Connect with us

Latest

News

America

Ford-Kavanaugh showdown actually reveals Democrat sickness (VIDEO)

The victim testimony of Dr. Ford served the needs of Democrat senators. And after this scandal ends, Dr Ford will be discarded.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,739 Views

Riveting TV.” “Shame of the Nation.” “Hollywood seethes.” The Drudge Report lists these and about thirteen other links at the top of its page as of the time of this writing to describe what was anticipated as a major showdown between the Democrats and Republicans over the fate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, got her chance to testify in front of the Senate Committee about her allegations that the Judge sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager at a drinking party back in 1982.

This event was both more – and less – than what either side of supporters probably expected.

In what can likely be seen as a very refreshing display of conservative assertiveness, Judge Kavanaugh was completely unambiguous and forceful in his testimony from beginning to end. Further, and perhaps more significant, Senator Lindsey Graham delivered a scathing lecture to the Democrats who are to a man aligned against Brett Kavanaugh, and to a man, all stating they believe Christine’s story.

Further, the sex-crimes prosecutor who the Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford told the senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, when she talked to them in an overnight meeting where all fifty-one Republican senators were present:

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn’t even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday morning.

It is not necessary for Kavanaugh to secure majority approval of the committee in order to advance to the full Senate, but a favorable recommendation could bode well for his imperiled nomination — and vice-versa…

“It’s a tough one. She offered good testimony, and so did he,” Flake, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday night. “If you’re making an allegation, you want there to be some corroboration. Where is the burden? It’s like impeachment. You don’t know.”

In fact, this is true. Dr Ford was as unwavering in her testimony as Judge Kavanaugh was with his own. However, there was a peculiarity in Dr Ford’s testimony that is suspect. Watch here:

Her story is complete, but she is reading it. It must be taken as strong possibility that this is to help her focus as she was already reported to be “terrified” of testifying. She also appears to be either forcing herself to have emotion, for her voice is cracking, but forced and very rehearsed. At other times she does appear to display genuine emotion. However, this testimony, while detailed, seems “vacant” of some real personal connection.

Naturally, people supporting the idea that Dr Ford actually experienced sexual assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh would be inclined to take her emotional display as genuine. In contrast, this clip, at the beginning of her testimony, reveals a somewhat different character to her voice:

She starts with a fairly strong tone of speaking, relative to her recounting of her story. But then, there was this rather strange episode concerning her polygraph test:

Here the sex-crimes prosecutor’s questions get blocked by her attorneys (she is flanked by at least two of them), and yet, she reports the polygraph test as “extremely stressful.”

The questions here seemed to run down a rabbit hole, yet the interesting situation remains that she was walked through this part of the questioning very carefully by her counsel.

She said she was “scared of the test itself.”

Again, why?

This makes no sense. A person with a legitimate claim of wrongdoing by someone else should have no problem stating her case. And, Judge Kavanaugh was not in the room during her testimony.

However, the presentation of this story is almost letter-perfect victim testimony, at least for Hollywood. However, again, the story Dr Ford offered is utterly uncorroborated, even by the people she named as witnesses or at least, corroborating people. They all denied this story.

Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony was refreshingly brutal. Even liberal outlet Vox noted that the Judge’s anger “worked.” The man claimed he was set up by Democrats intent on vengeance for various reasons. In this, he spoke as probably anyone who is on the side of President Trump and his nominee would think and feel if confronted with a situation that looks like nothing less than a last-minute lynching. He was furious. One can see so right here:

Again, the way one receives this testimony probably depends on his or her already-made-up-mind. This, of course is a tragedy, because the hearing was not purposed to make each side more set, but to shed light on the allegations and see what the real story actually is. Yet, as Brett Kavanaugh said himself, the attack was a disgrace.

And unlike Dr Ford, Kavanaugh did not think only of himself. He noted that this tactic is dangerous to the future of the nation as a whole.

He then got down to the brass tacks about Dr Ford’s allegation. He broke when he recounted his ten-year old daughter Ashley suggesting that the family pray for Dr Ford. However, unlike Dr Ford’s tears, which appear “forced”, Kavanaugh showed the much harder task of trying to hold them back. He noted, and acknowledged that it is evident that Dr Ford was abused by someone, but emphatically said he never did anything like that.

He never, ever wavered from this.

At the time of this writing the matter of confirming Judge Kavanaugh has been moved to a committee vote. The Democrats continued to grandstand, with several of them refusing to even answer “no” to the voice vote to continue the process. And, apparently, many of them simply left the room. At this time, the vote to move ahead went 11-8 to proceed.

As continuing attacks come from Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the shape of the attacks remarkably resembles the attacks against Donald Trump – efforts to decry Judge Kavanaugh’s decorum as unbefitting of a Justice, and so on, just as Trump’s accusers called him “unpresidential.”

There is one glaring issue about this story: Dr Ford’s story was reportedly leaked by Diane Feinstein (a fact she denies). However, the claims of and surrounding Dr Ford are conflicting. She claims to not want to have had her story revealed, but it was. By whom? If she didn’t want to be brought on display, she was anyway. Why? To serve the Democratic Party’s purpose. Christine Blasey Ford is now twice victimized in this issue. By making her story public, she and her family were reportedly receiving death threats. The same is true for Judge Kavanaugh and his family.

Nothing good came out of this for Dr Ford, and she honestly looks unstable. It seems to be that another tragedy is in the making because this frail woman looks like someone in need of help, and not in need of nurturing of victimhood. But this will not come. And it will not come because like so many other people, victims serve a purpose for stronger people. For Dr. Ford, those stronger people were the members of the Senate in the Democrat Party. And after this scandal ends, Dr Ford will be discarded as soon as she is no longer needed.

This is the sickness of Democrat politics in America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
24 Comments

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
GonzogalGeorge HartwellLisa KarpovaTjoejohn vieira Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Marcia
Guest
Marcia

Jeff Flake doesn’t know where the burden of proof must lie? …. It lies with the accuser Dr. Ford and she has proven nothing. The second person had to call around to see what other people remembered because she was too drunk? … and the gang rape stuff is where this was taken to circus level. I personally think Dr. Ford has taken a half true and non-traumatizing for a normal person situation from her life, a case where it was another man who did something, but less than her story, and she has inflated and embellished the story purposely.… Read more »

a amon
Guest
a amon

” and the gang rape stuff is where this was taken to circus level.” does seem a bit much until you read this article, https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html ” I know what happened at prep school parties in the 1980s. The Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge allegations are upsettingly familiar. ” much more detail in the article.. also try this, by an academic who studied at one of these elite schools and wrote a book about their culture, https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-lying-his-upbringing-explains-why watched both statements, Ford seemed scared but kept calm and together.. she seemed real… Kavanagh was emotionally unhinged, is this what passes for judicial… Read more »

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Ford scared????? She is a Professor of Psychiatry, where she specialises at Stanford in ‘Mind Control – MK Ultra’. Her brother is an attorney, representing Fusion, and funnily enough Soros has budgeted $50 million, to carry on the ‘Steele Dossier/Trump Removal’ programme, including still using ‘Fusion’. Then you have her father, together with his history. Not forgetting her husband, who also specialises in ‘mind control’. So how does somebody on the ‘frequent-flyer program’ find she has a ‘selective phobia’, where flying is concerned? How is it possible to fail a ‘polygraph’? Is it not true that sociopaths have a tendency… Read more »

john vieira
Guest

What I loved is how her testimony was able to “fill in the gaps/flaws” that astute posters pointed out in her original testimony…somebody is obviously taking notes and amending the script as it progresses…however she will never remember the house or the fourth guy – who will never surface …and none of the other witnesses or the accused will either as it is all fiction. Very selective memory and intermittent phobias. CIA/Hollywood script no doubt.

Flying Gabriel
Guest
Flying Gabriel

In other words … it is as it seems until you find some material to support your bias. Then even the preposterous becomes believable. – Sums up everything wrong about America. The real context places him neither as a presiding judge nor a representative attorney. He’s simply a man fighting for his life. Even Jesus wouldn’t qualify to be the son of god to you – throwing money lenders out of the temple makes him emotionally unstable. The USA has this dreamlike hollywood disease where any public servant of high office has to resemble Clark Kent. That’s the problem when… Read more »

john vieira
Guest

Nailed it!!!

john vieira
Guest

https://slate..We considered that pulp fiction….akin to “Rhoding School”…”If you are struggling to process a memory of sexual violence you can reach out for help…”says it all…as they will “fill in” the gaps…seen how these filthy minded felons operate…

A.F.
Guest
A.F.

Rape is no crime in the USA…no surprise………………..

Joe
Guest
Joe

???

voza0db
Guest
voza0db

What rape scoundrel?

Donna
Guest
Donna

It certainly is.

john vieira
Guest

Nope…over the years “rape” has been overly reclassified so much so that is barely recognizable. The best that can be ascribed to these events…if they indeed happened – which due to the context, timing and players is highly unlikely… is assault.

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

I watched the entire hearing without talking heads polluting it. I spent most of the day, taking breaks and all. The author is bias. I certainly disagree with the author. I voted for Trump because Hillary is a criminal, not because of Trumps virtue. His ego overshadows his virtue’s most times. His puddy grabbing is legendary. It’s not about Trump, but there do seem to be some similarities rooted in privilege…the golden spoon. Trump and Kavanaugh are alike….born to privilege. More important than her testimony, was Kavanaugh’s demeanor when giving his testimony. For a Judge, you would think he would… Read more »

Flying Gabriel
Guest
Flying Gabriel

Attributing hate and menace is pure projection on your part. I’m not American or politically partisan and saw, not a judge presiding over a court room, but a man fighting for his life. I’m sure without the emotion he would have been labelled cold and calculated, emotionless psychopath – not suitable to be a judge. This is the advantage of being neutral – I can see your bias like a blister on your face.

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

Did you watch his testimony all the way through Flying Gabriel? He came unhinged and yes, showed “hate and menace” on his face.

Composure is different than literally falling apart. I don’t know where you live, but I don’t want such an unstable man on the US Supreme Court for life, I want to move on to the next candidate….who will by the way, be Republican. Don’t worry about the blister on my face, worry about the LOG in your eye.

geoff
Guest
geoff

“the Democrats who are to a man aligned against Brett Kavanaugh, and to a man, all stating they believe Christine’s story”

The funny part will be when women start making false accusations against these men come election time and their complicity with the Blasey Ford fiasco will come back home to bite them on the arse !!

john vieira
Guest

Deservedly so!!! And I sincerely hope that the biters have SHARP teeth. The world appears to be moving away from the Arthurian model and adopting the “taqiyya” model…which has overwhelmed the D.N.C

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

An outstanding video that dissects the body language and even voice of Dr Ford during her testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI

George Hartwell
Guest

That is a very interesting analysis of Dr. Ford and the conclusion is not supportive of Ford’s testimony.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

Today the lawyer who questioned Ford during the hearing released a memo she sent to the committee and lists the inconsistencies in Fords testimony: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/rachel-mitchell-memo-highlights-weaknesses-ford-testimony

jim bim
Guest
jim bim

Read this link, if true, it turns out that Ms. Ford is the head of Stanford University’s Undergraduate Intern Recruitment Program, for the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Ford`s brother Ralph III, used to work for the International Law Firm of . . . Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier” which they later admitted was only a collection of field interviews. Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies: Red coats, Inc. Admiral Security Services and DataWatch Guess who operates those companies? RALPH BLASEY II. He… Read more »

Flying Gabriel
Guest
Flying Gabriel

Any Democrat Senator calling somebody else “Evil” is 100% psychological projection. I’ve never seen a more transparently wicked “gang rape” of a man’s character.
There is evil in America for sure – and in large servings … but it ain’t Brett Kavanaugh.
Hello from NZ.

john vieira
Guest

Seen it too and the evil is supported by a biased sold out and corrupted mainstream media, whose reach is not confined to America…Hello from Ca.

Lisa Karpova
Guest
Lisa Karpova

You can tell who is lying by who the social media is trying to protect. Damning pictures of Ford are being deleted.

Latest

Ukraine Wants Nuclear Weapons: Will the West Bow to the Regime in Kiev?

Efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation are one of the few issues on which the great powers agree, intending to continue to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and to prevent new entrants into the exclusive nuclear club.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The former Ukrainian envoy to NATO, Major General Petro Garashchuk, recently stated in an interview with Obozrevatel TV:

“I’ll say it once more. We have the ability to develop and produce our own nuclear weapons, currently available in the world, such as the one that was built in the former USSR and which is now in independent Ukraine, located in the city of Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) that can produce these kinds of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China have produced a missile named Satan … At the same time, Ukraine does not have to worry about international sanctions when creating these nuclear weapons.”

The issue of nuclear weapons has always united the great powers, especially following the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The decision to reduce the number of nuclear weapons towards the end of the Cold War went hand in hand with the need to prevent the spread of such weapons of mass destruction to other countries in the best interests of humanity. During the final stages of the Cold War, the scientific community expended great effort on impressing upon the American and Soviet leadership how a limited nuclear exchange would wipe out humanity. Moscow and Washington thus began START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) negotiations to reduce the risk of a nuclear winter. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances persuaded Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear weapons and accede to the NPT in exchange for security assurances from its signatories.

Ukraine has in recent years begun entertaining the possibility of returning to the nuclear fold, especially in light of North Korea’s recent actions. Kim Jong-un’s lesson seems to be that a nuclear deterrent remains the only way of guaranteeing complete protection against a regional hegemon. The situation in Ukraine, however, differs from that of North Korea, including in terms of alliances and power relations. Kiev’s government came into power as a result of a coup d’etat carried out by extremist nationalist elements who seek their inspiration from Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. The long arm of NATO has always been deeply involved in the dark machinations that led to Poroshenko’s ascendency to the Ukrainian presidency. From a geopolitical point of view, NATO’s operation in Ukraine (instigating a civil war in the wake of a coup) follows in the footsteps of what happened in Georgia. NATO tends to organize countries with existing anti-Russia sentiments to channel their Russophobia into concrete actions that aim to undermine Moscow. The war in the Donbass is a prime example.

However, Ukraine has been unable to subdue the rebels in the Donbass region, the conflict freezing into a stalemate and the popularity of the Kiev government falling as the population’s quality of life experiences a precipitous decline. The United States and the European Union have not kept their promises, leaving Poroshenko desperate and tempted to resort to provocations like the recent Kerch strait incident or such as those that are apparently already in the works, as recently reported by the DPR authorities.

The idea of Ukraine resuming its production of nuclear weapons is currently being floated by minor figures, but it could take hold in the coming months, especially if the conflict continues in its frozen state and Kiev becomes frustrated and desperate. The neoconservative wing of the American ruling elite, absolutely committed to the destruction of the Russian Federation, could encourage Kiev along this path, in spite of the incalculable risks involved. The EU, on the other hand, would likely be terrified at the prospect, which would also place it between a rock and a hard place. Kiev, on one side, would be able to extract from the EU much needed economic assistance in exchange for not going nuclear, while on the other side the neocons would be irresponsibly egging the Ukrainians on.

Moscow, if faced with such a possibility, would not just stand there. In spite of Russia having good relations with North Korea, it did not seem too excited at the prospect of having a nuclear-armed neighbor. With Ukraine, the response would be much more severe. A nuclear-armed Ukraine would be a red line for Moscow, just as Crimea and Sevastopol were. It is worth remembering the Russian president’s words when referring to the possibility of a NATO invasion of Crimea during the 2014 coup:

“We were ready to do it [putting Russia’s nuclear arsenal on alert]. Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them. It was not us who committed to coup, it was the nationalists and people with extreme beliefs. I do not think this is actually anyone’s wish – to turn it into a global conflict.”

As Kiev stands on the precipice, it will be good for the neocons, the neoliberals and their European lackeys to consider the consequences of advising Kiev to jump or not. Giving the nuclear go-ahead to a Ukrainian leadership so unstable and detached from reality may just be the spark that sets off Armageddon.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mike Pompeo lays out his vision for American exceptionalism (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 158.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and International Affairs and Security Analyst via Moscow, Mark Sleboda take a look at Mike Pompeo’s shocking Brussels speech, where the U.S. Secretary of State took aim at the European Union and United Nations, citing such institutions as outdated and poorly managed, in need of a new dogma that places America at its epicenter.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Speaking in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo unwittingly underscored why nobody takes the United States seriously on the international stage. Via The Council on Foreign Relations


In a disingenuous speech at the German Marshall Fund, Pompeo depicted the transactional and hypernationalist Trump administration as “rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order.” He did so while launching gratuitous attacks on the European Union, United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF)—pillars of the existing postwar order the United States did so much to create. He remained silent, naturally, on the body blows that the current administration has delivered to its erstwhile allies and partners, and to the institutions that once upon a time permitted the United States to legitimate rather than squander its international leadership.

In Pompeo’s telling, Donald J. Trump is simply seeking a return to the world that former Secretary of State George Marshall helped to create. In the decades after 1945, the United States “underwrote new institutions” and “entered into treaties to codify Western values of freedom and human rights.” So doing, the United States “won the Cold War” and—thanks to the late President George H. W. Bush, “we won the peace” that followed. “This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting.”

That leadership is needed because the United States “allowed this liberal order to begin to corrode” once the bipolar conflict ended. “Multilateralism has too often become viewed as an end unto itself,” Pompeo explained. “The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.” What is needed is a multilateralism that once again places the nation-state front and center.

Leave aside for the moment that nobody actually believes what Pompeo alleges: that multilateralism should be an end in itself; that paper commitments are credible absent implementation, verification, and enforcement; or that the yardstick of success is how many bureaucrats get hired. What sensible people do believe is that multilateral cooperation is often (though not always) the best way for nations to advance their interests in an interconnected world of complicated problems. Working with others is typically superior to unilateralism, since going it alone leaves the United States with the choice of trying to do everything itself (with uncertain results) or doing nothing. Multilateralism also provides far more bang for the buck than President Trump’s favored approach to diplomacy, bilateralism.

Much of Pompeo’s address was a selective and tendentious critique of international institutions that depicts them as invariably antithetical to national sovereignty. Sure, he conceded, the European Union has “delivered a great deal of prosperity to the continent.” But it has since gone badly off track, as the “political wake-up call” of Brexit showed. All this raised a question in his mind: “Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats and Brussels?”

The answer, as one listener shouted out, is “Yes!” The secretary, like many U.S. conservative critics of European integration, is unaware that EU member states continue to hold the lion’s share of power in the bloc, which remains more intergovernmental than supranational. Pompeo seems equally unaware of how disastrously Brexit is playing out. With each passing day, the costs of this catastrophic, self-inflicted wound are clearer. In its quest for complete policy autonomy—on ostensible “sovereignty” grounds—the United Kingdom will likely have to accept, as the price for EU market access, an entire body of law and regulations that it will have no say in shaping. So much for advancing British sovereignty.

Pompeo similarly mischaracterizes the World Bank and IMF as having gone badly off track. “Today, these institutions often counsel countries who have mismanaged their economic affairs to impose austerity measures that inhibit growth and crowd out private sector actors.” This is an odd, hybrid critique. It combines a shopworn, leftist criticism from the 1990s—that the international financial institutions (IFIs) punish poor countries with structural adjustment programs—with the conservative accusation that the IFIs are socialist, big-government behemoths. Both are ridiculous caricatures. They ignore how much soul-searching the IFIs have done since the 1990s, as well as how focused they are on nurturing an enabling institutional environment for the private sector in partner countries.

Pompeo also aims his blunderbuss at the United Nations. He complains that the United Nations’ “peacekeeping missions drag on for decades, no closer to peace,” ignoring the indispensable role that blue helmets play in preventing atrocities, as well as a recent Government Accountability Office report documenting how cost-effective such operations are compared to U.S. troops. Similarly, Pompeo claims, “The UN’s climate-related treaties are viewed by some nations simply as a vehicle to redistribute wealth”—an accusation that is both unsubstantiated and ignores the urgent need to mobilize global climate financing to save the planet.

Bizarrely, Pompeo also turns his sights on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (AU), for alleged shortcomings. Has the OAS, he asks, done enough “to promote its four pillars of democracy, human rights, security, and economic development?” Um, no. Could that have something to do with the lack of U.S. leadership in the Americas on democracy and human rights? Yes. Might it have helped if the Trump administration had filled the position of assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs before October 15 of this year? Probably.

Equally puzzling is Pompeo’s single line riff on the AU. “In Africa, does the African Union advance the mutual interest of its nation-state members?” Presumably the answer is yes, or its members would be headed for the door. The AU continues to struggle in financing its budget, but it has made great strides since its founding in 2002 to better advance security, stability, and good governance on the continent.

“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,” Pompeo declared. Sounds reasonable. But where is this “free world” of which the secretary speaks, and what standing does the United States today have to defend, much less reform it? In the two years since he took office, Donald Trump has never expressed any interest in defending the international order, much less “returning [the United States] to its traditional, central leadership role in the world,” as Pompeo claims. Indeed, the phrase “U.S. leadership” has rarely escaped Trump’s lips, and he has gone out of his way to alienate longstanding Western allies and partners in venues from NATO to the G7.

When he looks at the world, the president cares only about what’s in it for the United States (and, naturally, for him). That cynicism explains the president’s deafening silence on human rights violations and indeed his readiness to cozy up to strongmen and killers from Vladimir Putin to Rodrigo Duterte to Mohammed bin Salman to too many more to list. Given Trump’s authoritarian sympathies and instincts, Pompeo’s warnings about “Orwellian human rights violations” in China and “suppressed opposition voices” in Russia ring hollow.

“The central question that we face,” Pompeo asked in Brussels, “is the question of whether the system as currently configured, as it exists today—does it work? Does it work for all the people of the world?” The answer, of course, is not as well as it should, and not for nearly enough of them. But if the secretary is seeking to identify impediments to a better functioning multilateral system, he can look to his left in his next Cabinet meeting.

“Principled realism” is the label Pompeo has given Trump’s foreign policy. Alas, it betrays few principles and its connection to reality is tenuous. The president has abandoned any pursuit of universal values, and his single-minded obsession to “reassert our sovereignty” (as Pompeo characterizes it) is actually depriving the United States of joining with others to build the prosperous, secure, and sustainable world that Americans want.

“Bad actors have exploited our lack of leadership for their own gain,” the secretary of state declared in Belgium. “This is the poisoned fruit of American retreat.” How true. Pompeo’s next sentence—“President Trump is determined to reverse that”—was less persuasive.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russia calls on US to put a leash on Petro Poroshenko

The West’s pass for Mr. Poroshenko may blow up in NATO’s and the US’s face if the Ukrainian President tries to start a war with Russia.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Russia called on Washington not to ignore the Poroshenko directives creating an active military buildup along the Ukrainian-Donbass frontier, this buildup consisting of Ukrainian forces and right-wing ultranationalists, lest it “trigger the implementation of a bloody scenario”, according to a Dec 11 report from TASS.

The [Russian] Embassy [to the US] urges the US State Department to recognize the presence of US instructors in the zone of combat actions, who are involved in a command and staff and field training of Ukraine’s assault airborne brigades. “We expect that the US will bring to reason its proteges. Their aggressive plans are not only doomed to failure but also run counter to the statements of the administration on its commitment to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine by political and diplomatic means,” the statement said.

This warning came after Eduard Basurin, the deputy defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic noted that the Ukrainian army was massing troops and materiel for a possible large-scale offensive at the Mariupol section of the contact line in Donbass. According to Basurin, this action is expected to take place on 14 December. TASS offered more details:

According to the DPR’s reconnaissance data, Ukrainian troops plan to seize the DPR’s Novoazovsky and Temanovsky districts and take control over the border section with Russia. The main attack force of over 12,000 servicemen has been deployed along the contact line near the settlements of Novotroitskoye, Shirokino, and Rovnopol. Moreover, more than 50 tanks, 40 multiple missile launcher systems, 180 artillery systems and mortars have been reportedly pulled to the area, Basurin added. Besides, 12 BM-30 Smerch heavy multiple rocket launchers have been sent near Volodarsky.

The DPR has warned about possible provocations plotted by Ukrainian troops several times. Thus, in early December, the DPR’s defense ministry cited reconnaissance data indicating that the Ukrainian military was planning to stage an offensive and deliver an airstrike. At a Contact Group meeting on December 5, DPR’s Foreign Minister Natalia Nikonorova raised the issue of Kiev’s possible use of chemical weapons in the conflict area.

This is a continuation of the reported buildup The Duran reported in this article linked here, and it is a continuation of the full-scale drama that started with the Kerch Strait incident, which itself appears to have been staged by Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko. Following that incident, the president was able to get about half of Ukraine placed under a 30-day period of martial law, citing “imminent Russian aggression.”

President Poroshenko is arguably a dangerous man. He appears to be desperate to maintain a hold on power, though his approval numbers and support is abysmally low in Ukraine. While he presents himself as a hero, agitating for armed conflict with Russia and simultaneously interfering in the affairs of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, he is actually one of the most dangerous leaders the world has to contend with, precisely because he is unfit to lead.

Such men and women are dangerous because their desperation makes them short-sighted, only concerned about their power and standing.

An irony about this matter is that President Poroshenko appears to be exactly what the EuroMaidan was “supposed” to free Ukraine of; that is, a stooge puppet leader that marches to orders from a foreign power and does nothing for the improvement of the nation and its citizens.

The ouster of Viktor Yanukovich was seen as the sure ticket to “freedom from Russia” for Ukraine, and it may well have been that Mr. Yanukovich was an incompetent leader. However, his removal resulted in a tryannical regíme coming into power, that resulting in the secession of two Ukrainian regions into independent republics and a third secession of strategically super-important Crimea, who voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia.

While this activity was used by the West to try to bolster its own narrative that Russia remains the evil henchman in Europe, the reality of life in Ukraine doesn’t match this allegation at all. A nation that demonstrates such behavior shows that there are many problems, and the nature of these secessions points at a great deal of fear from Russian-speaking Ukrainian people about the government that is supposed to be their own.

President Poroshenko presents a face to the world that the West is apparently willing to support, but the in-country approval of this man as leader speaks volumes. The West’s blind support of him “against Russia” may be one of the most tragic errors yet in Western foreign policy.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending