Connect with us




Nikki Haley to quit as UN Ambassador

A controversial UN ambassador for a controversial president announces the close of her time in service to the United States.

Seraphim Hanisch




The American ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, announced her resignation from her post on Tuesday, October 9th. Haley, 46, plans to complete her work at the end of the calendar year.

The former governor of South Carolina, Haley was picked to be the American ambassador to the UN by President Trump on November 23, 2016, shortly after Donald Trump won the Presidency. Her confirmation was nearly unanimously approved in the Senate, 96 to 4. She is the first Indian-American to hold a Cabinet-level position in the American government.

Haley has also been a major lightning rod as regards US foreign policy. As many readers of The Duran know, her stated foreign policy positions on record are strongly pro-Israel, strongly against Iran and in all fairness, time after time she has drawn the ire of many geopolitical observers for holding nothing less than the common standard American position on many foreign policy matters.

This has drawn ridicule, as known by a prank call two Russian comedians did with her, and lots of ire, especially because she appears to hold a Zionist position more strongly than other recent American ambassadors. However, while appearing notably hawkish in reported incidents in UN meetings, her points of view are not always echoes of the will of the President.

One fairly recent example was in April of 2018, immediately after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib that was answered by a most peculiar three-nation, 103-missile strike that was reported later to have killed no one, and damaged nothing of importance. Haley spoke about how the US was getting ready to impose very harsh new sanctions against Russia, only to be stopped in her tracks by the President who said that this was not to take place; that there would be no new sanctions taken against Russia.

The mainstream media immediately tried to launch into all manner of speculation as to why it was that Nikki Haley was leaving the post, including:

  • outrage over Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed as Justice to the Supreme Court
  • as a corollary to this above reason, Haley was reported as “believing Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s” story
  • intent to run against President Trump in the 2020 presidential elections
  • Senator Lindsey Graham was going to succeed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and Haley would run for his vacated Senate seat

However, all this speculation was erased in this press conference:

Sorry, MSM, you’re wrong, yet again.

Nikki made plans for her resignation several months ago. She simply stated that she believes in term limits and that it is time for someone else to serve in this post. She wants to take a break from public service and then perhaps come and campaign for Mr. Trump in the 2020 race.

In this press conference, Nikki offered her summary of the results of her work in the UN in concert with the President, and understandably, it was resoundingly full of positives, often about the very points she received so much criticism from so many people about, notably the US withdrawal from the JCPoA “Iran Deal” and the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem from its former home in Tel Aviv, Israel.

It is very often (if not always) the case that the best way to understand someone’s perspectives is to listen to them directly, and not to take someone else’s interpretation and opinion of their words as being more true than the person’s own witness. This methodology is applicable to great effect for example, when comparing what the press (even Fox News) says about President Trump, contrasted with what President Trump himself actually says about any given topic.

The same litmus test may be very applicable to Ambassador Haley as well. Her summary stated in this conference, backed by the President, gives some interesting perspective to issues that many readers of geopolitical news from a non-US perspective might do well to weigh and evaluate.

Haley made the following points in her account:

Serving as ambassador was “the honor of a lifetime” in her own words

  • She considers it an honor to have been able to lead the state that raised her and to serve the country she loves so much, the US.
  • Now the US is respected – maybe not liked, but respected, in that the world now knows that the US does what it says it will do.
  • Cited as examples were the Syrian chemical weapons situation
  • Getting NATO member nations to pay their dues
  • Cut 1.3 billion in the UN budget, streamlining the UN operations (the US pays the bulk of the budget for this organization’s existence)
  • Arms embargo against South Sudan
  • three North Korean sanctions packages that eventually led Kim to the negotiating table
  • The withdrawal from the Iran deal (JCPoA)
  • Addressing anti-Israel bias and moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem “We will put our embassy where we want…”
  • The US, for Nikki Haley, is “strong again.”
  • very high praise for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, especially in regard to the Middle East peace plan (admittedly a VERY underreported matter)

She indicated her intention to make sure that all things are in place and ready for the next ambassador to come in.

Admittedly, many of the very things Ambassador Haley listed here as positive accomplishments are precisely those matter for which she (and President Trump) have often received unsparing criticism for, such as the move of the US Embassy in Israel and the notorious JCPoA deal. She was often reported to be something like a “warmonger” a “hawk” or a “loose cannon” in the UN. Sometimes, an even worse criticism of Haley was that she was a laughingstock, making the US look out of touch and uninformed or stupid.

These matters, and how well she actually performed, are left to the reader in the short term, and history in the longer term, to appropriately assess.

It is probably fair to say that Haley’s presentation of American views was anything but globalist in composition, though the American perspective is often notably different than the perspective that Russia or China offer on the same given situations affecting the world.

Yet perhaps, the three great powers in the world today – Russia, China and the United States have managed to bring about some real positive changes in the world through debate, disagreement and discussion. As Haley’s time in the UN draws to a close, this is something significant to reflect upon.

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

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
ShahnaTEPTheCelotajsRosewood11 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks be to God!!!

Goodbye, Niki Don’t let the door hit you in the azz on the way out!!!


This is the greatest thing that could happen. Nikki Haley had absolutely no Foreign Policy knowledge or experience at all when she took the job. Every time she opened her mouth at the UN she was campaigning. Everything she did or said was pro Israel and anti Syria, Iran and Russia.


Perhaps her rabies is in remission? … like Power before her I am sure they can find another mouth-foamer given how widespread the disease appears to be.


Good riddance now bring on The Next Complete American Moron.


Understanding the Holodomor and why Russia says nothing

A descendant of Holodomor victims takes the rest of us to school as to whether or not Russia needs to shoulder the blame.

Seraphim Hanisch



One of the charges that nationalist Ukrainians often lodge against their Russian neighbors is that the Russian government has never acknowledged or formally apologized to Ukraine for the “Holodomor” that took place in Ukraine in 1932-1933. This was a man-made famine that killed an estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainians , though higher estimates claim 12.5 million and lower ones now claim 3.3 million.

No matter what the total was, it amounts to a lot of people that starved to death. The charge that modern-day Russia ought to apologize for this event is usually met with silence, which further enrages those Ukrainians that believe that this issue must be resolved by the Russian acknowledgement of responsibility for it. Indeed, the prime charge of these Ukrainians is that the Russians committed a genocide against the Ukrainian people. This is a claim Russia denies.

To the outside observer who does not know this history of Russia and Ukraine’s relationship, and who does not know or understand the characteristics of the Soviet Union, this charge seems as simple and laid out as that of the Native Americans or the blacks demanding some sort of recompense or restitution for the damages inflicted on these societies through conquest and / or slavery. But we discovered someone who had family connections involved in the Holodomor, and who offers her own perspective, which is instructive in why perhaps the Russian Federation does not say anything about this situation.

Scene in Kharkiv with dead from the famine 1932-33 lying along the street.

The speaker is Anna Vinogradova, a Russian Israeli-American, who answered the question through Quora of “Why doesn’t Russia recognize the Holodomor as a genocide?” She openly admits that she speaks only for herself, but her answer is still instructive. We offer it here, with some corrections for the sake of smooth and understandable English:

I can’t speak for Russia and what it does and doesn’t recognize. I can speak for myself.

I am a great-granddaughter of a “Kulak” (кулак), or well-to-do peasant, who lived close to the Russia/Ukraine border.

The word “кулак” means “fist” in Russian, and it wasn’t a good thing for a person to be called by this label. A кулак was an exploiter of peasants and a class enemy of the new state of workers and poor peasants. In other words, while under Communism, to be called a кулак was to bring a death sentence upon yourself.

At some point, every rural class enemy, every peasant who wasn’t a member of a collective farm was eliminated one way or another.

Because Ukraine has very fertile land and the Ukrainian style of agriculture often favors individual farms as opposed to villages, there is no question that many, many Ukrainian peasants were considered class enemies like my great grandfather, and eliminated in class warfare.

I have no doubt that class warfare included starvation, among other things.

The catch? My great grandfather was an ethnic Russian living in Russia. What nationality were the communists who persecuted and eventually shot him? They were of every nationality there was (in the Soviet Union), and they were led by a Ukrainian, who was taking orders from a Georgian.

Now, tell me, why I, a descendant of an unjustly killed Russian peasant, need to apologize to the descendants of the Ukrainians who killed him on the orders of a Georgian?

What about the Russian, Kazakh golodomor (Russian rendering of the same famine)? What about the butchers, who came from all ethnicities? Can someone explain why it’s only okay to talk about Ukrainian victims and Russian persecutors? Why do we need to rewrite history decades later to convert that brutal class war into an ethnic war that it wasn’t?

Ethnic warfare did not start in Russia until after WWII, when some ethnicities were accused of collaboration with the Nazis and brutal group punishments were implemented. It was all based on class up to that time.

The communists of those years were fanatically internationalist. “Working people of all countries, unite!” was their slogan and they were fanatical about it.

As for the crimes of Communism, Russia has been healing this wound for decades, and Russia’s government has made its anticommunist position very clear.

This testimony is most instructive. First, it points out information that the charge of the Holodomor as “genocide!” neatly leaves out. In identifying the internationalist aspects of the Soviet Union, Ukraine further was not a country identified as somehow worthy of genocidal actions. Such a thought makes no sense, especially given the great importance of Ukraine as the “breadbasket” of the Soviet Union, which it was.

Secondly, it shows a very western-style of “divide to conquer” with a conveniently incendiary single-word propaganda tool that is no doubt able to excite any Ukrainian who may be neutral to slightly disaffected about Russia, and then after that, all Ukrainians are now victims of the mighty evil overlords in Moscow.

How convenient is this when the evil overlords in Kyiv don’t want their citizens to know what they are doing?

We saw this on Saturday – taken to a very high peak when President Petro Poroshenko announced the new leading “Hierarch” of the “Ukrainian National Church” and said not one single word about Christ, but only:

“This day will go down in history as the day of the creation of an autocephalous Orthodox church in Ukraine… This is the day of the creation of the church as an independent structure… What is this church? It is a church without Putin. It is a church without Kirill, without prayer for the Russian authorities and the Russian army.”

But as long as Russia is made the “problem”, millions of scandalized Ukrainians will not care what this new Church actually does or teaches, which means it is likely to teach just about anything.

Russia had its own Holodomor. The history of the event shows that this was a result of several factors – imposed socialist economics on a deeply individualized form of agrarian capitalism (bad for morale and worse for food production), really inane centralized planning of cropland use, and a governmental structure that really did not exist to serve the governed, but to impose an ideology on people who really were not all that interested in it.

Personal blame might well lay with Stalin, a Georgian, but the biggest source of the famine lay in the structures imposed under communism as a way of economic strategy. This is not Russia’s fault. It is the economic model that failed.

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


Mueller Finally Releases Heavily Redacted Key Flynn Memo On Eve Of Sentencing

Alex Christoforou



Via Zerohedge

Having initially snubbed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order to release the original 302 report from the Michael Flynn interrogation in January 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally produced the heavily redacted document, just hours before sentencing is due to be handed down.

The memo  – in full below – details then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s interview with FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, and shows Flynn was repeatedly asked about his contacts with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and in each instance, Flynn denied (or did not recall) any such conversations.

The agents had transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls to Russian Ambassador Kislyak, thus showing Flynn to be lying.

Flynn pleaded guilty guilty last December to lying to the FBI agents about those conversations with Kislyak.

The redactions in the document seem oddly placed but otherwise, there is nothing remarkable about the content…

Aside from perhaps Flynn’s incredulity at the media attention…

Flynn is set to be sentenced in that federal court on Tuesday.

Of course, as Christina Laila notes, the real crime is that Flynn was unmasked during his phone calls to Kislyak and his calls were illegally leaked by a senior Obama official to the Washington Post.

*  *  *

Full document below…

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


Don’t Laugh : It’s Giving Putin What He Wants

The fact of the matter is that humorous lampooning of western establishment Russia narratives writes itself.

Caitlin Johnstone



Authored by Caitlin Johnstone:

The BBC has published an article titled “How Putin’s Russia turned humour into a weapon” about the Kremlin’s latest addition to its horrifying deadly hybrid warfare arsenal: comedy.

The article is authored by Olga Robinson, whom the BBC, unhindered by any trace of self-awareness, has titled “Senior Journalist (Disinformation)”. Robinson demonstrates the qualifications and acumen which earned her that title by warning the BBC’s audience that the Kremlin has been using humor to dismiss and ridicule accusations that have been leveled against it by western governments, a “form of trolling” that she reports is designed to “deliberately lower the level of discussion”.

“Russia’s move towards using humour to influence its campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon,” Robinson explains, without speculating as to why Russians might have suddenly begun laughing at their western accusers. She gives no consideration to the possibility that the tightly knit alliance of western nations who suddenly began hysterically shrieking about Russia two years ago have simply gotten much more ridiculous and easier to make fun of during that time.

Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the emergence of a demented media environment wherein everything around the world from French protests to American culture wars to British discontent with the European Union gets blamed on Russia without any facts or evidence. Wherein BBC reporters now correct guests and caution them against voicing skepticism of anti-Russia narratives because the UK is in “an information war” with that nation. Wherein the same cable news Russiagate pundit can claim that both Rex Tillerson’s hiring and his later firing were the result of a Russian conspiracy to benefit the Kremlin. Wherein mainstream outlets can circulate blatantly false information about Julian Assange and unnamed “Russians” and then blame the falseness of that reporting on Russian disinformation. Wherein Pokemon Go, cutesy Facebook memes and $4,700 in Google ads are sincerely cited as methods by which Hillary Clinton’s $1.2 billion presidential campaign was outdone. Wherein conspiracy theories that Putin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government have been blaring on mainstream headline news for two years with absolutely nothing to show for it to this day.

Nope, the only possibility is that the Kremlin suddenly figured out that humor is a thing.

The fact of the matter is that humorous lampooning of western establishment Russia narratives writes itself. The hypocrisy is so cartoonish, the emotions are so breathlessly over-the-top, the stories so riddled with plot holes and the agendas underlying them so glaringly obvious that they translate very easily into laughs. I myself recently authored a satire piece that a lot of people loved and which got picked up by numerous alternative media outlets, and all I did was write down all the various escalations this administration has made against Russia as though they were commands being given to Trump by Putin. It was extremely easy to write, and it was pretty damn funny if I do say so myself. And it didn’t take any Kremlin rubles or dezinformatsiya from St Petersburg to figure out how to write it.

“Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as ‘disinformation for the information age’,” the article warns. Nimmo, ironically, is himself intimately involved with the British domestic disinformation firm Integrity Initiative, whose shady government-sponsored psyops against the Labour Party have sparked a national scandal that is likely far from reaching peak intensity.

“Most comedy programmes on Russian state television these days are anodyne affairs which either do not touch on political topics, or direct humour at the Kremlin’s perceived enemies abroad,” Robinson writes, which I found funny since I’d just recently read an excellent essay by Michael Tracey titled “Why has late night swapped laughs for lusting after Mueller?”

“If the late night ‘comedy’ of the Trump era has something resembling a ‘message,’ it’s that large segments of the nation’s liberal TV viewership are nervously tracking every Russia development with a passion that cannot be conducive to mental health – or for that matter, political efficacy,” Tracey writes, documenting numerous examples of the ways late night comedy now has audiences cheering for a US intelligence insider and Bush appointee instead of challenging power-serving media orthodoxies as programs like The Daily Show once did.

If you wanted the opposite of “anodyne affairs”, it would be comedians ridiculing the way all the establishment talking heads are manipulating their audiences into supporting the US intelligence community and FBI insiders. It would be excoriating the media environment in which unfathomably powerful world-dominating government agencies are subject to less scrutiny and criticism than a man trapped in an embassy who published inconvenient facts about those agencies. It certainly wouldn’t be the cast of Saturday Night Live singing “All I Want for Christmas Is You” to a framed portrait if Robert Mueller wearing a Santa hat. It doesn’t get much more anodyne than that.

Russia makes fun of western establishment narratives about it because those narratives are so incredibly easy to make fun of that they are essentially asking for it, and the nerdy way empire loyalists are suddenly crying victim about it is itself more comedy. When Guardian writer Carole Cadwalladr began insinuating that RT covering standard newsworthy people like Julian Assange and Nigel Farage was a conspiracy to “boost” those people for the advancement of Russian agendas instead of a news outlet doing the thing that news reporting is, RT rightly made fun of her for it. Cadwalladr reacted to RT’s mockery with a claim that she was a victim of “attacks”, instead of the recipient of perfectly justified ridicule for circulating an intensely moronic conspiracy theory.

Ah well. People are nuts and we’re hurtling toward a direct confrontation with a nuclear superpower. Sometimes there’s nothing else to do but laugh. As Wavy Gravy said, “Keep your sense of humor, my friend; if you don’t have a sense of humor it just isn’t funny anymore.”

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


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...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter