5 March 2012
Update: It still makes fascinating reading all these years on; the machinations of people with immense power, able to shape events to their pleasing, and that of their class.
Compiled and Edited by William Bowles, December 22, 1988. This file is a compilation of texts that have either been uploaded to or posted on this system [New York On-Line] or Peacenet, which have been edited to remove duplication, and/or inaccuracies and irrelevancies.
26 July 2011
In an essentially excellent piece Sarah Flounders ‘Libya: Demonization and Self-determination‘, near the beginning under the sub-head ‘What should be the response to this terror?’ she writes:
“Unfortunately, a minority of groups or individuals who present themselves as opponents of war spend more time cataloguing Gadhafi’s past real or alleged shortcomings than rallying people to respond to this criminal, all-out U.S. attack. Their influence would be small, except that it coincides with the opinions of the U.S. ruling class. Thus it is important to thoroughly answer their arguments.”
19 June 2011 — Strategic Culture Foundation
I’m sure that somewhere, in a university or institute, researchers have produced an analysis that measures the rise in the number of armed conflicts as a ratio of the increase in economic instability as capitalism goes into one of its periodic meltdowns. Meltdowns that almost invariably end in large-scale war/s as a means of consuming surplus capital, taking out competitors, getting rid of surplus labour, grabbing new markets, extending the sphere of empire… yada, yada, yada…
3 March 2011 — Strategic Culture Foundation
“[T]o be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” — Henry Kissinger
From the very beginning of the Libyan uprising/coup, call it what you will, something didn’t strike me as ‘right’, events unfolded in a vacuum as if overnight, chaos took over. As I reported in an earlier piece, all the videos coming out of Libya, were grainy unattributed snatches of events, it was impossible to tell what was really going on, and accompanied by all manner of rumours about what it was alleged Ghadafi’s regime was doing.
6 November, 2009
“The US does not need a final victory over the Talibs. Despite their widely advertized ferocious conflict, the US and the Talibs manage to coexist quite successfully in Afghanistan…” — Andrei KONUROV, US Objectives in Afghanistan [1]
Come on folks, it’s just good sense, there is no way the Empire can actually win the war in Afghanistan. As I have stated before it’s not about ‘winning’ but occupation. Afghanistan is basically a stepping stone on the way to some place else and leaving an oil pipeline behind with a friendly government in place to protect it. Ah, but the best laid plans of mice and men etc…
14 August 2008
On August 7th, Georgia launched an unprovoked and vicious assault on the capital city of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, killing perhaps as many 2000 civilians, many of them women, children and old people and destroying much of the city including the main hospital and the university.
“Grad missile, artillery, mortar, and machinegun fire has been reported. Dozens of blasts shatter the city every minute. Tens of armored vehicles and thousands of soldiers moved into the conflict zone.” – South Ossetia: The War has Begun! by Andrei Areshev, 9 August, 2008.
But you would not have known this from mainstream media coverage, nor would you have known about the US/NATO/EU involvement in arming and training the armed forces of Georgia.
“The Ex-Soviet Republic of Georgia and its invasion over the last two days of the Russian population of South Ossetia – the second half of North Ossetia inside the Russian Federation looks to be linked to Georgia’s breathtaking increases in its defense spending over the last few years, and it looks set to beat all records this year — in 2008 alone so far they are over 1 Billion USD of GDP – the fourth largest in Eurasia. In late June of 2006, the Georgian government increased the defense ministry’s budget of 513 million laris (315 million US dollars) by 442 million laris (260 million dollars). And the money, arms and military training is not from a `new growing economy’ it’s from the US taxpayer, the Pentagon and NATO — along with the USAID — and yes [the] other NATO aspirant – Ukraine.” — TMPress International -New York -August 08, 2008. ‘The Real Reason Behind the Military Buildup of Ex-Soviet Republic of Georgia and Its Invasion of Russian South Ossetia’.
And in an excellent overview of the situation by Michel Chossudovsky we read:
“Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles (126 – from NATO) , 79 guns (67 – from NATO) , 25 helicopters (12 – from NATO) , 70 mortars, ten surface-to-air missile systems, eight Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, and other weapons. In addition, NATO countries have supplied four combat aircraft to Georgia. The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms.” (Interfax News Agency, Moscow, in Russian, Aug 7, 2008) – ‘War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?’ By Michel Chossudovsky.
Israel’s role is also central to the current situation:
“Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.
“They contacted defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons,” says a source involved in arms exports.
“The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia’s defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.
“His door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms systems made in Israel,” the source said. “Compared to countries in Eastern Europe, the deals in this country were conducted fast, mainly due to the defense minister’s personal involvement.” – ‘War in Georgia: The Israeli Connection’ By Arie Egozi.
Over a thousand US military personnel have been stationed in Georgia, ostensibly to train the Georgian armed forces as well as private military contractors, in other words, all the usual suspects are involved in the Empire’s latest attempts at destabilizing the Caucasus region and isolating and surrounding Russia.
“In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the Kaiserslautern-based 21st Theater Sustainment Command, along with Marine reservists with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines out of Ohio, and the state of Georgia’s Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry participated in “Immediate Response 2008.”
“Operation Immediate Response 2008 was held from July 15-July 30, with U.S. personnel training about 600 troops at a former Soviet base near Tbilisi, the largest city and capital of Georgia. The goal of this operation was allegedly teaching combat skills for missions in Iraq. The Marines left already the country, but not the airmen.” ‘Israel and the US behind the Georgian aggression?’ By Shraga Elam.
Coincidence? I think not. The fact is, like so many before him, Saakashvili is yet another pawn in the ‘Great Game’ and the stakes are high, very high, for not only does Georgia sit astride the oil pipeline from the Caspian oil fields that supplies the West (and especially Israel) with oil, it is yet another strategic base highly desired by the US/NATO alliance as they attempt to expand eastwards and (yet again) encircle their rival in the Caucasus, Russia.
One has to ask the question: did Saakashvili ‘jump the gun’ or was it a calculated risk on the part of his US/EU/Israeli paymasters that Russia would do nothing about his all-out assault on the capital of Southern Ossetia? If the former, then Saakashvili really screwed things up for the empire. And if the latter then it was a disaster whose ramifications have yet to be felt, for regardless of the relentless Western propaganda campaign to vilify the Russians as the ‘aggressors’, it has propelled Russia back into the mainstream.
Mike Whitney, in his article ‘Putin Walks into a Trap’ ends by saying:
“South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush’s plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.” – ‘Putin Walks into a Trap’ By Mike Whitney.
Trap? Well that might have been the intention but if so, it was a serious miscalculation especially Saakashvili’s all-out assault on Southern Ossetia, an unprovoked attack that Russia simply could not allow to go unpunished, after all he murdered not only Ossetians but also his ‘fellow’ Georgians. Had Saakashvili been a less arrogant (and clearly not a very bright individual in spite of his Harvard credentials) surrogate of the US, then he would have embarked on a less obvious ‘low intensity’ campaign, which is why I tend to think that he was not held on a tight enough leash by his masters (encouraged perhaps by the Israeli Zionists, who are anxious to get their blood-stained hands on all that oil).
My own thinking tends toward viewing the ‘event’ as a cynical diversion that had it succeeded then all well and good (for the pirates) and if not, well it’s ‘only’ Ossetians, Russians and Georgians who got sacrificed on the alter of global capital and it has to be viewed more an act of desperation than anything else.
Moreover, following the humanitarian disaster caused by Saakashvili’s actions has given the US the pretext to establish a direct and open political foothold inside Georgia under the pretext of supplying humanitarian aid. In other words, the US knew what the outcome of the Georgian attack would be and cared little about its outcome. Such an action has already come to pass and one justified (in public) by all the talk of Russia reestablishing its ‘sphere of influence’ following its humiliation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Using Saakashvili as a Trojan Horse (or perhaps patsy would be a more accurate term), the US has, without firing a shot, gained a foothold in the Caucasus.
Georgia and the Media
What has to be factored in to this view is the seamless media presentation starting on the night of the invasion, led here in the UK by the BBC which has carried a relentless anti-Russian propaganda campaign that whitewashed the attack on Tskhinvali, in fact barely mentioning it in its ‘news’ reports, focusing instead on what it called “Russian aggression” and painted Saakashvili as some kind of patriot, defending no less, the territorial integrity of Georgia!
This was accompanied by highly misleading (ie, unidentified) video clips of the destruction with the voiceover creating the impression that what we were viewing were the results of Russian ‘aggression’. And this was relentless, round-the-clock disinformation.
The BBC reports the 7 August attack on the capital as follows:
THURSDAY 7 AUGUST
“Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agree to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict.
“Hours later, Georgian forces launch a surprise attack, sending a large force against the breakaway province and reaching the capital Tskhinvali.” – ‘Day-by-day: Georgia-Russia crisis’, 14 August, 2008.
Given the nature of the BBC’s ‘news’ coverage, I lean toward the view that the British state were (along with the US) well aware of what Saakashvili intended as the entire media coverage has all the hallmarks of a well planned propaganda campaign and not merely a knee-jerk anti-Russian diatribe.
Big Brother Beeb hauled out all the usual neo-con suspects, especially the butcher of Yugoslavia, Richard Holbrooke who got major airplay on the BBC’s News 24 TV channel:
“The Russians deliberately provoked [the fighting] and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili.”
No counter-view was presented (aside that is from Russians, whose views are obviously ‘biased’ and hence can be safely discounted). Holbrooke’s comment that “The Russians deliberately provoked [the fighting]” was accepted without question by the BBC interviewer, though how they “provoked” Saakashvili into launching his murderous attack was not explained (a Russian peace-keeping force has been stationed in Southern Ossetia since 1994 without any major incident) so how, exactly, did the Russians provoke the fighting?
The point here is that the BBC presented the entire disaster as if it was instigated by the Russians and it’s a view followed slavishly by the print media as the following quotes from the London Independent (13 August, 2008) clearly reveal:
“Russia’s goals in embarking on the war in Georgia were twofold. It wanted to get rid of a troublesome leader who was too independent for Russia’s liking, and had attracted the personal enmity of Mr. Putin.” ‘Moscow flexed its military muscle and the left the West humiliated,’ Analysis by Anne Penketh (p.7)
She continues, firstly by contradicting the statement above when she says:
“No one in Georgia or a Western capital doubts that Moscow’s lightning retaliation when Georgian forces launched their surprise attack on the South Ossetian capital was long planned.” (ibid)
Penketh goes on:
“Mr Saakashvili ignored Western warnings””including those from the US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice”¦not to respond to Russian provocation. But in the end he fell into the Russian trap by ordering an ill-planned strike while the eyes of the world were on the Olympics. He cannot have anticipated the overwhelming response from the nuclear power across the border, involving massive firepower from tanks, warplanes and battle-hardened Russian soldiers.” (ibid)
So it’s the Russians who set the trap, but like the BBC, whose line the Independent parrots almost exactly, how the Russians ‘lured’ Saakashvili into his “ill-planned strike” is not revealed.
Toward the end of the ‘analysis’, Penketh, no doubt expressing a more circumspect opinion now doing the rounds of the ruling elite, tells us:
“But Mr Saakashvili’s headstrong and impulsive behaviour [sic!] in the crisis, following his disastrous crackdown on demonstrators last November, has eroded Western support.” (ibid)
The arrogance of Western journalists never ceases to amaze me when the slaughter of thousands is described as “headstrong and impulsive behaviour” !
But for the ‘official view’ we need to look at the Independent’s editorial:
“Perhaps the biggest mystery, though, is why Georgia decided to take on Russia now. Of course, the situation had long been profoundly unsatisfactory from Georgia’s point of view. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were outside its control and undisguised platforms for Russian trouble-making.”
/…/
If Russia intended a recent increase in skirmishing to lure the Georgians into a war they could not win, the tactic worked to perfection.” (p.30)
It ends:
“Russia’s barely contested military sweep into Georgia was a flexing of its muscles that leaves it undisputed master of the region once again.” (ibid)
So the official line is that the entire affair was a cunning Russian plot that the (by now) gullible (and let’s not forget “impulsive” ) Saakashvili fell for and if you believe this, you’ll believe anything the Western media throw at you.
See also:
Georgia Newslinks Part 2 for more on the foothold the US has gained in Georgia under the pretext of humanitarian aid.
30 November 2006
Book Review: The Chávez Code – Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela by Eva Golinger
Perhaps the greatest triumph of modern capitalism has been its ability to sell itself and to do it by fair means and foul with the emphasis on the foul.
Historically, it has been the CIA which up until the 1990s did the dirty work for US imperialism as the record clearly shows. However, the CIA’s record in overthrowing foreign governments is far from being a success story. A new strategy was needed, and one which was untainted with the ‘dirty tricks’ label of the Nixon years and which could be sold to the public under the umbrella of ‘spreading democracy’, Western-style of course.
15 May 2005
“I only saw three murdered (homeless) children between 1995 and the beginning of 2004,” says one missionary who works with homeless children and asked that her name not be used. “Since Feb. 29, I have seen or heard of over 150 murders of street children and have personally witnessed the attacks on more than a dozen occasions.” – ‘Too Tired to Cry’ by Lyn Duff, January 12, 2005
Whilst the world rushed to the aid of the victims of the Tsunami and the leaders of the ‘free world’ pontificated on how humanitarian they are, children, in all likelihood, hundreds of children are being exterminated by death squads, aided and abetted by US/UN occupation forces in Haiti. But if you wanted to find out about this outrage in the corporate or state-run media, you’ll look in vain as it’s yet another example of how the media fails to report events that will disturb the carefully constructed illusion that surrounds the armed overthrow of the first and only democratically elected leader, Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haiti has ever had.
26 October 2004
“The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad.”
— CIA officer testifying to US Senate hearing, after bloody CIA aided Ba’ath Party coup overthrew Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Kassem, 1963
The Kurt Nimmo article I posted here last week prompted some emails on the issue of US agent provocateurs and their role in destabilising the situation in Iraq. The problem for journalists and investigators is of course proving beyond all doubt that the US is up to this kind of skulduggery and unless Congress or the Senate is forced to take it on as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, there’s little likelihood of a definitive answer that names names. Continue reading
13 August 2004
Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ‘hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April [2002]. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president – if necessary by force.
Maurice Lemoine, Aug 2002, Le Monde Diplomatique[1]
This coming Sunday 15 August, the infamous Recall Referendum takes place in Venezuela. For those of you not familiar with the situation in Venezuela – fifth largest producer of oil on the planet and 10% of it going to that insatiable guzzler of the stuff, El Norté, the US – in 1998, the country voted into power a president, Hugo Chávez Frias who incurred the wrath of the imperium by daring to promote the interests of the poor and the dispossessed of the country who constitute some 80% of the population.
Investigating Imperialism 