorists liquidated,” he said.

Obama vows to ‘hunt down’ Islamic State militants

Earlier in August, when the US State Department’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked to comment on whether it would be possible for the US to launch airstrikes inside Syria without coordinating it with the government, she said: “I think when American lives are at stake, when we’re talking about defending our own interests, we’re not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime.” She added, though, that it was for the US president to make such a decision.