Sunday, October 2, 2016

Agents of influence.

Is it clearer now?
In conclusion, one can say that this leaked Montenegrin government report has revealed the full extent to which both the German foreign minister Steinmeier and the top Merkel's advisor [Christoph] Heusgen, contrary to their public appearance and rhetoric, have been willing to act as the agents of the anti-Russian U.S. "war party" in Europe. This is a serious matter that needs to be taken into consideration not only by the German people whose representatives they purport to be, but also by the citizens of other EU nations, considering that similar agents of influence operate within their political elites as well. Without the timely discovery and political replacement of these individuals, another big-scale war in Europe may be around the corner.[1]
A footnote on the source of this quote, Newsbud. It's an attempt at independent journalism free of government, foundation, or advertiser influence. Worth a look and possibly your support. Up to you.

[1] "The Leaked Montenegrin Government Files: Part II – the U.S. Agents of Influence within the German Government." By Professor Filip Kovacevic, Newsbud, 9/29/16 (emphasis added).


commoncents said...

SNL Cold Open: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton Presidential Debate

ps. Would you consider adding CC to your blogroll?

sykes.1 said...

It's no secret that neocons like John McCain, Bill Kristol, John Kerry et al. are pushing a very aggressive anti-Russian policy that if implemented likely would give us WW III. As much as I despise Obama, his cautious approach to all things Russian is just what we need.

Anonymous said...

Obama and Hillary do more to bait the bear than is healthy for us. Putin would - and likely will - slap them and take their lunch money. Trump treats Vlad as a man, they could have discussion based on man to man respect, something Obama and Hillary couldn't, because they... aren't men. - Grandpa

Col. B. Bunny said...

Commoncents, I'd would be glad to.

Funny video in parts. I like Baldwin as an actor to be honest. He does a good imitation of Trump.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Sikes.1, I have to agree with you, although I wonder how restrained he was being when he started talking about "red lines" in Syria. He had the good sense not to push that but in that case I think it was a mere political calculation that Congress wasn't going to authorize overt attacks on Syria. It's disturbing, however, that Obama's been useless on defining objectives for what the heck we ARE doing in Syria, and he's been quite happy obviously with supporting ISIS and al-Qaida there in our quite unconstitutional involvement. Schizophrenic captures it all most accurately. And with not a little hypocrisy as the cartoon I just posted shows.

But, thanks be, Obama is not backing the Russians into a corner but there are strong signs that a media campaign to demonize Russia (even more) is underway with, I kid you not, talk of pursuing "military options" against the Russians. I don't think this is without Obama acquiescence. Almost certainly it's not a reflection of his personal wishes.

It's an inexact comparison, no doubt, but this Syrian deal looks a lot like the Spanish Civil War where a whole lot of outside actors suddenly had this intense interest in pursuing goals in Spain that didn't do much to help the Spaniards. And, no my leftist friends, helping the communist-dominated Republicans was not something that would have helped the Spaniards. As the commies like to say, the issue is never the issue. The revolution is the issue. The tragedy is that a lot more people stand to be hurt and killed if these amateur geostrateberists don't stop playing games they don't understand.

Be that as it may (BTAIM), the apparent story of Syria now is not anything like the back story. It's but one of a thousand examples of how the West is in the grip of a "ready, fire, aim" plutocracy. I think decent people can only hope that a world without war can continue until there is an economic crash -- which is definitely in the cards -- and attention needs to be given to very real problems indeed.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Anonymous, there's much to admire in Putin. He was commendably loyal to a boss in Leningrad and is anything but the "KGB thug" some like to make him out to be. Nor is he a foolish, nebbishy metrosexual who was part of any "choom gang" and he cut his teeth in a tough organization. Far from pressing the envelope around the entire bleeping world he's been circumspect and entirely reactive in the cases of Georgia and Ukraine. He sent troops to Syria at the invitation of the sovereign government which cannot be said of Obama who exhibits the height of arrogance in supporting ISIS and al-Qaida.

I watched a couple of videos on YouTube about the SA-400 SAM the Russians have, their close in SAM missile system to protect the SA-400, and their intermediate range missile system. The Russians seem to have thought this out thoroughly after the US unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty. A video of US thinking on how to counter these Russian systems shows we are not asleep at the switch but I think the IRBMs are still a major threat. In a game of chicken I think Putin is the one with the more steely will and calmer judgment. Whatever the Russians do it will be a well-considered decision on their part. The US is, however, just showing shallow and ridiculous judgment thinking that the Russians will take our key strategy of "separating out" the good terrorists from the bad ones seriously.

And a footnote to this: we are lucky the Russians showed restraint regarding two provocations of ours -- the attack on the SAA near Deir ez-Zor and the Turkish shooting down of the Russian fighter. Our talk of a no-fly zone over Syria for Syrian and Russian aircraft is unadulterated crazy talk.