Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY: North Korea wants dialogue with US – Washington is the obstacle

It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is the biggest stumbling block to peace on the Korean peninsula.

Published

on

3,307 Views

A day after North Korea’s Ambassador to Russia expressed his country’s condemnation of the latest UN sanctions resolution whose unacceptable content he blamed squarely on the United States, Russia has confirmed that North Korea still seeks direct dialogue with the United States.

The double-freeze peace deal proposed jointly by Russia and China, incorporates an urgent request for the facilitation of dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington.

Today Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated,

“Pyongyang is extremely interested in direct dialogue with Washington. I do not have confidence that the US administration has the political will and the determination to enter into such dialogue”.

This lends credence to the idea that America’s goal for Korea isn’t to formally end the Korean War which has been paused since 1953. Rather, America seeks to keep the situation perpetually tense in order to maintain its programme to weaponise the Korean peninsula in the form of deliveries of highly destructive weapons to South Korean soil, primarily the THAAD missile systems whose deliveries continue in spite of mass protests from South Korean citizens and condemnation from Russia and China.

As I wrote in The Duran in August,

“It is becoming increasingly clear that the North Korea crisis has little to do with North Korea but that in reality it has everything to do with the United States testing South Korea in order to see how much power Washington can still manage to wield over Seoul, combined with the longer term goal of distracting China from its One Belt–One Road initiative through provocations on the Korean peninsula.

To understand the current political posturing, it is important to remember that in April, the month during which US-North Korean tensions were raised to feverish levels, the political situation in South Korea was somewhat uncertain.

This year, on the 10th of March, South Korean President Park Geun-hye was removed from office. She was later arrested and is currently still behind bars.

President Park was deeply pro-American and considered to be on the militant end of the spectrum of South Korean politics.

Although Park’s removal from office stemmed from wide ranging allegations of corruption, many South Koreans who favour a political and demilitarised approach to solving the Korean peninsula’s protected problems, breathed a collective sigh of relief.

There is a clear relationship between American rhetoric and military manoeuvrings becoming intensified and Park being removed from office and put under arrest. Even now, the situation in South Korea is a better barometer for American actions in the region than the rather stable situation in Pyongyang.

READ MORE: Could the US go to war with North Korea to stop democracy in SOUTH Korea?

In the end, centre-left (by South Korean standards) candidate Moon Jae-in won the election on a campaign which centred around peace and an opposition to further deliveries of THAAD missile systems to South Korea.

However, by late June of 2017, Moon had acquiesced to further THAAD deliveries, in spite of ongoing protests for peace that have gripped South Korea. These protests have been largely blacked-out by the western mainstream media.

While the THAAD missile launches continue to arrive in South Korea, China continues to voice its protest. China and Russia have spoken with a singular voice on the matter, insisting that the US stop its deliveries of further THAAD systems. This call from the only two states which border the Korean peninsula have been completely ignored by the US which continues to deliver THAAD to and test THAAD from South Korean soil.

In spite of the fact that Moon has seemingly caved to US pressure, the peace movement in South Korea continues to grow. When all is said and done, in spite of South Korea’s traditionally pro-US alignment, South Koreans are as reticent to see the peninsula militarised as are those in the North as well as the Russians and Chinese.

In this sense, the US is seeing how far South Korea under a reluctant peace minded President can be pushed before there is some sort of existential breaking point.

In respect of China, it is well documented that the US is engaging in proxy conflicts as well as overt regime change in hotspots along China’s One Belt–One Road.

READ MORE: US troops in Europe and the Middle East are there to provoke China more than Russia or Iran

However, on the south and east coasts of China, the US is taking a more direct approach to meddling, first of all with its provocative movements in the South China Sea and secondly, in respect of the Korean peninsula.

The idea that the US is sowing chaos in Korea in order to bamboozle China is not a new theory, but it was a theory that until very recently was often dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now, China is openly stating that it believes the US is stirring up conflict in Korea in order to drag China into a conflict which Beijing is dead set against.

Now, even the mainstream media, with their biases still intact are admitting that the US cannot do anything to North Korea without either following Chinese proposals or getting into a hot conflict with at least one nuclear power and possibly three (China, Russia and the considerably less powerful nuclear state of North Korea).

While from the standpoint of morals, ethnics and pragmatism, any conflict on the Korean peninsula is a lose-lose situation for all parties involved as well as neutral parties in the wider region, from a geo-strategic perspective, by forcing China to assert its authority in respect of disagreements with Washington over North Korea, the US has all but revealed its cards to China.

If the US was intelligent, it would continue to play the long, dirty, and of course deeply unethical game of sowing proxy conflicts on the central and western ends of China’s One Belt–One Road, in places where America can more easily sow such conflicts. Such places include, The Middle East, Africa, The Balkans and the western frontiers of Eurasia.

With the Syrian conflict about to be won by the Syrian government which has always been supported by both Russia and China and with the Ukrainian post-coup regime representing little more for the US than a costly road to nowhere, the US decided to increase its hubris just when it should have reconsidered how much money and men it wanted to expend on destabilising China’s commercial ambitions.

The US took the conflict with China back to where it started in the 1940s, to the Korean peninsula. While America’s meddling in Eurasia, southern Europe and the Middle East was more subtle, meddling in North Korea is simply doing what the US disastrously did during the hot phase of the Korean War. It has all the element of surprise of taking Neil Armstrong’s dead body and bringing it to the moon in 2017.

By showing their cards so early on, the US has forced China to call a spade a spade. China says America is provoking and meddling and increasing tensions in the region. This is an objective truth. Furthermore, China is angry not because North Korea is somehow a protectorate of China as the US pretends it is, but because China does not want a foreign super-power causing war, chaos or instability in its neighbourhood.

The US has proved to be highly untactful from an objective point of view as well as deeply dishonest from an ethical point of view. Russia, China and the US could each destroy the world with the push of a bottom. By contrast, North Korea requires a month simply to prepare comparatively crude intermediate range missile launches, some of which work and some which fail. America knows full well that Russia is telling the truth when Moscow says that North Korea objectively cannot hit the United States with any of its current or likely its future weapons systems.

READ MORE: Russia’s grandfatherly truth telling attempts to prevent war in Korean peninsula

The truth is that the entire American song and dance over North Korea is simply a thinly and poorly veiled way of trying to goad China and test South Korea, even Donald Trump’s Twitter account subtly admits this.

I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet…

…they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!

 Donald Trump in insulting China has inadvertently admitted who is the regional boss and therefore who is the regional prize in the eyes of the US military-industrial empire. It is not North Korea, it never has been and never will be.

There is now clarity in respect of the US moves against China. Any mystery or conspiracy over this reality  has now given way to near universally acknowledged fact. A covert game is now being played in the open and on old turf at that”.

America’s total lack of initiative in respect of even acknowledging the Sino-Russian double-freeze, Russia’s tripartite economic cooperation proposals and Pyongyang’s apparent willingness to engage in dialogue, all serves to validate the notion that the US would rather use North Korea as a convenient excuse to molest China, rather than actually work with North Korea’s neighbours to bring peace to the region.

READ MORE: The future of cooperation between North Korea, South Korea and Russia

These views were recently restated by Australian geo-political expert and peace activist John Pilger in an interview with RT.

During the interview, Pilger stated that it is the US, not North Korea which is in need of containment. Since 1953, the US has actively fought in scores of wars, many of which continue to rage. By contrast, the Korean peninsula has enjoyed a ceasefire which paused, but did not end the Korean War, which waged between 1950 and 1953. Even former Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon admitted that North Korea is a “sideshow”. He stated it is merely an element in a wider US “war” again China.

During that war, the US destroyed much of North Korea including virtually all of Pyongyang. The war killed 20% of the entire North Korea population and left hundreds of thousands without homes, food or medicine.

It is this legacy which continues to haunt many on both sides of the 38th parallel. Russia and China have more or less been begging of peace, to paraphrase Nikki Haley’s remark about North Korea allegedly “begging for war”.

There can no longer be any rational doubts that it is the US which remains the biggest stumbling block to a peaceful settlement of lingering wounds on the Korean peninsula.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
mikhas
Guest
mikhas

N.K has reached the sophisticated level required to deter the US from ever attacking it again. That alone should have kept anyone from harboring fantasies to the contrary, or idiotic beliefs that N.K would drop their gun should UN (US) try to starve them to death Even the Yanks have more or less recognized that.

Apparently not Russia & China.

stevek9
Guest
stevek9

That the US could reach a settlement, I believe is true. That this is ALL about China, I don’t believe.

permopin
Guest
permopin

If Pentagon had believed Pyongyang to be a real threat to America, they would have sent in ISIS and Al-Qaeda in to provide them an excuse to invade and destroy North Korea. China, on the other hand, is far too big and populated for the Yankee jihadist.

plebeian_secession
Guest
plebeian_secession

it would be good if South Korea could assert it’s independence.

KateAJones
Guest
KateAJones

Boost your earnings on Google & make $99/hour by working from a home computer.
on friday I bought a gorgeous Chrysler when I got my check for $9277 this munth. it’s actualy the most comfortable job Ive ever had . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away got over $99, per/hr . check
!si206:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineLeadHomeJobsReports/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!si206l..,..

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

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

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

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

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

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