► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Europe’ Category

UKIP’s Nigel Farage blames EU for the Ukraine crisis

by Rodan ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Europe, Russia, Special Report at March 30th, 2014 - 10:37 pm

As much as the conservative media at the behest at the Republican Party is covering up the truth about the Ukraine, there is plenty of information that contradicts the narrative. The EU wanted to expand into the Ukraine to ad it to their transnational Empire and rape them for their resources. Putin had stopped the EU by offering the Ukraine money, then the EU used Neo-Nazi thugs to overthrow the Ukrainian government an install a puppet regime. Putin had enough and seized Crimea as a result of this. Yet you will not hear nor read about these chain of events in the American media.

The UKIP is an anti-EU party in the UK. Their leader Nigel Farange destroys the narrative about the Ukraine and pouts the blame where it belongs, the EU.

Nigel Farage has accused the European Union of having “blood on its hands” over the Ukraine.

Does that sound over the top?

Well it might if you’ve been taking your cue from much of the media this last month. Mostly it has been following the line that Putin is a warmongering bully whose incursion into the Crimea was entirely unprovoked.

But you really don’t need to be a massive Putin fan to acknowledge that Farage has a point. It was the EU that provoked this crisis in the Ukraine, not the Russians.

To appreciate how, you have to go back to documents like this, which outlines the strategy for absorbing Ukraine into the EU. First step is an Association Agreement like the one signed, behind closed doors, by its acting prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Brussels last week. Full membership normally follows later.

Well, that was the EU’s plan and it has been working on it for some time. The Ukraine was to form the jewel in the crown of the EU’s Eastern Partnership programme, which would see Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus brought closer to the bosom of the EU.

This was what David Cameron was endorsing last year when, at the time of Croatia’s accession to the EU, he described his dream of seeing a European Union which stretched “from the Atlantic to the Urals.”

The diarrhea mouth pundits beating their chests for confrontation with Russia are nothing but EU lackeys. I wish the Right in America would wake and realize how they are being deceived by people with an evil and sinister agenda.

Lloyd George’s War

by Speranza ( 235 Comments › )
Filed under France, Germany, History, UK at March 27th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

This BBC Timewatch documentary from 2005 examines the effects of David Lloyd George as British Prime Minister during World War I. It also features a critical analysis of his relationship with Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig as well as Lloyd George’s impact on the perceived history of the Great War in the 1920s. British Expeditionary Force commander Sir Douglas Haig had a well deserved reputation of being a commander who was profligate with the lives of his soldiers. Lloyd George recognizing that two British army’s had been pretty much destroyed - the first being the small professional army of 1914 was just about wiped out at Ypres in the Autumn of 1914, the second was the Kitchener Army which was raised after the destruction of the first army and was bled white at the Somme in 1916 and Passchendale in 1917. When  the great Ludendorff Offensive in the Spring  of 1918 (21 March – 18 July 1918)  opened with some initial tactical successes against the British, Haig desperately needed reinforcements while Lloyd George held them back until the right time because he did not want Haig to destroy a third army. Nevertheless, Haig was ultimately reinforced and he finally developed into a good commander and with the cooperation  of the French, Belgian, and the newly arrived American Expeditionary Force defeated the German Army during the Hundred Days Offensives (July 18 – November 11, 1918). Lloyd George was incorrect in his belief that Germany’s allies Austria-Hungary and Turkey were propping up Germany when it was in fact Germany that was propping up them.

I do not agree with the revisionists who claim it would not have made much of a difference if Germany had won World War I. The Germany of the Kaiser was an appalling regime which was completely imperialist. We now know that had Germany won, their demands on the defeated French and Belgians would have been absolutely brutal regarding territorial annexations, economic exploitations and crushing indemnities designed to cripple France for decades (see the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Treaty of Bucharest for two good examples). The big mistake the Allies made was in their refusing to deal with dictators and insisting that only a civilian German government should sign the armistice. This allowed the arch reactionaries to falsely claim that the German army was never defeated. In May 1945 the allies did not make that mistake and they insisted that the German Army surrender and that the surrender but unconditional  with no German soldiers marching back to Germany with their weapons and signs proclaiming that they never were defeated.

A critical evaluation of Field marshal Douglas Haig giving both sides of the story.

How Kosovo lead to Crimea

by Rodan ( 57 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Kosovo, Marxism, Progressives, Republican Party, Russia, Serbia at March 25th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Once again being brave and breaking with Republican elite opinion on the Ukraine crisis, Andy McCarthy explains how Progressive policies led to this moment. Unlike the narrative that appeasement led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, McCarthy makes the opposite argument. It was Tranzi progressive interventionist polices that encouraged Putin to annex Crimea.

In 1999 the US/NATO bombed Serbia to force them out of their province of Kosovo. This intervention was justified as humanitarian an defend by Progressives all over the world. The result was the installation of a Narco-terrorist regime with al-Qaeda links in Kosovo. Another result was the resentment in Russia over what was done to Serbia. Now Putin has turned the table and uses the example of Kosovo as justification for him jumping the shark by invading Crimea.

‘Your independence is irreversible, absolutely irreversible.” So declared Vice President Joe Biden, thrilling a parliamentary assembly in Pristina, Kosovo. These were still the early months of the Obama administration, and the vice president was touring the Balkans to take a victory lap in the breakaway Serbian territory whose independence he’d done so much to champion as an influential senator.

As Vladimir Putin tucks away Crimea, just as he clawed South Ossetia and Abkhazia back from Georgia five years ago, Kosovo is worth remembering. So is President Obama’s staunch support of Manuel Zelaya, the socialist would-be dictator Hondurans tried to rid themselves of back in 2009. With an unreconstructed Soviet imperialist eying more worlds to reconquer, one is constrained to ask whether the Beltway’s transnational progressives will ever be called to account for greasing the skids for him.

[....]

But the Kosovo precedent — which, as National Review’s editors noted this week, is one that Putin wielded as a club against the West while storming Ukraine — is not solely, or even mostly, Obama’s fault. He was a bit player in the closing act of a debacle that tossed territorial integrity overboard when our bipartisan foreign-policy solons decided it was inconvenient to their trendy priorities. In this instance, it was about appeasing Islamic supremacists.

Kosovo was an overwhelmingly Albanian-Muslim province of the former Yugoslavia. It had sided with the Nazis in World War II and later come under Communist domination. The mutual hatred between the Kosovar Muslims and Orthodox Christian Serbs resulted in centuries of dueling atrocities and efforts by each side to wipe out the other.

In the Nineties, while straining for independence from the Serbs, Kosovo served as a safe haven for al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. Like contemporary “rebels” in Syria and Libya, the Kosovo Liberation Army had moderate Muslim elements but also worked cooperatively with the jihadists. Naturally, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia became a cause célèbre of the Muslim Brotherhood and the global jihad. As night follows day, it also became fashionable at the soirées where transies convince themselves that Islamic supremacists will surely moderate if given the responsibilities of governance and will like us better if we support their access to power.

[....]

But the Kosovo precedent — which, as National Review’s editors noted this week, is one that Putin wielded as a club against the West while storming Ukraine — is not solely, or even mostly, Obama’s fault. He was a bit player in the closing act of a debacle that tossed territorial integrity overboard when our bipartisan foreign-policy solons decided it was inconvenient to their trendy priorities. In this instance, it was about appeasing Islamic supremacists.

Kosovo was an overwhelmingly Albanian-Muslim province of the former Yugoslavia. It had sided with the Nazis in World War II and later come under Communist domination. The mutual hatred between the Kosovar Muslims and Orthodox Christian Serbs resulted in centuries of dueling atrocities and efforts by each side to wipe out the other.

In the Nineties, while straining for independence from the Serbs, Kosovo served as a safe haven for al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. Like contemporary “rebels” in Syria and Libya, the Kosovo Liberation Army had moderate Muslim elements but also worked cooperatively with the jihadists. Naturally, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia became a cause célèbre of the Muslim Brotherhood and the global jihad. As night follows day, it also became fashionable at the soirées where transies convince themselves that Islamic supremacists will surely moderate if given the responsibilities of governance and will like us better if we support their access to power.

Andy McCarthy once again refuses to go along with the Republican Party’s narrative on Crimea an gives the background on what led to this crisis. Progressive interventionist policies have given justification for others to do their own interventions. Before anyone dismisses what Andy McCarthy has wrote, keep in mind he has been right about events like the Arab Spring. Do not drink the Tranzi Progressive kool-aid on foreign issues.

Libya which was another case of Progressive nation building, is a failed state  3 years after Qaddafi was overthrown by NATO and Libyan Islamists.

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — At the heart of the Libyan capital, the open-air Fish Market was once a place where residents went to buy everything from meat and seafood to clothes and pets. Now it’s Tripoli’s biggest arms market, with tables displaying pistols and assault rifles. Ask a vendor, and he can pull out bigger machine guns to sell for thousands of dollars.

Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking. The arms free-for-all fuels not only Libya’s instability but also stokes conflicts around the region as guns are smuggled through the country’s wide-open borders to militants fighting in insurgencies and wars stretching from Syria to West Africa.

The lack of control is at times stunning. Last month, militia fighters stole a planeload of weapons sent by Russia for Libya’s military when it stopped to refuel at Tripoli International Airport on route to a base in the south. The fighters surrounded the plane on the tarmac and looted the shipment of automatic weapons and ammunition, Hashim Bishr, an official with a Tripoli security body under the Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press.

Progressive foreign policy is a failure.

Update: Russia is throwing Kosovo back at the US and NATO.

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian television blasted viewers with 15-year-old footage of NATO bombing raids, burning buildings and wounded people in Yugoslavia on Monday to step up a media campaign against the West over the Crimea crisis.

State television and newspapers used the anniversary of the start of the bombing campaign to depict the West as hypocritical for saying Crimea has no right to secede from Ukraine when NATO used force to help Kosovo escape Slobodan Milosevic’s clutches.

A special program on state TV called “The Serbian Tragedy: 15 Years” hammered home Russia’s message that the United States and NATO are to blame for redrawing global borders, encouraging separatism and flouting international law.

Illegal actions come back to haunt you. The US/NATO’s illegal war on Serbia has now come back to bite them in the Crimea.

 

 

 

Monday Evening Crimea Speech

by Macker ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Europe, Orthodox Christianity, Russia, Ukraine at March 24th, 2014 - 8:00 pm

Grab your popcorn! Here’s Pooty’s recent speech to Russian lawmakers on the annexation of The Crimea back into Russia. From RT:

Why Obama will not shift gears on foreign policy; and indivsible anti-Semitism

by Speranza ( 88 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Cold War, History, Holocaust, Iran, Israel, Judaism, Koran, Libya, Palestinians, UK, World War II at March 19th, 2014 - 7:13 am

Miss Glick feels that Obama’s feckless foreign policy is motivated by his rather hostile feelings about America’s history both foreign and domestic.

by Caroline Glick

Just before Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out of the country.

As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.

As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012 presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.

He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.

With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin, it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin the error of his ways in Ukraine.

Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin.

And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.

[......]

But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is gone. So no one cares.

Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government. According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC.

He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still happily lied about it.”

If the Al Jazeerah documentary is correct, there is good reason for the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about the cover-up.

But there is no reason to be surprised.

Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US. It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons.

[.......]
A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians, the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US officials and citizens.

From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.

No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism. From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has led the fight against since the 1980s.

And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

[.......]

In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is also different.

IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”

White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white supremacy and imperialism.

Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained, “When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power – goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and the other against the past – two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the Palestinians and the Iranians.

But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.

Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.

But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s “moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his conviction that the US deserves its guilt.

Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign trail in 2012.

From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for its interests.

Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations that support and believe in the US.

Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.

So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn’t made any.

Read the rest - Why Obama will not shift gears

Miss Glick feels that one cannot condemn anti-Semtism and the same time seek to demonize and harm the Jewish State. Hence she feels that the U.N. International Holocaust Memorial Day gives the world’s anti-Semites a fig leaf of “moral authority” to engage in virulent anti-Semitism.

by Caroline Glick

On March 19, it will be two years since Mohammed Merah slaughtered three Jewish children and a rabbi in the courtyard of the Ozar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse, France.

Far from being a wake-up call that forced the French to their senses, and compelled them to purge their society of the Jew-hatred that inspired Merah to film himself blowing his victims’ brains out, his act served as an inspiration for other anti-Semites.

According to the French Interior Ministry, anti-Semitic attacks rose 60 percent in 2012 over 2011 levels.

Over the past decade and a half, anti-Semitism has moved from the backroom to the living room throughout Europe.

All aspects of Jewish life are under assault.

Religious observance has become an act of near rebellion against social graces.

In 2009, the British Supreme Court ruled that Jewish schools that followed religious tradition and only admitted children who have a Jewish mother were guilty of racial discrimination.

In other words, the British Supreme Court said that traditional Judaism is racist.

In country after country, campaigns to ban Jewish ritual practices are in full swing. Government after government has passed or moved toward passing bans on shechita, Jewish traditional slaughter of animals. Mila, infant male circumcision, is also under assault. Both, of course, are foundations of Jewish observance.

[.......]
Of course, even more popular than accusing Jews of subjecting cows and chickens to monstrous slaughter is the practice of accusing Jews of subjecting Palestinians to monstrous slaughter.

For Europe’s elite, radical and increasingly, violent anti-Zionism has become the anti-Semitism of choice. Among other things, anti-Zionists believe that Israel is inherently illegitimate and necessarily, and purposely, evil. For them, Israel is Nazi Germany.

And supporters of Israel are for them the greatest evildoers in the world. They should be accorded no courtesy, and be treated as human scum.

This has been made clear, most vividly in recent years on college campuses where pro-Israel supporters are run off campuses, shouted off stages and barred from presenting their views.

One recent episode of this sort occurred on March 5 at the National University of Ireland, Galway, where British professor Alan Johnson tried to speak in opposition to an initiative to get the university to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

A YouTube video of the event showed how a mob of BDS supporters prevented him from speaking. They shouted curses at him and his colleagues and demanded they “get the f*** off our campus!” Writing of the experience and the hate movement that stands behind it in The Times of Israel, Johnson reported that the student leading the effort to silence him is the head of NUIG’s Palestine Solidarity Society named Joseph Loughnane.

[........]

Johnson wrote that “the border between being radical and transgressive [toward Israel] and being anti-Semitic is now porous.”

Although accurate, Johnson’s assertion understates the problem.

Opposing Judaism and Jews, denying Jewish rights to education and ritual observance, and attacking Jews; and opposing the Jewish state, denying Jews their right to self-determination and attacking supporters of the Jewish state, are two sides of the same coin. There is no border – porous or solid between them. They are one and the same.

And all anti-Semites know it.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that attempts by French authorities to silence the anti-Semitic comic Dieudonne M’bala M’bala have backfired. The performer who invented and popularized the inverted Nazi salute has bridged the divide between French Muslim anti-Semites and French fascist anti-Semites.

The habit of Dieudonne’s fans to have their pictures taken at Jewish sites and Nazi death camps while performing the salute caused French officials to ban his public performances, arguing reasonably that his incendiary anti-Semitic incitement is a threat to public safety.

Rather than listen to authorities and recognize that Dieudonne’s actions are obscene, hateful and dangerous, the official ban on his performances has only raised his popularity. According to the Times, his most recent YouTube video had two million hits in its first week.

[.........]
But this is not the real reason that the ban has backfired.

The ban backfired because the French don’t take the government seriously.

How can it be wrong for Frenchmen to parade through the streets of Paris ordering the Jews to leave the country, when the French government also trucks in anti-Semitism? How can French authorities’ 14-year defense of France 2 television network’s invention of the Muhammad al-Dura blood libel be squared with their denunciation of Dieudonne? It will be recalled that in October 2000, France 2’s Israel correspondent Charles Enderlain broadcast a story where he presented doctored footage that created the illusion Dura had been killed while crouching in fear, by venal IDF soldiers in Gaza. That doctored footage served as the impetus for massive anti-Semitic demonstrations, and murderous anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in Israel, throughout Europe and around the world.

In January 2006, Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and tortured to death because he was a Jew.

Despite the fact that during his 26 days in captivity Halimi’s kidnappers telephoned his mother 700 times, during which she heard the tortured cries of her son while his kidnappers recited verses from the Koran over the phone, French law enforcement officials insisted that Halimi’s abduction was a run-of-the-mill kidnapping for ransom, rather than an anti-Semitic hate crime. Consequently they refused to accept that his life was in danger, or that they should devote resources to finding and saving him.

And their denial of the nature of the crime didn’t end when Halimi turned up naked, at the railway siding, with burns over 80 percent of his body, only to die shortly thereafter.

It took French authorities another week to acknowledge that Halimi was murdered because he was a Jew.

Two years ago, French authorities tried to hide the fact that Merah was a Muslim, claiming instead that he was a Nazi. When they were finally forced to acknowledge the truth, they blamed Israel for his crime.

Speaking to reporters, then-French interior minister Claude Gueant said that Merah was associated with al-Qaida and that he was upset about what Gueant referred to as Israel’s “murder” of Palestinian children.

The 17,000 Frenchmen who marched through the streets of Paris on the eve of International Holocaust Memorial Day in January and called for the Jews to get out of France see through French authorities’ hypocrisy.

French and other European authorities who libel Israel by projecting onto the Jewish state the crimes committed by Muslim terrorists against Jewish children do not scare the likes of Dieudonne and his millions of supporters.

[......]

And they certainly are not convinced of the error of their ways.

The simple fact is that you cannot fight anti-Semitism by endorsing it. The only way you can fight anti-Semitism is by fighting all forms of anti-Semitism, including the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

The European have good company in denying this basic fact. Senior American Jewish leaders similarly ignore it.

EARLIER THIS month, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee announced their opposition to state bills barring universities from using public funds to fund academic organizations that participate in boycotts against Israel. Bills of this type are being debated by the Maryland and New York state legislatures and are being drafted at the federal level by members of Congress.

Both groups claimed that they oppose the bills even though they oppose the BDS movement, because they claim that such actions limit academic freedom.

Three things stand out in their explanation.

First, preventing taxpayer money from being used to fund campaigns to demonize and criminalize Israel and so promote hatred of Jews has nothing to do with limiting academic freedom.

Second, the actions of BDS activists have nothing to do with academic freedom. By demonizing and intimidating students and faculty who oppose them, their aim is to end both free speech and academic freedom.

And conversely, fighting them advances both free speech and academic freedom.

Finally, it is simply bizarre that the ADL and the AJC felt compelled to weigh in on this issue to begin with. If they didn’t want to be associated with this action, they could have kept their mouths shut.

By entering the fray on behalf of the BDS movement, they gave legitimacy to it, despite their claims that they oppose anti-Israel boycotts.

Both the ADL and the AJC present themselves as among other things, Jewish civil rights groups that aim to defend Jews, including the Jewish state.

And yet, here they are making an artificial distinction between the two – a distinction not shared by the haters.

It is no doubt tempting to accept the artificial distinction between rejecting Israel’s right to exist and rejecting the right of Jews to practice Judaism. Doing so allows you to pretend that the problem isn’t as bad as it is, and to pretend that the fates of Israel and Jews of the Diaspora are not directly linked. It allows you to pretend that Jewish Americans who join the BDS movement are not anti-Semites. And it allows you to pretend that European leaders who minimize real anti-Semitic crimes by equating them with imaginary Israeli crimes are not inherently hostile to Jews.

But you cannot fight Jew-hatred by making distinctions between its various forms. They are all components of the same thing. And either you fight all of them, with no distinction, or you fight none of them, and even legitimize the bigotry.

Read the rest – Indivisible anti-Semitism

Putin’s pathetic dupes on the Right and Left

by Speranza ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Cold War, Communism, Fascism, History, Marxism, Nazism, Politics, Progressives, Russia, Socialism, Tranzis, World War II at March 18th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Back in 1938 the folks on the right moaned and groaned about “the injustices of “Versailles and that Germany had a right to the Sudetenland because of all the Germans who lived there (despite the fact that the Sudetenland had never been a part of Germany)  and to force an Anschluss with Austria. The Left (including people who think jsut like Stephen Cohen) in the meantime  denied there was any starvation in the Ukraine, that the purge trials were justified, and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a righteous one. The honeymoon between Right and Left lasted until Sunday morning June 22, 1941. People like Pat Buchanan will support any tyrant as long as that tyrant justifies his tyranny in terms of religion and “traditional values”.

by Ron Radosh

We live in strange times. The Cold War is over, yet when it comes to Russia seeking to maintain its control of Ukraine, a new group of apologists for Vladimir Putin has emerged. Once again, the group in the West supporting the hegemonic attempts of control of Ukraine by the authoritarian Putin regime is made up of stalwarts on both the Right and the Left.

Support for Putin on the Right comes from the paleoconservatives led by Pat Buchanan, the editors of The American Conservative, and the writers for the website Anti-war.com. The entire group comes from the precincts of what historians call the Old Right, a phenomenon that harks back to the old isolationism of pre World War II conservatives and the large group they organized, the America First Committee.  Their motivations have been succinctly summarized by James Kirchick.

A new concern has been added to the traditional non-interventionist trope. They are favorable to much of Putin’s growing domestic positions on issues such as the growing repression of gays in Russia, actions which they also look kindly upon and wish were social policy in the United States. Opposition to gay rights is combined with support for Putin’s attempt to build what he calls a Christian Russia, and concern for what Buchanan sees as something greatly lacking in the secular United States.  In his book Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan titled two chapters “The End of White America” and “The Death of Christian America.” He seems to be saying, “If only we had a leader in the United States with the vision of Vladimir Putin.” Indeed, he asked in one column, “Is Putin One of Us?” His answer, as you have undoubtedly guessed, is yes:

Nor is [Putin] without an argument when we reflect on America’s embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.

Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.

Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.

The “destruction of traditional values” in these countries, he said, comes “from the top” and is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.”

Does he not have a point?

As he bluntly says, America is not the nation “we grew up in,” and Putin sees Americans as “pagan and wildly progressive,” a statement with which Buchanan obviously agrees.

On the Left, leading the charge that the neo-cons are again trying to push us into war — a charge they assert whenever anyone makes an analysis with which they do not agree — is The Nation magazine and its writers and editors. And the number-one supporter and apologist for Putin is the historian of modern Russia, Stephen Cohen of Princeton and New York University. [.....]

In Cohen’s cover story in a recent issue of The Nation, of which his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel is both publisher and editor-in-chief,  he claimed that American media coverage of Putin and Russia is “less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.” According to Cohen, Putin has worked to support American interests in stabilizing his nuclear-armed country, assisted U.S. security interests in Afghanistan, Syria and Iran, and has magnanimously freed over 1000 political prisoners.

Evidently, Professor Cohen does not acknowledge that in Syria, for example, Putin has managed to box the U.S. into working with and bolstering the Assad regime, to which Russia constantly gives new battle-ready helicopters, and which to this day has brutally seen to the horrendous deaths of hundreds of thousands of its citizens, all brought down with Russian assistance. We are somehow supposed to believe that this is in our security interests.

Along with Putin, Cohen depicts the demonstrators in Ukraine as hardly “right-minded oppositionists,” but in reality as a group whose politics are never examined and which, he implies, is most likely made up of far-Right extremists and includes fascists and anti-Semites.  [......] The now ousted president of Ukraine is depicted by Cohen as presiding over a real democracy, and not anything like what he believes are the false portrayals by the  historian Timothy Snyder, whose articles in The New York Review of Books paint a not-so-rosy view of the old Yanukovych regime.

To Cohen, the crisis arose only because NATO expansion in Eastern Europe forced Putin and Yanukovych to rightfully protect Russia’s national interests. Moreover, U.S.-funded groups in Ukraine were interfering with domestic politics by bringing NGOs to fund democracy promotion, while trying to put provocative missile-defense installations in countries like Poland, meant to “subordinate Ukraine to NATO.”

He is angry that at the Sochi Olympics, the U.S. sent a low-level delegation, which infuriated Putin because it included “retired gay athletes.” How dare the United States do such a thing, knowing that Putin believes gay people should have no rights?  [.....]

Professor Cohen,  we all remember, was sad at the demise of the Soviet Union. He hoped it would not collapse and that it would remain in existence under the leadership of his beloved Mikhail Gorbachev. The last Soviet leader, Cohen believed, would have created a democratic communist state built in the tradition of the purged and executed Bolshevik leader Nikolai Bukharin, of whom Cohen wrote an admiring biography.

The liberal columnist Jonathan Chait gets it correctly. Writing about those he terms Putin’s “pathetic dupes,” he singles out Stephen Cohen and accurately calls him “a septuagenarian, old-school leftist who has carried on the mental habits of decades of anti-anti-communism seamlessly into a new career of anti-anti-Putinism. The Cohen method is to pick away at every indictment of the Russian regime without directly associating himself with its various atrocities.” It is not surprising that Cohen is frequently a guest on the Kremlin’s TV propaganda outlet, Russia Today, just as he would have been welcome on Soviet stations in the Gorbachev era.  In a recent radio interview, Cohen writes:

I can’t remember any Soviet communist leader being so personally villainized, that is we wrote bad things about Khrushchev, about Brezhnev, about Andropov, but we disliked them because they represented an evil system. We didn’t say them themselves were thugs, murderers, assassins, which are words that we attach to Putin.

I think Professor Cohen should look a little more, because I recall plenty of people referring to the Soviet leaders as “thugs” and worse.

The truth is that Cohen analyzes Putin just as he analyzed the Soviet Union, for which he always apologized. In an interview in the new print Newsweek (not online), Cohen said:

We hit Russia’s borders under Bush because NATO was in the Baltics. Then we had this episode in Georgia in 2008 because we crossed Russia’s red line in Georgia. We’ve crossed it in Ukraine. I don’t understand why people don’t see this. That if you send, over a 20-year period, a military alliance which has it’s political components  – includes missile defense, includes NGOs that get money from governments but are deeply involved in politics in those countries, includes the idea of revolutions on their borders — then eventually you’re going to come up against a red line that, like Obama, they’re going to act on.

It’s the old apology for the Soviet Union by the Communists and fellow-travelers brought up to date to explain away Putin. Stalin and his minions in the West used to explain every Soviet action as a fault of “capitalist encirclement,” to which the poor USSR had to act to defend itself. So Cohen believes now we “went a bridge to far” in Ukraine. Putin had to act to defend the just national interests of Russia.

As for the suppression of gays in Russia, Cohen points out they were suppressed in America when he grew up. [.......]In other words, we may not like it, but one has to respect the feelings of the Russian public, and not inflict our values and decisions on them. He goes on to say “it’s not our concern,” and sarcastically remarks: “Are we supposed to form a brigade and go there and liberate Russian gays?” That is, my friend the historian of Russia Louis Menashe puts it, “reminiscent of turning back criticisms of the USSR with: “What about the Negroes lynched in the South!”

Once again, leftists like Stephen Cohen join with paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan in opposing a stand for democracy, and in charging critics of Putin with unfairly and aggressively opposing Putin’s supposed just and necessary policies. When will we learn the lessons we should have learned from the past?

Read the rest -  The New apologists for Vladimir Putin – on the Right and the Left

The Crimea and Kosovo

by coldwarrior ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Balkans, Chechnya, History, Islam, Kosovo, Orthodox Christianity, Russia, Serbia at March 10th, 2014 - 9:56 am

So, let me get this straight, its OK for Muslim Kosovo to be ripped out of Serbia by America and the UN and made a new country, but it isn’t OK for Russian Crimea to vote to return to Russia from The Ukraine?

 

It’s perfectly fine to spend American blood and treasure to allow Muslims to have self determination in Kosovo, but it is EVIL if a bunch of Russians in The Crimea try to apply self-determination.

 

OK, I’m at a loss for words here. Can someone explain this to me? Because I keep hearing how its bad if ethnic Russians Christians try to do exactly what ethnic Albanian Muslims did.

 

 

 

 

 

Mitt Romney looks right

by Speranza ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2012, John Kerry, Politics, Russia at March 9th, 2014 - 12:13 pm

America was the loser in November 2012.

by Howie Carr

“I told you so.”

Those have to be four of the most satisfying words in the English language. And Mitt Romney has earned the right to speak that short sentence, over and over again, whenever he chooses.

Not that he would — it would be “unbecoming,” to use one of Romney’s old-fashioned words that in 2002 had the mandarins of Political Correctness harrumphing about his “sexism,” I believe the charge was that time.

But these days, Mitt looks more and more prescient, and his critics ever more deluded. First of all, Russia has become “our number one geopolitical foe,” as he put it in the 2012 campaign. Back then, Barack Obama derided him, saying “The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Now, not so much.

As a Republican, Romney understands the double standard in the lapdog media. When Mitt says “tar baby,” he’s a racist. When John Kerry says “tar baby,” nothing to see here folks, move along.

Barack Obama admits eating dogs — crickets in the press. Mitt puts one on the roof of his car in a crate — David Letterman demands his arrest.

Speaking of which, Mitt’s net worth is a reported $230 million, and Letterman’s is $400 million. Yet Letterman spent 2012 joking about how loaded Mitt was, once saying Romney was taking a weekend off “to hike to the top of his money.”

[......]

Since then, how many Democrat politicians have enlisted in that same war on women — Alan Grayson, Mel Reynolds, Bob Filner, “Carlos Danger,” Carlos Henriquez, Eliot Spitzer, Robert Menendez. …

Here’s another word that in 2007 got Mitt into hot water with the PC Police — “un-American.” That’s how he described the Democrat bigots who were attacking his Mormon faith. How dare he use such a McCarthyite word, the moonbats fumed.

Why, it’s a code word, a “dog whistle,” a throwback to the bad old days of the House Un-American Activities Committee (chaired by a Democrat named Martin Dies, but again, nothing to see here folks, move along.)

[......]

Last week, though, the Democrats were tossing around the word “un-American” with such abandon that you would have thought they were, well, speaking truth to power.

Congressman Elijah Cummings blurted it out at a House hearing, and it’s how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described the Koch brothers — “un-American.”

You see, when George Soros or the pinky-ring unions funnel millions to the Democrats, they’re exercising their First Amendment rights, their freedom of speech.

When the Koch brothers do the same thing, they’re un-American. Not only that, Reid said, but they’re also trying to “subvert” democracy.

Hey, Harry, the 1950s are calling to ask for their code words back.

Harry Reid, by the way, is a Mormon. Did you ever hear any late-night comedians joking about his “magic underwear,” or how many wives he has?

Anyway, this week, when some foolhardy D.C. pundits risked their status as Beautiful People by criticizing the sacrosanct Reid, he shot back by quoting Adlai Stevenson:

“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about them.”

Brave words from a hack who less than two years ago was falsely accusing Romney of income-tax evasion.

“Let him prove that he has paid taxes,” Reid said on the Senate floor, “because he hasn’t!”

In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Isn’t that … un-American?

The famous senator Henry Clay once said, “I’d rather be right than president.”

Who knows if he meant it? Mitt should probably start thinking about borrowing Clay’s old line, although I’m not sure he believes it either.

Read the rest -  Romney looks right

Dr. Stephen F. Cohen on Ukraine crisis

by 1389AD ( 48 Comments › )
Filed under Europe, Russia at March 7th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Another great interview from George Kenney and a breath of fresh air amongst the stale tripe we have served up to us now:

Electric Politics: The Ukraine Blues

(h/t: J. P. Maher)

One feels frighteningly disoriented, hearing an American president support deadly mob violence for what is, essentially, counter-revolutionary change (in the form of IMF austerity). The president’s message may be directed at unknown people far away but the effects are certain to be felt here, possibly for generations, as the bindings of what relative peace we have come undone. I was extremely fortunate to be able to talk with Dr. Stephen F. Cohen about the crisis in Ukraine. He’s in a tiny minority willing to discuss what’s really happening. This is an unscheduled podcast on breaking news. [Audio file reposted at The Nation, here.] Total runtime forty eight minutes. Vae victīs.

MP3 file here.

From George Kenney:

Last Saturday evening I interviewed Dr. Stephen F. Cohen about the crisis in Ukraine. Because of timeliness I thought it best to turn this interview around as quickly as possible, so here it is. Steve has been an expert on things Russian for a very long time indeed — he was a professor at Princeton for about thirty years and taught at NYU for about another ten years after that. You used to see him regularly on the news but his brand of sympathy for the Russians has gone out of style. Well, more than that really. Any sense of objectivity regarding Russia seems to be forbidden these days. Thus you have Steve being sensible about the crisis in Ukraine and 99.99% of the other commentators taking a “let’s hate the Russians and let’s especially hate Putin” line. It reminds me very much of the atmospherics surrounding the Yugoslav civil war, except at least in that case a vocal minority in favor of a more objective approach was able to be heard. This is much worse. If, indeed, I hadn’t lived and worked through the Yugoslav civil war I wonder whether I would be able to understand that the public debate over Ukraine could be so tragically unbalanced!

This is an important show. I hope you listen. And if you like the show please forward the link.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2014/02/the_ukraine_blues.html

Another Palin Prediction Comes True! Where’s Her Apology From The Entire Political Left?

by Flyovercountry ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Republican Party, Russia, The Political Right at March 5th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

I have a vision in my mind of Darth Vader addressing a scared Luke Skywalker, who just screwed up by letting slip that Leia was indeed his sister, and coincidentally the daughter of an uncaring Vader. “And now his failure is complete,” really said it all.

As Russia rolls its tanks and troops into Crimea, I am reminded of other events within my life time that saw similar happenings. Not that today’s aggressive behavior is in any way the same as those dark days of the Cold War, when the Soviets sent their military into Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. Today’s act of aggression you see came after the Bamster and Hillary gifted some Russian apparatchik with that famed, “reset button.” Right on cue, our leader’s, (and I use that term loosely,) in Washington are shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that the Russians have taken the Obama Administration’s foreign policy as a sign of American weakness.

Charles Krauthammer said it most eloquently in about a minute and a quarter last night.

 

Here’s the transcript of Krauthammer’s analysis:

Remember the speech he gave at the U.N. when he started his administration? He said no nation can or should dominate another. I mean, there’s not a 12-year-old in the world who believes that. And he said the alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the long ago Cold War make no sense in this interconnected world. As our Secretary of State said today, or yesterday, after all this, this is a 19th century action in a 21st century world. As if what he means his actions where governments pursue expansion, territory domination, no longer exist in this century, as if that hasn’t been a constant in all of human history since Hannibal. They imagine the world as a new interconnected world where climate change is the biggest threat and they are shocked that the Russians actually are interested in territory.

The parallels to Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy are too strong to not mention. Carter, like Obama, spent his time as President traveling the globe heaping praise upon America’s adversaries while chiding and ridiculing America’s allies. He too was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that the Soviets would invade Afghanistan when it suited them to do so. I guess that the lesson we can all take from this is the same one we’ve learned every time there’s a Democrat in the White House, which is that the Kumbayah School of foreign policy leads to unmitigated disaster for us and the rest of the world as a whole.

What ever level of intervention you feel United States involvement should exhibit or forgo is not what caused this. What caused this latest example of Russian aggression was what always causes such things. They took a good look at a President with a foreign policy that can be labeled most generously as feckless, and a U.S. Secretary of State who declared that the completely farcical myth of global warming was our nation’s most feared enemy, saw that our Teleprompter in Chief was moving forward with his plans to reduce our military to ashes, and determined quite correctly that we were in no position to defend anyone or anything. Crimea is now paying the price associated with that reality.

yes, for my Russian friends, the Cold War is over and the Russians have eschewed the Socialism that once plagued their economics. Vladimir Putin however is a veteran of the Cold War, and as a former leader of the KGB, it would appear, at least to the casual observer, that bringing back the old Soviet Satellites to an existence within the fold may be one of his objectives. Achieving that end by force is something he is perfectly comfortable with. Our discussions on this particular part of our foreign policy need to accept that reality. Especially since some of the former Soviet Satellites are now member nations of NATO, Ukraine being one of them.

Just one more thing to point out here. Remember how Sarah Palin was so roundly ridiculed for being, “stupid,” when she predicted this exact event way back in 2008? Remember how Barack Obama, “the smartest guy in the room,” won major snark points for his line that the 1980′s had contacted Mitt Romney and demanded their cold war mentality back? I guess we can officially put those two memes to bed now.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.