Saturday 16th of January 2021

undeniable glorious three-stars bullshit... never trust history as told by generals and warmongers...


Herbert Raymond McMaster is able to look back on a long career in the United States Army. When the Iron Curtain fell in Europe, he was stationed in Bavaria as an officer in an Armored Cavalry Regiment that patrolled the border between West and East Germany. In February 1991, he commanded a battle during the Gulf War in Kuwait in which 28 Iraqi tanks were destroyed within minutes.

In February 2017, Donald Trump appointed the three-star general as his national security adviser. Once in the White House, McMaster quickly locked horns with the president. He urged the U.S. government to stand by its European partners and advised the president not to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which made him a target for Trump’s chief adviser Steve Bannon, who wanted the president to pursue a populist course. 

The right-wing website Breitbart, where Bannon had worked for years, launched a smear campaign against McMaster. When McMaster later publicly contradicted Trump and declared it was "undeniable” that the Kremlin had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, it didn’t take long before the president fired him. Today, McMaster, 58, is a researcher at Stanford University in California. His new book, "Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World,” was published by HarperCollins in September.



Note by Gus: HarperCollins is a subsidiary of News Corp. News Corp is a Rupert Murdoch organisation... The fact-checks on the McMaster's book has been left to a studious family of famished rats dwelling in the ceiling under the polished cranium of Mr McMaster... Meanwhile Der Spiegel HATES Putin beyond white rage and will believe anyone who sleeps on the same pillow on fire.


In this interview with McMaster we get the usual Putin did this, Putin did that: the downing of MH 17, Ukraine whatever (the US financed the revolution there and Joe Biden was the buddy of the corrupt president), Crimea (which was Russian in spirit and in reality — with a takeover achieve with a fair and square vote), the poisoning of the Skripals (with not a single proof that Putin did it), the election of Trump (with not a single proof that Putin did it, though it can be said that Rupert Murdoch worked his butt off to make sure Trump got elected), the poisoning of Navalny (with not a single proof, nor a single motive), 



Here is a sample of the crap:


McMaster: I think it expresses a remarkable level of self-loathing and moral equivalency that is the bane of the West these days. We all live in democratic countries. We enjoy the rule of law, a free press and a market economy that rewards initiative -- and at the same time, we fail to recognize how much autocratic countries stifle human freedom.


Now, if you don't know it, Julian Assange is in prison... A free press? Please! A market economy? Where were you, Mr McMaster, when the market stuff up the entire world economy with Subprime crap that we still suffer from today 12 years later? Where are you living now, considering the USA owe US$30 trillions to the rest of the planet?


More crap?:


DER SPIEGEL: In your book, you primarily describe Russia as a threat to the free world. What is dangerous about Putin?

McMaster: Putin doesn't feel bound by our moral standards. For example, there is irrefutable evidence that the Russians shot down a passenger plane over Ukraine in 2014. Putin tried to kill former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a nerve agent, endangering the lives of thousands of British citizens. Most recently, he tried to poison the regime critic Alexei Navalny. Putin denies all of this. He believes the West is weak and he can get away with murder, sometimes literally.


THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THIS, EXCEPT IN McMASTER'S crappy mind — and this is dangerous, considering the clout guys like him have had and still have... Der Spiegel should be ashamed...


Beware of history as told by starry Generals and warmongers...



mission accomplished...

This week, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that it would welcome specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to work jointly with their Russian counterparts to conduct a fair and objective investigation into the alleged poisoning of opposition figure Alexei Navalny.

It will be impossible to avoid introducing new sanctions against Russia if the OPCW confirms the German military's assessment on Alexei Navalny's suspected poisoning, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has announced.

"If the results of the German, Swedish and French laboratories are confirmed, there will be a clear response from the European Union," Maas said, speaking to online news portal t-online in an interview published Saturday.

"I am convinced that in that case sanctions will be impossible to avoid," the foreign minister added.

Asked which individuals or entities such new sanctions would target, Maas said that they must be "targeted and proportionate."

"But such a grave violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention cannot go unanswered. We agree on that in Europe," the German top diplomat added.


Read more:




Question one: What was the purpose of poisoning Navalny? 

Answer: dump heaps of shit on Putin, prevent Russia from supplying gas to Germany — mission accomplished...


Question two: Why poison Navalny without killing him?

Answer: Russia was having some "local" elections soon after the failed "poisoning" of Navalny. Why would Putin raise Navalny's profile in the media by having him half-poisoned? Make your fucking brains work... Putin isn't stupid.


Let the Germans deal with (get fucked by) the USA as they please... The USA are bullies and there is nothing one can do about it. Our media is poor and the so-called freedom of the press is inexistent. Journalists who don't tow the Western narrative get the sack. Many of then prefer to write slanted shit rather than starve... 



Please read also: of conspiracies, false flags, emissions, deceit and bringing out our dead...


... and remember that Osama bin Laden (not a very nice guy) was the best friend of the West when he was... blah blah blah... He had to be eliminated — not because "he did" 9/11, but because he KNEW TO MUCH about the US/West shenanigans...

back at the beginning of 2020...

Last week [mid January 2020], the IMF issued a stark warning about the global economy. While most large Western states are vulnerable to a new crisis, Russia has prepared its defenses.

Kristalina Georgieva isn’t any sort of conspiracy theorist; she’s the head of the International Monetary Fund. And when she warns that the global economy risks another “Great Depression,” you would think everyone would listen. 

But the Western reaction to her statement last week has been muted, with plenty of media outlets leaving it ‘buried in the mainstream’. Or simply ignoring the story. 

For instance, rudimentary Google searches suggest neither the Financial Times nor the Economist have covered her comments at all. If so, it’s ethically questionable but also understandable, in a cynical sense, given their complete attachment to the doctrine of Neo-liberal economics. 

One place Georgieva’s words haven’t fallen on deaf ears is Moscow, because her warning merely confirms what experts in the Russian capital have been saying for years: a major Western financial crash is both inevitable and reasonably imminent. And it’s going to make the 2008 meltdown look mild by comparison. 

The reasons are simple, according to insiders in Russia: western governments have accumulated too much debt over the past decade, and there are a number of concerning bubbles in the system. These include US stocks, German and British property, and the oversized valuations of tech companies, especially startups unlikely to ever return their costs. Throw in aging workforces, wage stagnation, higher living costs, and disruption to traditional industries from IT innovation, and you have all the ingredients needed for a ‘big bang’.


Read more:



The "big bang" came under the (dis)guise of Covid-19.... I am a conspiracy theorist.


Read from top.


the adults in the room were brain-dead kiddies...


by Doug Bandow

When President Donald Trump took office, his aides promised there would always be adults in the room. Especially when it came to foreign policy, learned, stable professionals would ensure responsible and intelligent actions.

Except the adults turned out to be idiots. They fought the president at every turn when he sought to withdraw from endless wars. They insisted that Washington remain allied to the worst of the worst, supporting the vile Saudi regime in its aggressive and murderous war against Yemen. They urged policies that treated Russia as a permanent enemy. They backed American dominance of every existing alliance and relationship, infantilizing America’s friends and maximizing Washington’s obligations.

Now former national security adviser H.R. McMaster has reminded Americans that many members of the infamous Blob, the foreign policy elite, are brain dead. Their thinking about the world ended decades ago. They mouth hypocritical platitudes while seeing everything through an antiquated prism.

For instance, McMaster recently charged that Tehran, a political, economic, and military wreck, has “hegemonic designs.” He made this claim after serving at the center of foreign policymaking in the world’s dominant power which is determined to be the global hegemon in control of every region on earth, essentially imposing the Monroe Doctrine on every continent. Supportive policymakers insist that the U.S. should intervene everywhere while no one else can intervene anywhere. Indeed, in their view America is entitled to meddle at any time for any reason.

Within the administration, McMaster orchestrated American support for Saudi Arabia, which did far more than Tehran to play regional hegemon. The antediluvian royals invaded one neighbor, deployed troops in a second, supported jihadist rebels against a third, kidnapped the prime minister of a fourth, launched a diplomatic/economic offensive against a fifth, and are promoting a civil war in a slightly more distant sixth. Riyadh’s behavior is reckless, dangerous, criminal, and, yes, hegemonic.

But it is in deploying the Munich comparison that McMaster, once thought to be an innovative military thinker, demonstrated that his time in government apparently killed off some of his once-abundant gray matter. In this he is not alone. Virtually every minor dictator in the most distant and underpopulated lands has been compared to Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler at least once. If we avert our glance for merely a moment, we are warned, Dictator X in Country Y is likely to launch a campaign of conquest across Continent Z. Or something similar. Thus only American intervention can prevent the onset of a new global dark age.

McMaster has been on a book tour promoting his latest tome with its utterly conventional demand for a harder line against, well, everyone. And why not? After all, surely America has money to burn after running a $3.1 trillion deficit during the 2020 fiscal year. With the federal debt already over 100 percent of GDP. Another $2 trillion or more in red ink expected in 2021. And the total “COVID deficit” predicted to run between $8 trillion and $16 trillion. But why worry: it’s only money!

Anyway McMaster was asked about President Donald Trump’s negotiation with Afghanistan. Is it America’s “Munich agreement” and “a policy of appeasement with Taliban”? Yes, replied McMaster.

It is hard to believe that McMaster doesn’t understand the concept of appeasement or know Munich’s circumstances. More likely, he doesn’t care about the facts and preferred to take a cheap shot at Trump, always an easy target.

First, appeasement is a time-tested and oft-successful strategy. It usually is better to make a deal than go to war. A little more appeasement before World War I involving Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which armed the gang that assassinated the Hapsburg heir, an obvious casus belli, might have forestalled a global conflict that consumed around 20 million lives and ultimately led to the Munich agreement and the far deadlier and more destructive World War II.

Second, on its face, Munich was a sensible attempt at appeasement. It redressed the World War I injustice of treating millions of ethnic Germans as pawns in a global chess game. At the Versailles Treaty conference, the oh-so-moral allies grabbed territorial plunder here, there, and everywhere, while prattling about self-determination. Hitler did not arise in a vacuum; allied avarice and myopia helped bring him to power.

Munich was a tragedy because the allies sought to appease the one person in Europe who could not be satiated. The pact transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany the Sudetenland, which was taken by Prague from the long-gone Austro-Hungarian Empire against the wishes of its ethnic Germans residents. Berlin won, yet Hitler was irritated that the settlement denied him the war he desired. He invaded Poland the following year. However, Germany was not as well prepared for conflict in 1938 and Hitler might have been removed by his own military, which was contemplating a coup because of his apparent recklessness.

The short lesson of the agreement: the problem was Hitler, not appeasement. Most Europeans probably believed that preserving the continent’s peace warranted shifting to Germany territory filled with people who should not have been given to Czechoslovakia in the first place. In the abstract, Britain and France had good reason not to back Prague in a war over what were frankly ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, London and Paris didn’t understand who and what they were dealing with—but they were not alone in sharing that delusion.

As for Afghanistan, one must hope that McMaster is not confused by the difference between Nazi Germany and the insurgent Taliban. A generation earlier, the Germans demonstrated their ability to wreak continental and even global murder and mayhem. In contrast, the Taliban’s motley mix of Islamists and opportunities at most threaten to gain control over additional territory in an impoverished, isolated land, located thousands of miles from America, which never had a strong central government to begin with.

Nevertheless, McMaster declared that “We will pay the price, and we’ll be back. We’ll have to go back, and at a much higher cost.” Why? Central Asia has no intrinsic value for America. The Taliban want to rule their villages and valleys, not threaten the U.S. at home.

Moreover, Afghanistan has no inherent connection to terrorism; the link was Osama bin Laden, who was initially involved there fighting the Soviets. After the U.S. intervened, he fled to and operated from Pakistan, a nominal American ally. And of course, he now is dead. Al-Qaeda’s remnants could operate anywhere, as do many of its spin-offs today. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, located in Yemen, has long been viewed as the most dangerous affiliate.

In any case, the region matters far more to the powers nearby, which have an incentive to promote a reasonably stable if not liberal Afghanistan. They do not want to see the return of terrorism. In fact, Christian Russia, Hindu India, and Shia Iran all have been targeted by Sunni terrorists. Communist China, busy locking up Sunni Uyghurs in reeducation camps, could be next on the terrorists’ target list. This gaggle of states has the makings of a good coalition to guard against growth in the Islamic State and revival of al-Qaeda, neither of which is in the Taliban’s interest, which would not want to trigger another round of U.S. retaliation.

As for humanitarian considerations, America has spent more than 19 years at war trying to create a liberal, centralized government where none previously existed. That is more than enough commitment of American lives and wealth.

McMaster’s strategic judgment is no better than his historical analysis. He complained that Trump’s exit plan “renders the war unjust, because we no longer have defined a just end.” It’s not clear why he believes leaving makes the conflict unjust. The U.S. got in for good reason, to retaliate against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, sending the clear message that attacking America and hosting terrorists that strike America is a very bad idea. Washington foolishly stuck around for another 18-plus years trying to make Afghanistan into a better place, a theoretically moral but highly imprudent objective. And now, years late, an administration is finally trying to stop wasting American lives and wealth.

In the end, McMaster sounds like just all the other policymakers who misled the public over faux progress in Afghanistan year after year. As the Washington Post reported in its devastating “Afghanistan Papers” project nearly a year ago: “U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.” Yet upon these claims, Washington wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

That is the true immorality, the shocking injustice, the criminal misconduct.

President Trump has gotten much wrong. But on Afghanistan he is far closer to the truth than the faux adults who surrounded him throughout his time in office. During McMaster’s next PR event for his book, he ought to be asked why purported leaders like him have so much trouble confronting their own failures.




Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.


Read more:



Read from top.