Re-Reading Russian Political History in the Putin Era (2000-2016)

This interesting article is worth wile to read, because it gives you more information in regards of what the Russian view is on the ongoing accusation of Russia’s involvement in the American internal election and other accusations, after the Soviet Union disappeared in 1989.

Igor Pellicciari is Full Professor at the University of Salento, Italy

Spies, Jurists, Diplomats The recent publication of numerous articles that try to analyse Vladimir Putin’s psychological profile—in the belief that this approach is enough to explain Russian policies—provides us with a useful occasion to present the following reflections on the main misunderstandings that are hovering today over the ground of Western countries, whenever they look at the Russian universe to understand its thoughts (not very successfully) and anticipate its moves (even less successfully).

This exercise is even more useful if we consider the simultaneous publication of other works that make the opposite claims—again with sharp tones, but this time biased in favour of Moscow—that Russo-phobia is rapidly spreading through the Western mainstream media and policy discourse.

The main objective of this exercise is to avoid simplistic interpretations—such as the very concept of Putin as the alfa-omega beginning and end of the Russian universe. While these interpretations may be useful to quickly communicate with the wide, absent-minded public opinion, they end up confirming pseudo-theories about Russia being unavoidably different and irrationally aggressive on the international level. These interpretations also prevent us from developing an understanding of what Moscow really wants to achieve so that we can ultimately reach an agreement that is beneficial to both sides.

From Red threat to Russia threat 

The main misunderstanding—“main” because it, in turn, generates many more misunderstandings, concerns the evaluation of how much of contemporary Russia can be ascribed to Soviet times and how much derives from Russia’s political evolution over the last 25 years.

Due to a series of convenient circumstances, both political and cultural, the choice has been to interpret events in terms of a complete continuity with the past, positing a total and automatic overlap between the logic of the Kremlin’s actions in Soviet times and now.

Among the (banal) cultural reasons of this homologation there is also the difficulty of the West to find new expertise on Russian affairs that has developed independently of the study of the USSR. This is also due to insufficient investment in research and studies on Russia promoted in the 1990s, when the geopolitical importance of the country collapsed.

An entire generation of scholars and analysts was lost, so much that today the Kremlin’s news of the day is commented on by experts of the Soviet period or dealt with using daily-news narratives.

The resulting reports are not necessarily wrong, but give little contribution to understanding what is new in Moscow.

The prejudices that accompany these beliefs lead us to think, ex ante, that any crisis may also involve Moscow and make it the first suspect for triggering it; ex post, that the involvement of Russia may only make the situation worse rather that improve it.

On the other hand, the political reasons for this lack of will to accept contemporary Russia as something different from the USSR are less casual, more sophisticated, and correspond to a strategic upstream choice, i.e. the need for Western political systems to find an external enemy to unite the fissures that are open within Western society.

From this perspective, Moscow looks like the perfect enemy because it is: a) well established, due to its long history of opposition to the West; b) institutionalized, because it is used and prone to fighting and negotiating according to consolidated schemes; c) autarchic, because it is ready to take on an oppositional role for long periods; but, above all, d) easy to communicate to Western public opinions, especially during a period in which these public opinions have experienced more confused identities since the end of WWII, and are beginning to question the legitimacy of their respective political and institutional establishments.

In other words, Russia is a reassuring enemy, the “Devil you know.” It is preferable to other threats, from Daesh to various forms of terrorism, which are much more disturbing insofar as they are difficult to circumscribe and define; so much that their roots are in those very Western societies they fight against.

The old channels of the anti-Soviet mainstream, which is still alive, have encouraged European and American political communication to switch from the rhetoric of the “red threat” to that of the “Russia threat”—a short step, easily put into practice.

Nor has the inclusion of Eastern countries in the European Union softened European and American rhetoric against Russia, despite the fact that their inclusion itself was obtained thanks to the approval and coordination of the Kremlin, as Romano Prodi has recently reminded us.

Some EU founding countries—Italy among them—soon abandoned the belief that the new members (above all, Poland and the Baltic countries) would bring with them greater expertise about Russia thanks to their historic proximity to that country. Indeed, these countries often took the European positions to the extreme as a result of their negative experience and obsession with Soviet times. These countries sought confrontation with Moscow, then put up the predictable Russian reaction as evidence of the threat coming from Moscow in front of  the astonished EU older members, thus making anti-Russian positions even more negative.

From this perspective, it is no surprise that in July 2016, with the Middle-East ablaze, NATO gave priority to discussing military deployments in the Baltic countries; or that Merkel, in the middle of an unprecedented migrant crisis, thought it more important to implore German citizens to stock food in case of—among other things—a military conflict with Russia. It is even less surprising that a survey conducted in 2015 revealed that the majority of the interviewees considered Moscow a more serious risk to their security than the foreign fighters who graduate in British colleges and volunteer as Islamic extremists on the Syrian front. As if Russian oligarchs residing in London were scheming to detonate bombs in the heart of the City.

Having demonstrated that the reasons for the persistence and consolidation of the “Russia threat” rhetoric along the same trajectories that once belonged to the “red threat” are mainly political, the basic problem is that they create various distorted perceptions. Being widespread on intermediate levels, they end up being difficult to eliminate, influencing not only public opinions, but the very (micro) politics of the West, and increasing the gap between the West and Russia.

In particular, we would like to stress two main distorted perceptions: a) about the way and the instruments with which Russia interacts internationally and sets its foreign policy; b) the structure of domestic institutional power on which Russia bases its policy implementation.

Measured reaction vs over-reaction 

During the main crises that have taken place in recent years (from Syria to Turkey to sanctions and the doping scandal) Moscow, surprisingly, did not immediately respond rashly or instinctively. On the contrary, the Kremlin’s response has been measured and focused on political negotiation—most of the time offering concessions to the opposing side. This runs counter to the well-established Western myth of Russia’s propensity to over-react and retaliate, which is seen as an essential feature of the emotional and vindictive Slav spirit. In fact, for Russia the use of military power has lost its primary role, becoming a last resort rather than a first choice.

Russia’s emphasis on negotiations is designed to advance its national objectives, which are openly and overtly declared in the first place. This frankness is alien to the narratives of Western foreign policies, which are busy framing and communicating every action of Realpolitik in terms of the universal values they themselves have created; values that have turned out to be political golden cages.

Western countries seemed surprised and fell in the trap of making the discussion more aggressive—often using rhetorical tones that were, frankly, a bit coarse—as if they were nostalgically looking for a conflict with the Red Bear; like in the good old times, when a blunt, obtuse “Niet” (No) from Moscow was a cliché to recite like a mantra on this side of the Iron Curtain.

Lacking arguments that appeal to public opinions (and voters) that were becoming more skeptical and disillusioned, mainstream Russia watchers again focused on the fear of the “red threat” and the Kremlin’s obscure intrigues, as was the case with accusations that Moscow was working for the collapse of the EU—incidentally, nothing more alien to Russian national interests; or that it was supporting Donald Trump in the race for the U.S. presidency, or hacking into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

On the other hand, this negative over-exposition of Russia and its President in Western media has not always had the hoped-for delegitimizing effect. The unanticipated effect of continuously underlining Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian decision-making has been the creation of the myth of a charismatic leader in the mind of Western masses, as opposed to weak European and American leaders, so aloof in their bureaucratic short-circuits and internal political tactics.

If Putin is perhaps the only current establishment leader that can enjoy respect rather than disillusionment—if not sarcasm—of wide sectors of public opinion (not just in Russia), the reason also lies, paradoxically, in the public’s overdose on the rhetoric of the Western anti-Russia establishment.

Indifferent, but also annoyed by the excessive criticism it is exposed to in any case, contemporary Russia has not responded by easily resorting to weapons, which would have been typical of the Western stereotype of the Kremlin as being traditionally “trigger happy.”

Russian foreign policy has invested in the use of those means of persuasion\pressure\conditioning that are commonly included in the definition of ‘soft power.’ This was against the “Tank you” expected (and possibly even hoped for) by the theorists of Russia as a country always ready to attack—despite, we may add, its historically being mainly obsessed instead with defense.

To do so, on the one hand, Russia has resorted to classic means and methods of intervention, such as using energy supplies as a geopolitical instrument, and acting as a catch-all donor by allocating aid to strategically interesting countries and political actors. On the other hand, Russia adapted itself to using traditional Western means, even making use of, when necessary, the strategies and tactics of its adversaries.

This is demonstrated by counter-sanctions and the re-launch of the sector of media addressed to foreign countries (where Russia Today and Sputnik have taken the place of the old Voice of Russia, with an angle that is directly addressed to Western publics), up to marketing campaigns and tourist promotions abroad that aim to convey the image of a happy, optimistic country—whose ideological manifesto were, in a way, the Olympic Games in Sochi.

The significant costs of all these tools, on the other hand, do not prevent Moscow from using them, despite the economic crisis triggered by the sanction conspiracy, the low price of oil and the plummeting value of the ruble.

Unlike American foreign policy—which always keeps an eye on costs with a military industrial complex largely controlled by the private sector—Russia sticks to old habits. From the Soviet period, Russia has inherited a culture of public expense that prioritizes geopolitical objectives over the necessary costs to attain them. Paradoxically, despite considering the Kremlin as the natural heir to the USSR, the West has not fully grasped this element of political continuity.

This mistake has been paid for with  the failure of the main objective of sanctions: changing Russian foreign policy, and starting a crisis, first economic, then political, which aimed to change the leadership of the country.

The theory of the three Elites: spies, jurists, diplomats 

As far as the institutional structure is concerned, the toughest prejudice to overcome is accepting that the Russian political system is well-rounded, for sure hard to understand, but not impossible to understand. And the simplistic interpretation of a “Tsar ruling alone”—even better if he is a moody tyrant—shows its limits every time it is recalled to explain the Kremlin’s latest decision in foreign or domestic policy. When in the past the information coming from Russia was sparse, this approach could be used from time to time; now that relevant information is readily available, it shows its limits, besides some side effects.

Western countries have always struggled to understand the dynamics of Moscow’s decision making and the relations between Russia’s power elites. The attention, focused on the Emperor, has often concealed the lack of first-hand information about the Empire, and has made us forget that, in large countries like Russia, the destiny of the latter is always more important than the destiny of the former.

The direct evidence of this lack of understanding is the interpretation of the last fifteen years of Russian political history since December 31, 1999, when Vladimir Putin took Boris Yeltsin’s place as the President of the Russian Federation, at the end of a very rapid turnover—incidentally, yet another one that Western countries did not expect and that caught them unaware.

According to those who embrace a person-oriented interpretation, Russia’s last fifteen years have been dominated by Tsar Putin tout court, without adding many explanations.

It is a direct representation, easy to comprehend, which, however, does not help us understand several public policies and international choices that Russia has opted for in the last decades.

We believe instead that in the aforementioned period there have been three public functions played by distinct groups of élites as they rotated in and out of the Kremlin’s ruling positions. Though different they were not opposed to one another and they took the prominent front runner position in government according to the governmental priorities of the moment.

The first elite that was appointed to lead the country was from the intelligence service, in the first five years of the Putin era (the indication is obviously approximate), that is, from 2000 to 2005.

This group was appointed in the most important and most visible role to ensure safety in the country “the Russian way,” that is, as a reaction to the perception at the end of the 1990s that the state was dominated by liberal economists inspired by Gaidar, and was close to collapsing and being sold off to foreign subjects.

The modus operandi that was chosen was deeply rooted in the Soviet experience, since the choice fell on the representatives of one of the main elites of the Russian public administration, that is, the intelligence community (the razvedchiki).

This passage of recent Russian political history is best known and most visible to the West, and the fact that Putin came from the ranks of the intelligence service contributed to the creation of a series of negative narratives that linked him and the Russian elite to stereotypes of the “spies from the cold” of Soviet times.

What the West has not grasped yet is that this phase was only of a limited duration, and the fact that Putin is still the leader of the country does not mean that Russia is, just as simply, “ruled by the KGB,” an idea that the West is still trying to validate.

Though the intelligence community still continued to play an important role in leading the country, in the following five-year period (2005-2010), it ceded leadership to the emerging category of jurists, who started to take the most high-ranking roles.

They were faced with the task of the new emergency that followed, that is, (re)creating a middle class that was satisfied and, therefore, conservative (until then it had been almost non-existent and crushed by the 1990s gap between the rich and the poor) so as to consolidate mass consensus around the Russian leadership.

As Russia was, by tradition, culturally dominated by bureaucratic formalism and hyper-normativism, and witnessed the rise of oligarchs as the consequence of wild deregulation—which was recommended by Western aides to foster the free market—state jurists seemed the best subjects to grant the introduction of (some) rights and (many) rules to encourage the redistribution of income in favor of the middle class.

Rather than adopting economic and structural reforms—which were postponed time and again—the country reached stability by developing a state subject to the rule of law, with limited participation (a hybrid model of liberalism with little democracy), that still persists. This model looked more similar, however, to the Bismarkian Rechstaat or to Giolitti’s Italy from the beginning of the 19th century than to the recurring Western narrative of the “dictatorship of spies” mentioned above.

This second phase—which played itself out well before the patriotic solidarity that followed the Ukrainian crisis—resulted in the real strengthening of the leadership in the eyes of the population and the onset of a real majority consensus in the country.

The West would not acknowledge these changes, and for several years would continue to comment on the Russian leadership as if it were a group of “praetorian spies,” distant and insensitive to the people’s requests, which manipulates the result of the elections and is about to be wiped away by increasing, unstoppable grass-root opposition.

At the same time, the West would not abandon the stereotype of Moscow as the “dark city” of the Evil Empire, and failed to acknowledge the impressive urban and cultural renaissance experienced by the biggest city in Europe, the real beating heart of a huge country with a hyper-centered political and administrative organization.

In the meantime, once it was sure that “Ivan, the civil servant (apparatchik)” was socially put back on center stage and released from the humiliations endured during the oligarchs’ period (the public pillory reserved to Khodorkovsky is only the most striking example), the Kremlin moved towards a new political objective that has characterized the third five-year period, that is, the current phase that began in 2011 (ideally with the end of Medvedev’s presidency).

This phase is dominated by Russia’s strategic decision to resume its traditional historical role—on an international scale—that, rightly or wrongly, it thinks it deserves: to return to being the main geopolitical interlocutor, if not competitor, of the U.S.

Among the three objectives of the government in the fifteen years under analysis, this one directly involves the country’s foreign policy, which now again occupies the heart of the political agenda after two decades in which the domestic dimension was primary.

As a consequence, the third elite that has emerged at center stage are diplomats, another top function in Russia’s public administration. By diplomats we mean not only not only the powerful MID (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) personnel, but also the graduates of MGIMO State University of International Relations—the prestigious, isolated “Grand École” that has now regained its former glory.

Professional diplomats also take on positions at the top of the Ministry, thus creating an efficient functional bridge between the political level and the administration. Moreover, when they are sent to the main reference embassies, their mandate is uncharacteristically longer and they are involved in prior consultations by the Presidential Administration, the real political and constitutional heart of the Federation’s policy making. Incidentally, here we have also seen the rise of MGIMO graduates to key positions—from discreet but ubiquitous Yuri Ushakov, the President’s main counselor for foreign policy, to Anton Vaino, the head of the Presidential Administration, to his deputy Vladimir Ostrovenko, to the President’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

This happens both on the multilateral level (before becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov was the Russian Ambassador at the UN in New York) and on the bilateral one: the Kremlin’s main decisions in foreign policy have witnessed a growing, precise, direct involvement of embassies and ambassadors like of Sergei Razov (in Beijing for a decade, now in Rome), Vladimir Chizhov (in Brussels for over 10 years), Alexander Yakovenko (in London since 2011), Vladimir Grinin (in Berlin since 2010), Alexei Meshkov (in Rome for a decade, now vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs with the crucial mandate for European Affairs), etc.

The return of the diplomats to the core of the public administration does not imply the demise of the other two elite groups (intelligence servants and jurists), which keep dictating Russia’s domestic political course of action.

Rather, their growing influence is functional: to affirm and fine-tune the technical use of those instruments of foreign policy mentioned above, which clearly contradict some of the stereotypes most rooted in Western governments, preventing them from understanding not only Moscow’s final objectives, but also the meaning behind its intermediate moves.

While in the last three decades the Kremlin has been intensively working on its foreign policy and developing bilateral contacts with each Western actor individually at an unprecedented pace—despite, or maybe, thanks to the hostility of the EU and NATO—the Western mainstream has not revised its own categories.

It keeps telling us that Germany is no longer the same as it was at the time of the Third Reich, but Russia remains essentially Soviet to its core and that this will never change.

By Alfons

 

 

Why is it that the M17 tragedy is a big cover up by the western countries?

The vile, despicable, scummy Dutch government said the other day that the findings on the M17 black box and the air traffic control tapes in the Kiev control tower around the time of the M17 shoot down will not be released! The Netherlands and two other evil countries, the US and UK, reportedly signed a non-disclosure agreement about the contents in the black box and the ATC tapes. The Kiev government has refused to release the ATC tapes for a very long time now. No one in any Western government and not one single Western media source has called on Kiev to release the tapes.

Word is that although the huge investigative team (they brought 133 investigators with them to the crash site) from Malaysia concluded that the Ukrainian government shot down the jet with an SU-25 fighter jet that was tailing the jet, the Malaysian government is trying to cover up the findings of the commission. Malaysian government officials are on record as saying that the reported findings of the commission are not true – they denied that the commission determined that the Ukrainian government shot down the jet with a fighter plane.

The investigators found that the fighter first fired an air to air missile at the jet. This heat seeking missile hit the jet in the engine, setting it on fire. The fighter then attacked the jet with a 30mm machine gun, riddling both sides of the cockpit with bullet holes. Investigators said that the inside of a cockpit looked like a bloodbath. Photos of the cockpit do show what appear to be holes from some sort of a gun.

A Spanish air traffic controller working in Kiev tweeted for some time before the shoot down that a Ukrainian fighter jet was dogging the plane. He then tweeted that the plane had gone down and that the word in the air traffic controller tower was that the Ukrainian government did it. He tweeted that the fighter shot down the jet.

He was also privy to Ukrainian government communications in the tower. Apparently only one part of the Ukrainian government had planned the shoot down; the rest of the government knew nothing about the plot.

He heard a communication from the Interior Department that said, “Our guys just shot down that jet. Who gave the order to do that? Why did we shoot down that jet?”

An hour after the shoot down, Ukrainian government officials came into the tower and confiscated all of the air traffic control tapes. They also told all of the controllers that they were confiscating their computers. All foreign air traffic controllers were fired on that day. The Spanish government tried to cover for the murderers by insisting that the Spanish controller named Buka did not work there. They issues a statement that said, “No Spanish citizen is working in that ATC tower.” However, Life News managed to confirm the man’s identity and also confirmed the fact that he worked in the tower. This means that the Spanish government was in on the cover up for the murderers.

The US had a spy satellite right over the area of the shoot down at the time the jet went down. In addition, a US Navy vessel equipped with fancy intelligence capabilities was in the Black Sea at the time not far from the shoot down site. Other Western countries also have extensive intelligence capabilities in that region. It would seem that judging by US’ intel capabilities in the area at the time, US intelligence must have known who shot down that plane pretty quickly, probably within no more than two hours. I would imagine that some other Western countries also discovered the truth on their own at this time, or, if not, they were notified soon afterwards by the US.

The fact that the US and other Western countries, who must have known that the Ukies shot down the jet, immediately waged a savage propaganda offensive covering up for the murderers and accusing Russia and the rebels of mass murder is absolutely sickening and shows the depraved and debased state to which the US and the rest of the West has sunken. One wonders what the media knows. At the very least, the media should not have been so quick to recite state propaganda word for word. What is the Fourth Estate anyway? An independent entity or an arm of the states of the West.

Deliberate falsification of history was described by George Orwell in 1984 as one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. By that metric, all of the Western states are now totalitarian states. How pitiful is that?

Even Malaysia itself is, unbelievably as it sounds, covering up for the murderers of its own people and trying to frame an innocent state. As you can see here, the official state line now about M17 is “it’s time to move on.” Gee, I wonder why they are saying that? Do you think someone pressured them or threatened them? Could it possibly have anything to do with this headline: Malaysia, US Armed Forces in Joint Exercise?

The only way this can be characterized is to say that the US, the rest of the West and even Malaysia itself are all now accessories after the fact to mass murder in the shooting down of a passenger jet. Malaysia is an accessory after to the fact to the murderers who shot down their own airplane full of their own people. Truly incredible. Furthermore, they are not only guilty of participating in mass murder, but they are also trying to pin the crime on an utterly innocent party.

What is incredible is that the only people in the US government with any integrity on this issue and who are refusing to completely cover up for the murderers are some elements of the CIA. A very famous investigative reporter has stated that his CIA contacts told him that some CIA analysts now believe that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane.

When the CIA is the only part of the state left that is not completely sociopathic, you know the government is seriously gone.

The only decent people left in the US government are in the CIA!?

WTH?

Alfons

 

Why does it take so long time to investigate in regard of chemical weapons?

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has a simple message for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: Stop with the bullshit.

Speaking with journalists in Moscow on Monday, Lavrov pointed out that the OPCW has taken more than four months to ‘analyze’ chemical samples from Aleppo, which would likely implicate Syrian ‘opposition’ forces in war crimes. And surprise, surprise — the OPCW needs even more time before it can release a report.

Meanwhile, it took this prestigious organization only four days to declare that Sarin was used in the April 4 attack in Khan Sheikhun.

Lavrov is not amused:

Four months ago, together with our Syrian colleagues, we sent samples that we got from Aleppo, after it was liberated. We believe these samples are evidence of the fact that opposition armed groups used chemical weapons.

Four months later — no results. And they say they need more time.

But this other unit, that processes complaints about the Syrian regime, as we were told, released a statement several days after the Idlib incident. And that statement confirms the initial allegations, allegations by NGOs and the White Helmets, that it was Sarin. So in one case we have 4 months — nothing happens, no information is released. But in the other case the other unit issues that statement in just 4 days. But there’s no data — what laboratory was used, what were the samples like, where were they taken?

How can this be? Lavrov knows:

The mission should provide for geographical diversity. As I said, this mechanism is comprised of two units, one receives applications and complains from the Syrian government, and the other processes complaints about the Syrian government.

And both of the units are chaired by UK citizens.

Lavrov then delivers the final blow:

Jokes aside, it’s an attempt to create a distorted perspective, and then to use this distorted reality to in an attempt to avoid an inclusive dialogue and switch to regime change operations. Another regime change operation in this region.

Okay, we lied. It probably took Lavrov 45 seconds to completely demolish this fraudulent organization and its benevolent ‘investigations’.

By Alfons

The relations between Russia and China is on track, and have never been better.

 

A high official Chinese member brought to Russia this message from the Chinese officials. Before my departure, I went specially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.

Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterized by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.

He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.

The “serious changes in the international situation” of course refers to the change of administration in Washington, and the new administration’s attempt to make trouble between China and Russia.  President Xi Jinping in his personal message to President Putin went out of his way to say that this attempt could not succeed, and that China’s strategic partnership with Russia “will not change”.

The message is of course primarily intended for the Trump administration.  The Chinese and the Russians scarcely need to reassure each other about the depth of their relationship, which they are of course far more informed about than anyone else.  However, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are anxious that there should be no illusions about it in Washington.  Alas, given the chaos in Washington, it is doubtful whether anyone there is paying attention.

by Alfons

 

Western Values ​​Community

(Eckart Spoo)
“With annoyance and disrespect,” the radio reported, Brussels had responded to the decision of Athens to allow the Greek people to vote on the assumption or rejection of the conditions under which the institutions of the western community of values ​​were ready to give the over-indebted, exhausted country an intermediate loan To be granted. The government had made many concessions during weeks of negotiations, also at the expense of some social reforms that the Syriza party had won the parliamentary election.

Clear. Where would our proud capitalist empire come from when the stupid people could be talked about? It is bad enough that the Greek voters of a left-wing party have entrusted the government. And now these people want to actually do left-wing politics – as if they had forgotten the historical lesson given them by the Western community of values ​​in 1967. According to the NATO plan “Prometheus”, Fascist military forces had putsched at the time to prevent an election in which the success of the former left was to be expected. The same thing happened in Chile in 1973. The murderous regimes of Colonel Papadopoulos, Pattakos, and Johannidis, and General Pinochet caused workers to become cheaper and no longer dare to strike for their interests. Human rights lost their validity for years.

No, democracy is not one of the ‘Western values’. Let us take Egypt, where General Mubarak was pushed out of power by a democratic election. Since the Western community was displeased with the religious party behind which the majority of voters stood, the military had to putsch again. And if Washington, as the leading force of the Western community of values, holds the democratically elected President of Syria as a villain, the country will be overrun with war. Good allies are the Arab monarchs, who create cruel and German arms, under which democratic impulses can not arise.

Ukraine is now part of the western community of values, after the US has used up such youngsters as Yazenjuk and has spent five billion dollars on preparing the regime change. According to the New York Times shortly after the bloody February putsch in 2014, the rights sector was decisively involved. Now these fascists belong to the Kyiv government, and President Poroshenko, billionaire ruler of a chocolate, media and armament group, promises the Crimea, whose population votes with parliamentary and national elections (96.77 per cent) for joining the Russian Federation Has to bring into the Western community of values.

Those who are committed to the democratization of the society in which we live are committed to the worldwide acceptance of human rights and thus to a regime of injustice, such as the US has established in Guantanamo, which harasses the rulers of the free market. They can only allow democracy in the manner of US presidential elections. Clear.

Translated from German: Alfons

The hypocrisy of the Democraty!

This article did I found in some news, and it gives you again the hypocrisy of the American democracy, when it is applied on the rest of the world and their view on democracy how it changed the norm.

 

Boutros Boutros-Ghali: An Appreciation

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 16 2016 (IPS) – Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who passed away Tuesday at the age of 93, was the only UN Secretary-General (1992-1996) to be denied a second term in office because of a US veto in the 15-member Security Council.

 Boutros Boutros-Ghali 

The US, which preaches the concept of majority rule to the outside world, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali had 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council.

But the US refused to acknowledge the vibrant political support that Boutros-Ghali had garnered in the world body.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

In a statement released Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Boutros-Ghali presided over a dramatic rise in UN peacekeeping at a time when the world increasingly turned to the United Nations for solutions to its problems, in the immediate aftermath of the cold war.

“Boutros Boutros-Ghali did much to shape the Organization’s response to this new era, in particular through his landmark report “An Agenda for Peace” and the subsequent agendas for development and democratization,” said Ban.

In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros-Ghali points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.

But still the US was the only country to say “no” to a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali although he also had the overwhelming support of the remaining 184 member states of the General Assembly at that time.

The former UN chief recalls a meeting where he tells the then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher that far too many Americans had been appointed to UN jobs “at Washington’s request over the objections of other UN member states.”

“I had done so, I said, because I wanted American support to succeed in my job (as Secretary-General”), Boutros-Ghali says. But Christopher refused to respond.

When he was elected Secretary-General in January 1992, Boutros-Ghali noted that 50 percent of the staff assigned to the UN’s administration and management were Americans, although Washington paid only 25 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

When the administration of US President Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, Boutros-Ghali was signalled that two of the highest ranking UN staffers appointed on the recommendation of the outgoing (President George) Bush’s administration– Under-Secretary-General Richard Thornburgh and Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed — were to be dismissed despite the fact that they were theoretically “international civil servants” answerable only to the world body.

They were both replaced by two other Americans who had the blessings of the Clinton Administration.

Just before his election in November 1991, Boutros-Ghali remembers someone telling him that John Bolton, the US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisations, was “at odds” with the earlier Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar because he had “been insufficiently attentive to American interests.”

“I assured Bolton of my own serious regard for US policy.” “Without American support,” Boutros-Ghali told Bolton, “the United Nations would be paralysed.”

Boutros-Ghali also relates how Christopher had tried to convince him to publicly declare that he will not run for a second term as secretary-General. But Boutros-Ghali refused.

“Surely, you cannot dismiss the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a unilateral diktat of the United States. What about the rights of the other (14) Security Council members”?, he asked Christopher.

But Christopher “mumbled something inaudible and hung up, deeply displeased”.

Boutros-Ghali also says that in late 1996 US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, on instructions from the US State Department, was fixated on a single issue that had dominated her life for months: the “elimination” of Boutros-Ghali.

Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed, an American, is quoted as saying that he had heard Albright say: “I will make Boutros think I am his friend; then I will break his legs.”

After meticulously observing her, Boutros-Ghali concludes that Albright had accomplished her diplomatic mission with skill.

“She had carried out her campaign with determination, letting pass no opportunity to demolish my authority and tarnish my image, all the while showing a serene face, wearing a friendly smile, and repeating expressions of friendship and admiration,” he writes.

“I recalled what a Hindu scholar once said to me: there is no difference between diplomacy and deception.”

One of his “heated disputes” with Albright (later U.S. secretary of state) was over the appointment of a new executive director for UNICEF back in 1995. It was a dispute “that seemed to irritate Albright more than any previous issue between us”.

President Bill Clinton wanted William Foege, a former head of the U.S. Centres for Disease Control, to be appointed UNICEF chief to succeed James Grant.

“I recalled,” says Boutros-Ghali, “that President Clinton had pressed me to appoint him (Foege) when we had met in the Oval Office in May 1994.”

“I replied to her (Albright) as I had then to President Clinton: that while Dr. Foege was without doubt a distinguished person, unfortunately, I could not comply,” writes Boutros-Ghali.

He also told Clinton that he was personally and publicly committed to increasing the number of women in the top ranks of the United Nations, and UNICEF would particularly benefit from a woman’s leadership.

Since Belgium and Finland had already put forward “outstanding” women candidates – and since the United States had refused to pay its U.N. dues and was also making “disparaging” remarks about the world body – “there was no longer automatic acceptance by other nations that the director of UNICEF must inevitably be an American man or woman.”

“The U.S. should select a woman candidate,” he told Albright, “and then I will see what I can do,” since the appointment involved consultation with the 36-member UNICEF Executive Board.

“Albright rolled her eyes and made a face, repeating what had become her standard expression of frustration with me,” he wrote.

When the Clinton administration kept pressing Foege’s candidature, Boutros-Ghali says that “many countries on the UNICEF Board were angry and (told) me to tell the United States to go to hell.”

The U.S. administration eventually submitted an alternate woman candidate: Carol Bellamy, a former director of the Peace Corps.

Although Elizabeth Rehn of Finland received 15 votes to Bellamy’s 12 in a straw poll, Boutros-Ghali said he appealed to the Board president to convince the members to achieve consensus on Bellamy so that the United States could continue a monopoly it held since UNICEF was created in 1947.

And so Boutros-Ghali ensured that the post of UNICEF executive director will remain the intellectual birthright of the Americans – even to this date.

by Alfons

Globala Overline Insidious erövring

Från konfidentiella underrättelsekällor blev det känt att Kina avser att inleda en försvarsallians med vissa sydamerikanska länder och Mexiko inom en snar framtid. Som en defensiv åtgärd mot en möjlig missilattack av Iran eller Nordkorea planerar man att stationera ett missilförsvarssystem på den mexikanska gränsen mot USA. Detta leder till att man även installera  medeldistansrobotar som kan utrustas med kärnvapen, som kommer att ingå i försvarssystemet.

Vidare avser Kina att bygga militärbaser i flera centralamerikanska länder, samt Kanada och Kuba. Dessutom, ingå ett samarbete med Rysslands missilsköldar och långdistansmissiler på Sibiriens nordligaste gräns, för att effektivt  möta en eventuella attacker från skurkstater.

Den amerikanska regeringen har fördömt dessa projekt som ett allvarligt hot och aggression och lagt fram en kraftigt protest. Från Washington hördes, att man inte skulle tveka att vidta lämpliga skyddsåtgärder mot en militär inringning av Förenta staterna. Likaså kommer det under en tid att registrera alla försök att destabilisera USA genom att stoppa och utvisa alla utländska medborgare.

Den första reaktion var utvisningen av företrädare för flera icke-statliga organisationer som påstås ständigt rota i ländernas inre angelägenheter. Från den amerikanska inrikesdepartementet framkom att det finns inre krafter som i uppdrag av främmande makters spionera, samt att det förekommer utbrytnings av Alaska, Kalifornien, Florida och Hawaii, från konfederation.

Det är känt att Mexiko sedan en längre tid kämpar för ett återlämnandet av områden, som tidigare annekterades, mot folkrätten av USA. Dessa stater är Kalifornien, Arizona, New Mexiko, Utah, Nevada och delar av Colorado och Wyoming. redan längre en avkastning på områden samtal, som bifogats internationell rätt av USA år sedan. Detta nämnde nyligen USA: s president till tjänstemän i militärakademin West Point, som ett historisk distorsion och ett helt oacceptabelt förslag. Enligt USA källor, annekterades inte dessa områden, tvärtom har det i grunden förekommit en rättsvidrig annektering genom México, där det förekomm genocid på den inhemska indianska befolkningen, detta innebar att amerikanska medborgare utsattes för lidandet. Skulle det uppstå en gränskonflikt,  kommer USA att reagera med militära medel.

I både den mexikanska och amerikanska medierna pågår ett djup propaganda krig. I Mexiko talar man om den ”rovlystna Gringos” som reagerar på den militära upprustningen och med provokationen och tal om återlämnandet av områden, med  av hysteriska provokationer, istället för att förhandla.

I den mexikanska och de amerikanska medierna rasar nu sedan flera dagar en propaganda strid. I Mexiko är det sagt att “rovgiriga Gringos” svarade att missil bygga upp ett missilförsvar och politiska  hysteriska provokationer, i stället för att söka en förhandlings lösning. USA administrationen antar att de utöka sitt inflytande genom att ständigt underkuva andra länders befolkning, genom att tala om det exceptionella USA, det vill säga “Guds eget land” som har över tusen militärbaser runt om i världen. Mot dessa anklagelser, de amerikanska medierna kontakt i den slutna falangen, sade en smygande erövringspolitik av “gulingar”, “Chico” och “ryssar bastards” nämns.

De exakta orsakerna till den allt mer eskalerande konflikten kan man knappast förstå. Nu när även EU däribland Tyskland, har ställd sig på den amerikanska sidan. är kan nog klargöra knappt.  Den tyska förbundskanslern har redan genom flera telefonsamtal till kinesiska och ryska presidenter försökt att medla. Presidenterna i Bolivia och Venezuela har varnat för en ytterligare upptrappning som skulle kunna leda till ett tredje världskrig och en konfrontation av kärnvapenmakterna, med oförutsägbara konsekvenser. (PK)

Wolfgang Bittner är en författare och advokat. Nyligen publicerade sin hyllade bok “Erövringen av Europa av Förenta staterna” (http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=21117).

Översatt från tyska

Alfons

The inner circle of an Empire

It was bound to be the case that if a U.S. president ever admitted that the United States murdered people and did so on a scale at least as significant as other countries, he would be defending the practice, not denouncing it.

It is not a secret in much of the world that the United States is (as that Putin stooge Martin Luther King Jr. put it) the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. The United States is the top weapons dealer, the top weapons buyer, the biggest military spender, the most widespread imperial presence, the most frequent war maker, the most prolific overthrower of governments, and from 1945 to 2017 the killer of the most people through war.

During this past U.S. election, a debate moderator asked if a candidate would be willing to kill thousands of innocent children as part of basic presidential duties. One can find many faults in Russia and other countries, but in none could one find such an occurrence.

I ask people at public events where I speak to name eight countries bombed under president Barack Obama, and most cannot come close. Nowhere else on earth can people not keep track of their wars.

During this last presidency, the United States developed a new policy of murdering people with missiles from drones. Other nations do not yet have anything to match it.

Hillary Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that a no-fly zone in Syria would require killing lots of Syrians, but told the public that a no-fly zone should be created.

For all its evils at home and abroad, Russia — over the years — has proposed complete nuclear disarmament, significant overall disarmament, a ban on weapons in space, and a peace settlement in Syria. The United States has broken promises, laws, and morality to expand NATO and its troops to Russia’s border.

The reality of U.S. foreign relations is generally treated as “fake news.” So, when someone like Donald Trump, who pushes lies and disasters like they’re going out of style, blurts out some truth, Democratic partisans are eager to denounce it.

But their blind partisan patriotism just reinforces the truth of what Trump said. As he pursues policies of “stealing oil” and “killing families” he is adding nothing new to the United States’ record. Killing has been the primary investment of federal discretionary spending since long before the days of the Bowling Green Massacre.

Obama’s Failed Presidency

I’m a former lifelong Democrat, stating here a clear and incontestable fact: Barack Obama is a failed President.

It’s true not just because of the sad realities such as that «Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94 % Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time» — or, as the economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz wrote in the original of that study: «94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements». («Alternative work arrangements» referred there to Americans who were involuntarily working only part-time jobs — they simply couldn’t find full-time, though that’s what they wanted.) In other words: Obama’s failure isn’t just because of America’s increasingly sales-clerk, and burger-flipping, workforce.

And Obama’s failure is also not just because «Poverty Rose In 96 % Of U.S. House Districts, During Obama’s Presidency». (However, that reality turned out to be decisive in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8th, as Nate Cohn pointed out in The New York Times on December 23rd, headlining, «How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump». Hillary was running on Obama’s poor record.)

Obama’s failure is also because of other important reasons. Among them is the uncounted thousands of people who were killed in, and the uncounted millions of people who became refugees from, the places where Obama (or else his installed regimes) bombed and caused the residents to either die or flee. George W. Bush’s destructions of Iraq and even Afghanistan were now being followed by the destructions of Libya by Obama and Sarkozy, and of Syria by Obama and Saud and Thani and Erdogan, who armed the tens of thousands of jihadists and sent them into Syria to overthrow and replace Assad — and Bush’s destructions were followed also by Obama’s keeping in power the barbaric junta-regime that replaced the democratically elected Honduran Presiden Manuel Zelaya on 28 June 2009 shortly after Obama entered the White House (and this junta-regime, in turn, caused Honduras’s murder-rate to soar 50% to become the world’s highest, which then caused hundreds of thousands of Hondurans to flee and become undocumented U.S. immigrants, against which Donald Trump campaigned).

The Obama regime has thus created far more misery outside America, than inside it. Failures such as those didn’t cost Hillary Clinton many (if any) votes (because most voters didn’t even know about these foreign-affairs matters), but those failures were actually even bigger than Obama’s failures in purely domestic U.S. policy matters (which voters do know about). Trump campaigned against ‘illegal immigrants’, but he never even called attention to those people’s fleeing the hells that the U.S. regime had created in not only Honduras but earlier in Guatemala and El Salvador — coups and U.S.-trained death squads.

In noting Obama’s failures, I’m not a Republican; I’m no one who is condemning Obama for his allegedly being a ‘Marxist’ ‘Muslim’, or some other imaginary distraction from the reality (a reality which is too Republican for Republicans to be able to criticize — so, they’ve insteadignored that reality, and cited fake ‘reasons’ against him, including ‘death panels’ and other fabrications, which Republicans then forgot about after their fraudulent allegations against him became clear, to all but insane people, as being just Republican lies).

Obama is a failure not because he wasn’t sufficiently conservative or ‘Christian’ (as Republicans had constantly accused him of having been), but instead because he wasn’t sufficiently progressive (nowhere close to being a progressive) — and, in many ways, he was actually far more conservative than any of his duplicitous campaign-rhetoric had pretended him to be. He’s an extraordinarily gifted liar — he was phenomenally successful at that.

And I am not blaming Obama for congressional Republicans’ having been more obsessed with making him be a failed President, than they were interested in making America be a successful nation. Republicans lie at least as much as he does, just not nearly as skillfully. (They especially can’t feign compassion as skillfully as he.) This article thus does not blame him for what the overt Republicans were doing to cripple the little good he had actually tried to achieve — such as closing Guantanamo. It’s only about Obama’s failure.

Obama’s failure was all his own — it’s not because of the good things that Republicans had blocked him from doing; it is instead because of the horrible things (such as his failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties, and his successful 2011 killing of Gaddafi, and 2014 coup in Ukraine) that were central to his actual agenda — a conservative, even reactionary, agenda, which favored the interests of the hundreds of billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations, above the interests of the 300+ million American people, whom the U.S. President is supposed to be serving.

I voted for Barack Obama both times, because both of his opponents («Bomb bomb bomb Iran» McCain in 2008, and «#1 geopolitical foe» Romney in 2012) were clearly determined to focus America’s enormous military expenditures away from exterminating the jihadists and their Saudi funders, toward instead conquering Iran (McCain) and Russia (Romney), and also because Republicans — throughout at least the period extending from 1910 to 2010 — consistently had, in fact, produced a record of far less success with the U.S. economy, than did Democrats, and especially because neither McCain nor Romney had repudiated the very worst President in U.S. history (at least prior to Obama) and his atrocious record of lies and needless bloodshed and invasions: George W. Bush — Bush’s Party instead reaffirmed that monstrous President.

And, consequently, I never expected Barack Obama to turn out to have been, quite possibly, even a worse President than Bush. Nobody expected that — except Republicans, for whom Bush wasn’t bad enough to satisfy them (and certainly not bad enough for them to apologize for — so, they did not apologize for him).

Here, then, is Obama’s astounding record of failure:

«From a Democracy to a Plutocracy»

«Understanding President Obama’s Strategy to Force Cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid»

«Obama Finally Lays His Cards on the Table»

«Barack Obama Is Now Completing His Long-Held Plan to Subvert the Democratic Party»

«Obama: ‘I Don’t Care About the Public’s Welfare’».

As that last one documented, the Obama ‘Justice’ Department scored an all-time low number both of financial institution fraud prosecutions, and of white-collar-crime prosecutions. Obama came into power immediately after an economic crash that was loaded especially with financial-institution frauds. He protected the banksters. So, financial-executive-fraud prosecutions didn’t soar, like they should have; instead they plunged. Like Obama told the Wall Street bigs, near the start of his regime, on 27 March 2009, in private, inside the White House: «My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you… I’m going to shield you». And that’s what he did. And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America’s Future, headlined «Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud», so there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to do.

The criminality was actually at the very top — where Obama had promised «I’m protecting you». So, the TARP’s Inspector General urged, on 26 October 2016 (since the President was refusing to prosecute those people), «that Congress remove the insulation around Wall Street CEOs and other high-level officials by requiring the CEO, CFO and certain other senior executives to sign an annual certification that they have conducted due diligence within their organization and can certify that that there is no criminal conduct or civil fraud in their organization». The Special Inspector General of TARP, Christy Goldsmith Romero, was proposing this, as being the way to make prosecutions, of these top-level fraud-executives, so easy that the Obama Administration’s claims — that there was no top-level fraud that could be prosecuted — would be an even more blatant, absurdly false, lie, than it had been.

If this country were Ukraine, or even Russia, then Americans (trained by decades of a CIA-controlled ‘free press’) would say «Oh, of course those countries are corrupt, but America isn’t like that». But, at least under Barack Obama, ‘we’ were that. This was America — and ‘our’ President was protecting the elite fraudsters, instead of prosecuting them.

Nonetheless, anyone who would say that the American people are not better off now than they were at the end of Bush’s disastrous Presidency would be either misinformed or lying, because there’s lots of data showing that, finally, eight years after Bush, Americans are better off than they were at the end of Bush’s miserable eight years (even though not yet better off than Americans were prior to Bush’s 2007-2008 crash). And the Administration published on December 15th its record of ‘successes’ «The 2017 Economic Report of the President» which was real but not adjusted for the fact that Obama came into office at the pit of the economic crash, which means that such ‘successes’ are almost inevitable, hardly a credit to Obama. But yet, the reality stands, that the Obama economic recovery was the weakest in the entire post-World-War-II period. Plus, the federal debt doubled on his watch, even while, as that Economic Report mentioned only in passing: «The United States has seen a faster increase in inequality in recent decades than any of the major advanced economies, and despite the historic progress made over the last eight years, the level of U.S. inequality remains high». Normally, after an economic crash, economic inequality reduces; but under Obama it remained at or near its pre-crash high.

It was an economic record (and an invasion and coup record) of which any Republican President could justifiably have been proud (since conservatives favor inequality, a caste system) — but no Democrat could (except fake ones — such as Obama and the Clintons).

 

Forget Flynn; Logan Act Could Ensnare Top Establishment Insiders

Written by  Alex Newman

Globalists and establishment types, watch out. The establishment media-driven brouhaha over Trump’s national security advisor Lt. General Michael Flynn, who just resigned amid the controversy, has resurrected talk of an obscure U.S. law known as the Logan Act. Passed more than 200 years ago, the federal statute makes it a crime for Americans to seek to influence the policies of foreign governments without official permission from U.S. authorities. And Flynn aside, there are plenty of Americans in that category — potentially including top power-brokers ranging from Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to senior globalists and Bilderberg bigwigs including David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

Anti-Trump forces and the establishment media organs they control have alleged that Flynn’s phone call with the Russian government’s U.S. ambassador may have run afoul of the 1799 statute. At the time of the phone call, Flynn was a top official on Trump’s transition team. But the globalists, Democrats, and others touting the Logan Act should be very careful what they wish for. If the act were to actually be enforced, more than a few globalists and senior members of the ruling establishment might find themselves behind bars.

In over 200 years, not a single person has actually been prosecuted under the Logan Act so far. But in their zeal to go after Trump and his officials for every real and imagined misstep, establishment media organs and propagandists have argued that Flynn violated the act. “Based on what has been publicly reported, it looks like Flynn may have violated this law,” wrote University of Georgia law professor Page Pate in a piece for CNN, widely ridiculed by conservatives and Trump supporters as “fake news.” Numerous establishment media organs carried similar claims.

The law in question reads: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Page, the law professor from Georgia, suggested that Flynn ought to be prosecuted under the law, and dismisses concerns by critics about using it. “There are literally hundreds of federal crimes in the federal code that are rarely, if ever, used,” he wrote, addressing the point by Flynn defenders that the statute has never been used to prosecute anyone. “While I personally think that many of these obscure federal ´crimes´ are outdated, misguided and patently unconstitutional, that doesn’t change the fact that they are still on the books.” And so, Flynn should be prosecuted, Page argues.

Details in the ongoing saga surrounding Trump’s former adviser are still hazy. But it appears that Lt. Gen. Flynn, who oversaw the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency during Obama’s term and argued against Obama’s criminal policy of arming terrorists before joining Trump as national security advisor, had a phone conversation in late December with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. What was discussed was not immediately clear.

Flynn was accused by leakers within the Trump administration — reportedly elements of the globalist “deep state” determined to sabotage Trump — of giving the ambassador the impression that Trump would lift Obama’s sanctions on the Kremlin upon being sworn in. What exactly was said on the call, which was apparently intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, will undoubtedly remain the subject of much controversy. But because Trump was not yet in office, anti-Trump voices claimed that it may have been a violation of the Logan Act.

With the media hyping the story as if it were the next Watergate, Flynn resigned this week. In addition to the alleged Logan Act concerns, it was also claimed that Flynn may have provided inaccurate information on the call in question to Vice President Mike Pence and other officials. The Trump administration, though, made clear that the resignation was due to a loss of trust between Trump and Flynn, and had nothing to do with the alleged “legal concerns” that the establishment media, Democrats, and anti-Trump agitators have been shrieking about.

Of course, as a senior member of Trump’s transition team, Flynn was hardly a “private person” seeking to influence another government’s policy. In fact, the White House spokesman specifically said that Trump’s legal counsel had investigated the matter and determined that there were no legal issues involved. “There was nothing that the general did that was a violation of any sort,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a Tuesday press briefing. “He was well within his duties to discuss issues of common concerns between the two countries.”

Still, Democrats in Congress refused to let go of the issue, perhaps hoping to keep Trump on defense as they try to undermine his campaign to “drain the swamp.” On Monday, Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee called on Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to pursue an investigation of Flynn. Citing establishment media hysteria, the letter claims Flynn “secretly discussed with the Russian ambassador, in possible violation of the Logan Act, sanctions imposed by President Obama.”

But the Democrats and their establishment media allies should think very carefully about their strategy. Ironically, it seems that a much stronger case could be made that Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both violated the Logan Act. A 2008 article by Pamela Meister published by Accuracy in Media laid out the case against both clearly.

In 2008, while Bush was in the White House, then-Senator Obama went to Iraq to try, “in private,” to persuade Iraqi officials to “delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence” until after the election. Of course, Obama was not authorized by Bush to try to influence the Iraqi government’s policies, suggesting a clear-cut violation of the Logan Act took place. The establishment media said nothing about the law.

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engaged in similar activities that would seem to represent a much more obvious violation of the Logan Act than anything Flynn is accused of doing. In 2007, Pelosi went to Israel and Syria. While in Damascus, she reportedly told Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad that Israeli officials were ready for peace talks. Israeli officials were stunned, and the U.S. State Department blasted the entire visit, saying it did not want Pelosi meddling in Syria or anywhere else. Again, the establishment media

was missing in action when it came to Pelosi’s apparent violation of the Logan Act.

Many of Pelosi’s colleagues could also be prosecuted under the Logan Act, according to experts. “If Flynn had discussions with Kislyak and, through that, the Russians, and he discussed a wide variety of topics, forget the Logan Act because half of Congress since the 1980s would be in prison if the Logan Act were enforced,” said Ed Turzanski, the John Templeton Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

The latest brouhaha over the Logan Act is rare, but the statute does occasionally make headlines in the United States. Most often, in recent years, at least, the law has surfaced in the alternative media in connection with the annual Bilderberg summit, a powerful network founded by Nazi SS member Prince Bernhard that brings together top globalists and lesser figures they hope to exploit who display the right attitudes. In 2012, Alex Jones, one of America’s most popular and influential talk-radio hosts, declared that the American attendees were violating the statute and should be prosecuted.

“This is illegal,” declared Jones, famous for using a bullhorn to lambaste elite attendees from afar, as he led chanting “Occupy Bilderberg” protesters outside the gathering in Chantilly, Virginia. “Government officials meeting and discussing policy with private interests in secret, or representatives of other governments, is a violation of the Logan Act.” More than a few activists, journalists, and others made similar statements.

As is the case every year, there were numerous prominent Americans in attendance at the secretive summit. Among them: then-NSA chief General Keith Alexander; Thomas Donilon, Obama’s former National Security Adviser; former U.S. National Security Adviser and “New World Order” promoter Henry Kissinger; failed GOP Presidential hopeful and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; ex-Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.); former World Bank boss Robert Zoellick; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Co-Chair and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; and many others. None were charged under the Logan Act, despite presumably lacking official permission to influence other governments’ policies.

The year before that summit, then-Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), a constitutionalist and a legendary figure in the liberty movement, also called for an investigation into possible violations of the Logan Act by Bilderberg attendees — specifically former Texas Governor Rick Perry. “This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved, I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media — I think that’s encouraging, too,” Paul said during an interview on talk radio, saying that Perry’s attendance was “a sign that he’s involved in the international conspiracy.”

In 2014, Bilderberg attendee Diederik Samsom, then leader of the Socialist International-aligned Dutch Labor Party, confirmed to this writer and others outside the meeting in Copenhagen that, despite Bilderberg claims to the contrary, attendees are involved in influencing policy. Asked if he was there in an informal capacity, he responded: “Well, I’m formal, because being a politician, you’re 24/7, so there’s no way of exiting my role.” Numerous other attendees and leaders have made similar statements over the years, showing conclusively that policy is indeed set at the summit.

One top establishment figure who has likely violated the Logan Act on multiple occasions is globalist “bankster” David Rockefeller, a leading figure behind the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg network, and the Trilateral Commission. Like other members of his dynasty, influencing policy around the world is par for the course when it comes to the current Rockefeller patriarch. And in his case, he bragged about what would seem to be an obvious violation of the Logan Act in his own autobiography, Memoirs, published in 2002.

“Some even believe we [the Rockefellers] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will,” Rockefeller explains in his book. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Another leading globalist who regularly meets in private with foreign officials is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who constantly promotes his vision of a totalitarian “New World Order.” Among other foreign officials, Kissinger regularly meets with the Kremlin’s Vladimir Putin and top officials from the mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictatorship. If anyone should be under suspicion of violating the act, it is Kissinger, who openly works toward imposing regional and the global governance on humanity.

At this point, it appears that Democrat and media claims that Flynn may have violated the Logan Act are beyond ridiculous. After all, he was not a “private person” in any sense of the word, but a top official of the incoming president. But revisiting the Logan Act and using the law to prosecute those establishment globalists who violate it would be an excellent idea. Perhaps U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions could dust it off and start seeking evidence of violations by subpoenaing Bilderberg steering committee members’ correspondence.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American

Alfons