Tag Archives: Europe

Will Washington Launch a Mass-Casualty “False Flag” to Sabotage Nord Stream? By Mike Whitney

The U.S. government will do just about anything to keep Europe in the U.S. orbit, perhaps including launch a false flag to keep the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from becoming operational. From Mike Whitney at unz.com:

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European-Soviet (re: EU-Russia) relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US-UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe.” Christof Lehmann

February 16 has come and gone without incident. The information spread by US officials and the media proved to be wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine nor did any of the unverified warnings turn out to be true. So far, neither the media nor the administration has produced a scintilla of evidence that Russia actually planned to invade Ukraine or that the presumed invasion was “imminent.” The whole thing may have been a hoax concocted by Washington to advance their regional agenda; we just don’t know for sure. What we do know, however, is that no one from the administration, the media or the intelligence agencies have offered any explanation, apology or retraction for their errant predictions. Of that, we can be 100% certain.

What are we to make of this? Why would the administration stake its credibility on a prediction that was so far-fetched? And why did the media participate in the ruse when they clearly had no hard evidence to back up the claims? Did they really think Putin is so cognitively-impaired that he’d order his troops into Ukraine just to follow Washington’s loony script?

No, of course not.

Then why did they do it?

Continue reading→

John Pilger: War in Europe & the Rise of Raw Propaganda, by John Pilger

It’s not inconceivable the demon Putin might have a decent idea or two. From John Pilger at consortiumnews.com:

Russia’s security proposals ought to be welcomed in the West, writes John Pilger. But who understands their significance when all the people are told is that Putin is a pariah?  

Oct. 8, 2014: U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a Ukrainian State Border Guard Service Base in Kiev. (U.S. Embassy Kyiv, Flickr)

Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened.  Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially the U.S. and Britain

On matters of war and peace, ministerial deceit is reported as news. Inconvenient facts are censored, demons are nurtured. The model is corporate spin, the currency of the age. In 1964, McLuhan famously declared, “The medium is the message.” The lie is the message now.

But is this new? It is more than a century since Edward Bernays, the father of spin, invented “public relations” as a cover for war propaganda. What is new is the virtual elimination of dissent in the mainstream.

The great editor David Bowman, author of The Captive Press, called this “a defenestration of all who refuse to follow a line and to swallow the unpalatable and are brave.” He was referring to independent journalists and whistle blowers, the honest mavericks to whom media organizations once gave space, often with pride. The space has been abolished.

The war hysteria that has rolled in like a tidal wave in recent weeks and months is the most striking example. Known by its jargon, “shaping the narrative,” much if not most of it is pure propaganda.

The No-Evidence Rule

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government.”

Continue reading→

Nord Stream: The Geo-politics of Keeping Germany ‘Down’, Russia ‘Out’, and Instability in Ukraine

The Ukraine situation shines  the spotlight on a critical issue: who decides European nations’ foreign policies, the nations themselves or the U.S. government. From Alastair Crooke at strategic-culture.org:

It seems reasonable to expect we will have this crisis with us – in its various forms – for at least the next two years, Alastair Crooke writes.

Macron in a remarkably frank interview with a French Journal put his finger on the main structural problems facing the EU: He lambasted the fact that the EU Council (and other EU states) had vetoed the earlier French-German proposal for a Russia-EU summit. The consequences to this omission, he said starkly, was that: ‘Others’ were talking to the Russians on the behalf of the EU. It’s not hard to surmise that he is implying that U.S. ‘interests’ (whether directly or via NATO ventriloquism) were the ones doing the talking. And that ‘Europe’ had lost its voice.

This is not simply a case of wounded amour propre by the French Jupiterian leader. It is rather, that some West European leaders (ie. the Carolingian Axis), belatedly have awoken to the realisation that the whole fake artifice of the ‘imminent Russian invasion’ of Ukraine is about corralling European states back into bloc (NATO) discipline. Macron – to give him his due – showed by his remarks at the Moscow press conference that he understood that silence at this crucial moment could define Europe for the next decades – leaving it bereft of the autonomy (let alone any modicum of sovereignty) that Macron so much wants for Europe.

The account of Macron’s press conference after his long tête-à-tête with Putin represents the contortionism of a French President unable to explicitly diss the dominant Anglo-American narrative on Ukraine, whilst saying – in barely coded language – that he was at one with Russia on all its complaints about the failed European security architecture, and the real risks of its toxicity for Russia that could lead to war in Europe.

Macron explicitly said that new security arrangements in Europe are absolutely needed. (In spite of his care not to poke the U.S. in the eye, he was clearly signalling a non-NATO ‘new’ arrangement). He also flatly contradicted the Washington narrative, saying that he did not believe Russia had an intent to invade Ukraine. Adding that in respect to NATO expansion, mistakes had been made.

Continue reading→

American Overlord Demands Europe Sign Suicide Note, by Finian Cunningham

America has treated Europe like a poor relation for years. Now it’s demanding that its ostensible allies forego sorely needed natural gas so the U.S. can continue to pretend it still runs the world. From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

The infernal danger is that Washington and London are pushing Europe and the world towards the abyss of a nuclear with Russia.

The Anglo-Americans are running a modern-day reworking of Operation Overlord, the June 1944 military invasion plan billed to liberate Western Europe from Nazi Germany. This time around, the billed objective is to “liberate” the European Union from its “tyrannical” dependency on Russian natural gas.

In reality, the unspoken objective is to maintain U.S. tyrannical control over Europe. That control is essential for upholding American hegemony and global power. The ultimate price is economic devastation and even war for Europe which the “noble” American hegemon is all too willing for its peons to pay.

This week, U.S. President Joe Biden showed off his overlord status when he arrogantly spoke for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at a White House press conference. Biden was asked about the fate of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany in the hypothetical event of an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Biden didn’t skip a beat to consult with the German leader. He peremptorily asserted the gas project would be terminated.

“There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” said Biden without hesitation. “We will bring an end to it.”

The American president was asked how this could be done given that the functioning of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is nominally under the control of Germany, not the United States. “We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it,” asserted Biden without so much as a hint of seeking any kind of agreement from the German chancellor.

The assuredness of Washington’s presumed ability to over-ride European sovereignty was a revealing and disturbing display of American imperial arrogance.

Continue reading→

Appeasement for a Good Cause, by Doug Bandow

A few kind words for appeasement, and a strong case for why the U.S. should appease Russia. From Doug Bandow at theamericanconservative.com:

Putin is not Hitler and peace in Europe is worth making a deal with Russia.

Russia appears to be on the brink of war with Ukraine. It would be a crime for Moscow to attack its neighbor, but moral considerations do not rank high with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, which likely makes him open to a deal.

Bargains, accommodations, and compromises, though sometimes tough, unpleasant, and distasteful, are the lifeblood of diplomacy. The U.S. should seek one with Moscow.

Of late, Putin has dominated international headlines, convulsed Washington, Kyiv, and Brussels, and challenged America’s attempt to extend its sphere of influence up to Russia’s border. The Putin government is threatening military action against Ukraine unless the U.S. and NATO make several concessions, most notably halting the expansion of the transatlantic alliance and rolling back force deployments.

Although the two sides are still talking, the U.S. and its allies have declared Putin’s clearest red line, Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO, to be nonnegotiable. Said Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend—including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.” Ominously, Putin dismissed the administration’s position: “The principal Russian concerns turned out to be ignored.” Absent diplomatic concessions, he is likely to take military action of some sort to justify his brinkmanship. The potential consequences range between awful and disastrous, including for Russia.

Continue reading→

The Ultimate End of NATO, by Scott Ritter

NATO cannot defeat Russia, but Russia may end up defeating NATO. From Scott Ritter at consortiumnews.com:

Russia’s goal is not to destroy Ukraine—this could be accomplished at any time. Rather, the goal of Russia is to destroy NATO by exposing its impotence, writes Scott Ritter.

High-water monument at Gettysburg National Military Park. (Veggies /Wikimedia Commons)

n the quiet fields outside the sleepy college town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, sits a bronze monument, in the form of an open book. Known as the “High-Water Mark of the Rebellion” monument, it contains the identities of the various military formations that, in the afternoon of July 3, 1863, fought a life and death struggle on and around the soil where the monument is set.

Here, some 12,500 men under the command of Confederate Lieutenant General James Longstreet, formed into three divisions, and launched a frontal assault on some 10,000 entrenched Union troops commanded by Major General Winfield Scott Hancock.

While around 1,500 confederates managed to pierce the Union line, they were quickly surrounded and compelled to either surrender or die. It is at this point on the battlefield that the “High-Water” monument is located, commemorating what has become to be known as “Pickett’s Charge,” named after one of the division commanders who participated in the battle.

The Confederate Army was able to withdraw from the Gettysburg battlefield in good order to continue to fight for nearly two more years, before surrendering. But it never recovered from the disaster that was Pickett’s Charge. It was truly the High-Water Mark of the Rebellion.

A Messy History

Students of history might be experiencing what Yogi Berra once famously called “Déjà vu all over again” when examining the frenetic activities undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) today, as it responds to what it alleges is a provocative Russian military buildup along the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Continue reading→

To What End? By The Zman

Because our government has become increasingly opaque, it has become difficult to determine why it acts the way it does. Case in point: U.S. policy towards Russia. From The Zman at thezman.com:

It has been noted many times now that people in the West have to read American media the same way they used to read the Soviet media. Most of what we get from mainstream sources is the natural propaganda one expects from the toadies and bootlickers that follow every authoritarian regime. Other pieces are planted by regime elements for reasons that are not always obvious. As with Kremlinology a generation ago, regime-ology is something of sport now.

For example, the regime keeps planting these stories about an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine in their favorites outlets. A few days ago this entirely made up report was sprinkled all over regime media. It painted a grim picture of the attack that we are told was happening any minute. Of course, the White House comes out every day and tells the stenographers in the press pool that the Russians will invade Ukraine as soon as tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes.

Today we have the latest regime scare story written by one of the zombies at their favorite outlet. The point of this story is to embarrass French President Emmanuel Macron who is trying to work out a deal with the Russians. He has been meeting with the parties the last two weeks to put an end to the situation. Unlike the Washington regime, Europe has no interest in war over Ukraine. The Europeans can read a map and they are not insane.

Continue reading→

America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European and Other Allies, by Michael Hudson

The U.S. government does not want to see Europe drawn into the Russian-Chinese Eurasian orbit. From Michael Hudson at unz.com:

The U.S. aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia

The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within America’s own economic orbit. Allies are to forego the benefits of importing Russian gas and Chinese products, buying much higher-priced U.S. LNG and other exports, capped by more U.S. arms.

The sanctions that U.S. diplomats are insisting that their allies impose against trade with Russia and China are aimed ostensibly at deterring a military buildup. But such a buildup cannot really be the main Russian and Chinese concern. They have much more to gain by offering mutual economic benefits to the West. So the underlying question is whether Europe will find its advantage in replacing U.S. exports with Russian and Chinese supplies and the associated mutual economic linkages.

What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them, what is the need for NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?

These are the concerns that have prompted French President Macron to call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to turn away from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and break with the pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany is balking at demands that it freeze by this coming March by going without Russian gas.

Continue reading→

Europe Unemployment. Big Government, Less Jobs, by Daniel Lacalle

Bigger government means a smaller private sector and less wealth to create innovation and jobs. From Daniel Lacalle at dlacalle.com:

The unemployment rate in the Euro Area fell to 7% in December and 6.4% in the European Union, compared with the United States at 3.9%. We cannot forget that these unemployment rates do not include furloughed jobs covered by unemployment retention schemes, which account for another 5 million workers waiting to return to normal activity.

After a fiscal stimulus plan of more than 5% of GDP in 2020 and another 4% in 2021 and the European Central Bank purchasing 100% of net issuances from most sovereigns, the recovery shows a concerning weakness. Furlough jobs are rising again, working hours are still below the pre-pandemic level and real wages are falling as inflation eats the recovery.

In December 2021, the youth unemployment rate was 14.9% in both the EU and the euro area.

These unemployment levels are high, but some member states have even higher jobless ratios. Spain has a 13% official unemployment rate with still 220 thousand furlough jobs, and the youth unemployment rate stands at 30%.

What these figures show is that high government spending and enormous employment retention schemes have not helped to get the European economy recovering faster or improve job creation compared to similar economic zones.

The economic recovery has been slow and the job creation even slower. Furthermore, a large proportion of the job recovery has been from the public sector. In Spain, for example, there are still 95k less jobs in the private sector than before the pandemic and 220k more in the public sector.

Continue reading→

What Matters Most to Nations and Peoples? By Patrick J. Buchanan

Most Americans are far more concerned with our nation’s borders, particularly the southern one, than they are with the territorial integrity of Ukraine. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Speaking in Conroe, Texas, last weekend, former President Donald Trump accused his successor of allowing millions of migrants to enter the country illegally across our Southern border.

“The most important border … for us is not Ukraine’s border but America’s border,” thundered Trump.

“Before Joe Biden sends any troops to defend a border in Europe, he should be sending troops to defend our border right here in Texas.”

Thus did Trump not only frame a compelling issue for the fall election; he has framed an issue that touches on one of the great and deepening divides of our time.

Which matters more — the defense of our country from an invasion of migrants from the Third World, or the defense of the borders of distant nations that have little or nothing to do with the security or survival of the United States?

Why should who rules the Russified Donbas be America’s concern?

This “border issue” feeds into other Republican issues.

For the border crossers seen on national TV appear to be mostly young men, who will likely contribute to the crime crisis of shootings and killings plaguing America’s cities.

Illegal immigration is also the ways and means by which illegal drugs enter the United States. Last year, 100,000 Americans, most of them young, died of overdoses, with two-thirds of these Americans succumbing to fentanyl that is produced in China and comes through Mexico.

Continue reading→