Connect with us

Latest

News

Interactive map shows all US invasions from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014

All the countries that the United States has invaded in one map.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

8,523 Views

Trump is increasing America’s military presence in Afghanistan…a move that extends the US military incursion in Afghanistan well past 16 years

Indy100 has created an map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014…yes the US has invaded Syria contrary to what is being reported in the mainstream media.

Via Zerohedge

From Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, the US has had a military presence across the world, from almost day one of its independence. For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States military – both historically and currently – but shied away due to the sheer volume of research required to find an answer, The Anti Media points out that a crew at the Independent just made things a whole lot simpler.

Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.

Indy100 defines what constitutes an invasion…

Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Such map might be interesting to see but it is much more interesting to try to understand what was really happening in some specific part of the world this map relates to, hence the very short snapshot in time that relates to Soviet Union. Even such snapshot will necessarily incite questions but I will keep those short as well although anyone with thinking ability would easily realise that this particular moment in time could easily facilitate large text explaining causes and players. Bolsheviks promised peace, freedom and food for impoverished Russians. When Bolsheviks took factories and riches away from capitalists… Read more »

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

For support I just copy in my recent post, which provides even USAmericans with examples of proper historiography in their language. I have found out even one US historian, though of Russian background, who had full access to Soviet archives in the early 90s, and who, instead of writing typical US bullshit narratives in full emotionalising Hollywood design, delivered a very precise reconstruction of the year preceding up to the year following the October Revolution. His name is Alexander Rabinowitch. As his work gives thorough insights into primary sources (including, what every solid historian does, surgical looks at the context… Read more »

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

None of your links work.

Avramijevdan
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

Not for nothing guys, but now I’m totally confused.

So I’ll read that stuff. May you guys summarize your positions ANYwhere I can read them not dispersed by comments back and forth…

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Russian Revolution was Russian thing, civil war wasn’t. Eight western or western ruled states fought against Bolsheviks in civil war. No foreign state aligned with Bolsheviks. It is enough on its own to show where are bankers allegiances. Bolsheviks were not financed by foreign bankers. On the contrary they were even forbidden any access to foreign banks so they had to use Swedish banker Olof Aschberg in order to sell the gold they had so they could finance their newly created state. There is not a single document, not even a single one showing any of the Bolsheviks were financed… Read more »

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

k, if you have the stuff in Russian, and its online I can translate it. I have no problem with doing that page by page if necessary.

Damn, my typing is being echo’d…must be going through tons of servers now…

Hi derp state, what’s up!

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

You think you can get the grip of sophisticated historiography on the base of online translations? Incredible! Have you any idea how to interpret real sources? Have you any knowledge about the political structure of the countries you harbour “an opinion” about? Where did you get your education from? Mormonic ‘home training’? A hysterical ‘bible-belt’ mummy? By a pentacostal preacher who teaches “creationism”? What about a farewell with all your USAdist pals to some website called “US Insider”? There you can dwell all day in fairy tales that “Jews” are behind everything. But stop committing abusive acts on history of… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Not easy one. I used to frequent some Russian based boards and would pick up texts or videos recommended by other people. For 20 years. For example, I was not even aware of this lady and recently one other commentator on RI suggested this video. It is about peasant question in Russia. And here is the transcript of that video. https://oper.ru/video/view.php?t=2114 Lot of lies about Soviet Union are based on rosy picture of Russia before the WW1. Most of these rosy pictures have nothing with reality to do. I am not saying collectivisation was the best thing ever but there… Read more »

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

Well, as I read about 1917 Russia, I get an unnerving feeling of today, just with race, gender and sexual orientation replacing class in the arguments of the Social Revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks and the Meshoviks or something…

The US today looks to me like a rerun of the communist revolution, my friend…

Can you see what’s going on in the US? What do you think?

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Revolution in Russia was born out of injustice in society and desire for freedom. There is nothing like that in US if you ask me. US is society of complacent people who might argue with each other over the race or some equally irrelevant and misinterpreted subject. US is already a fascist society and as any fascist society it must feed on wars. The only question is will it turn full retard before it implodes.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

Well, that Russians have nothing at all to do with Russian Civil War cannot be said either. That USAdistan had already supported Japanese in the Japanese-Russian war in 1905, and that they attacked the SU around 1918 and had before messed in the Russian civil war, is known. But testimonies of contemporarean authors like Schalamow and Michael Blogakow show clearly about different factions of Russsians involved too. Bulgakov’s novel “The White Guards”, of which a stage version exists Stalin was said to have seen about twenty times, based on studies of family records (publication 1925), and presents the struggle of… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Of course, it was fratricide. By not being Russian I meant it would not last nearly as much nor would it be as horrific was it not for foreign powers.

Bulgakov “Flight” was turn into a movie in 1970. I think most of the Russians will be familiar with that movie and it is great depiction of the times.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

I thought of you…that you should have known this

http://omnithought.org/blog

http://omnithought.org/blog

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

The links are down. I did wake up early to play with guys in EUistan. I’m just wasting time until I die really… So I’m not sure if I misunderstood them, or I read it still sleeping.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

Links are there because it is a PDF….it is AI blocking it

do not use google or windows explorer,AOL..they are now preventing you to see anything that tells the truth..use firefox and TOR which are much better

http://omnithought.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trusts-and-Court.pdf

http://omnithought.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/legal-name-addiction-by-kate-of-kaia.pdf

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

Got it…SOB! I used a private window. Damn, how close the mirrors of the mirror house are closing in on us!

Is it just the US that is heavily restricting content?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

YES the US is going to be destroyed..COMMUNISM is the AGENDA

USE KAPERSKY ANTIVIRUS …YES FROM RUSSIA..so the info is not sent to THE NSA

IF YOU WANT TO FLUSTER THE NSA DATA RAPE, USE KAPERSKY.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All to Expose the Shadow Governmenthttps://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/cia-agent-whistleblower-risks-all-to-expose-the-shadow-government/

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

Young teenage millennials are being preyed upon for their blood
by the older, super-wealthy elite – who are trying to make themselves
immortal.

http://asheepnomore.net/2017/08/29/bbc-wealthy-elite-are-literally-feasting-on-the-blood-of-poor-millennials/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ASheepNoMore+%28A+Sheep+No+More+%29

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

What do you expect presentations of real world events to be like? Like a comic strip about a handful of demonic magicians, possessing magical wands, a glass ball and a giant remote control bewitching supernaturally millions worldwide to act in most sinister ways while they would otherwise have behaved like white lillies? Do you expect that anybody has the slightest bit of respect for somebody who considers cheap video stagings of second-class actors, like that stooge in the above video, serious testimonies of anything? Perversion certainly exists on this planet, but it is hardly restricted to any cabal (just look… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

Thanks. I did not think of it.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

A cute little piece. Our esteeemed and prolix correspondent asks “Why the obsession with jews?” He will never have heard of the Cheka; if he had, he would not ask such a facile and ridiculous question. Neither will he have heard of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, a great favourite of this wicked people, whose greatest contribution to world literature was the immortal one-liner, “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.” See if you can discover the reference, in the appended link, written by a jewish historian, to “The greatest mass murderer of the 20th century”; and if you… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Is Israeli newspaper primary source? Is Churchill historian or even better, is he anything but cunt? What do you want oh confused one? Whatever it is, don’t look for it here.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

I note you craftily sidestep the universally-acknowledged role of the predominantly-jewish Cheka in the so-called Russian Revolution, or Regime Change, as we would call it today. And I think Churchill is probably more credible a witness than yourself. The jewish historian I linked to was noteworthy less for his own opinions, than for the references to historical fact which he adduced, so you are guilty of the rhetorical device known as the ad hominem, by attempting to discredit him, rather than his message. Always the tactic of the intellectually bankrupt, of course.. But as you suggest, I will certainly not… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

There is nothing predominantly or universally-acknowledged (what sort of thing is that?) Jewish in Soviet Union. Nothing. Nor is Cheka some sort of Baba Yaga, it is simply a secret police in rather difficult times.

That you are siding with Churchill an anti-Russian cunt is nothing surprising. Birds of same feather flock together. What will you do or not do is up to you, so please feel free to continue your way.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

To explain the meanings of these words to which you have never been introduced, “Predominantly”, ie largely, mostly, having a numerical majority; as in “The Cheka was predominantly staffed by jews”, as in 38% of its number at the height of its excesses; “Universally acknowledged”, as in, most people with any familiarity whatsoever with the facts of the case agree that the Russian revolution was a jewish conspiracy funded out of NYC by Jakob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb; and this in response to the refusal of the Tsar to entertain a jewish-controlled central bank in Russia; and that the political… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

I see you did not understand me so I will repeat it to you. I don’t enjoy conversing with ignorant cunts. Go back to your cuntland.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

Rather, what you don’t enjoy is having your narrative exposed as vacuous.

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

You seem ignorant of a number of issues. Imperial Russia was heavily indebted to western governments and banks where certain affluent Jews were involved. The Bolshevik government, already from early 1918, had unilaterally erased Russia’s debts and nationalized the banks. Unless you believe that ”Gentile” bankers are better than Jewish ones, that shouldn’t hurt your feelings. Especially since western banks were not allowed to enter the country for decades onward. As for regime change, it would help you to know that the Tsar, who was an utterly incompetent monarch BTW, wasn’t even toppled by the Bolsheviks since they had no… Read more »

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

All likes of him repeat (verbatim) Nazi propaganda and trying to talk to such is as effective as talking to a washing machine. Continue to press him long enough and he will proudly declare himself a Nazi.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

That’s something these narcisstic and resentful morons will never understand: that their primitive antisemitc narratives present the involved populations they brand as ‘victims of Jews’ as mere vegetables. As if a historical process in which millions were involved could be explained, if they point at a handful of Jewish names or mention some Jewish US-bankers (allways leaving out non-Jewish supporters of foreign troubles) that allegedly are supposed to have invested some pocket money in one or the other head of Bolsheviks. Their blind and illogical antisemitsm proves that they share the same chauvinistic, reactionary and US-centred view of the world… Read more »

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

Much prolixity, but little in the way of reasoned argument.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

Lunacy of US-Nazi-delusion which is based on ficticious and not even likely assumptions of the most imbecile and presumptious kind against millionfold testimonies of witnesses, hundredthousandfold documentations based on millions of undisputable primary sources in German, Russian and other Slavic countries’ archives does neither need nor deserve ‘argumentation’. The real truth of the Octobre Revolution, about Bolshevism, about Nazism and WW2, as laid down in solid historiography in our countries, is as undisputable as the very existence of planet earth. USNazis neither know nor have any claim to open up their dirty mouths on European 20th century history. It is… Read more »

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

This is called “ranting”, Anja.
Next time, put everything in capital letters, so everybody will fully understand that you are an undischarged lunatic.
Oh, and btw, I did not detect one fact in anything you said.
All was assertion, and hearsay, and bile.
And thus, inadmissible in any court of law this side of Wonderland.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

Piss off, US-Nazis, or we will make you piss off.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

I love a dominant woman, Anja.
You remind me of the Bitch of Belsen.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

I have not much in common with her, as I never follow orders, but just do what I think right. And above all: if I ever cut a person’s throat, and if scum like you multiplies, I will be fit to do that, that person will certainly be a Nazi.

And guess what: There are hundrethousands of women like me in Germany today, and we will defend our country against all brown scum that ever dares to set a foot on our soil. You can count on it.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

I think you might be a bit too late to defend your country from “brown scum”, Anja.
They are already in the front door, and more on the way.
But check up on the history of Himmler, he had a murderous way with foreigners too.
You seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

I have nothing against foreigners. Nothing at all.

But I and most other Germans will make sure that Nazis like you will be adequately dealt with on German soil.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

Clearly, the Bitch has a heart of gold. However, these foreigners have a great deal against you. They wish to subordinate you to their religious doctrines, which in the case of the jew, see you as subhuman, and ritually unclean, and all your children as bastards, and both you and they worthy of death. As they say, “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.” The mohammedan, equally, wishes to subject you to his moon god, and if you will not submit, then you must pay the dhimmi, and in due course, be eliminated, as we see from the… Read more »

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

We must agree to differ.

Getagrippse
Guest
Getagrippse

I wouldn’t, Churchill was a cold blooded killer who wanted war regardless

Norman
Guest
Norman

Ever so often one appears among us children men who’s”opinions” resonates beautifully with prophecies/revelations even though their personalities leaves much to be desired. You could easily make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Nobody’s loss but your own.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

Probably less a cold-blooded killer, although he was that too, of course, as witnessed by his order to Harris to firebomb Dresden whilst it was full of civilians fleeing from the Great Redeeming Force of communist sovietry; rather, an ordinary man with bills to pay, and only one way in which this could be achieved.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Truth will be thrown to the ground, times and events will be changed, the whole world will follow the despicable one with the whore(Jews)at the forefront. If the culmination of these events weren’t shortened by God, none would be saved.let the evil become more evil and the holy more holy.our own mouths testify and confirm to what we are; evil or holy. Give the evil over to their own devices.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

We see this of course in the nature of the comments here.

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

Churchill’s mother was Jewish.

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

This is true, of course, but Churchill was originally a great antisemite, so it does not appear that the zionist-Talmudic narrative comes with one’s mother’s milk. Churchill fell victim to these parasites when, in 1936, he accepted the sum of £40,000 from the jewish chairman of the Shell Oil Company, one Stanley Cohen, a member of the “Focus” group, which had been feeding Churchill other sums of money ( he had a large estate to maintain, Chartwell, and on an MP’s salary at the time, ie £500 pa, he had found things difficult ) for a number of years. At… Read more »

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

You are quite misinformed, my good man.
Please, of course I cannot stop you but may be advised, do not try again for I understand
a) you are convinced what you are presenting here or
b) you are being provocative here and think we are history-dumped down or
c) somebody else is misusing your Username.

You read the wrong history “books”, Avramijevdan.

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

When I wish to find out about Russia I read Russians. When I wish to find out about Russian history I read Russian historians. It is that simple. Provocative or not most of the people who comment and write on this page simply fell for Solzhenitsyn, the fiction writer. They think what that idiot wrote is a history. Some more intelectual are using so called “Russian studies”. Members of that highly esteemed society are not able to find their own arses and how on earth would they ever find anything about Russia when they never ever had any access to… Read more »

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Since 4 July 1776 when the US gained independence from Great Britain, courtesy of self determination/will of the people (just like Crimea used the same argument) the US sadly has been at war for 222 years. With only 19 years total peace. Now that is sad for the tax payer of the US, who has no choice, but, to fund the military industrial complex and their lust for destruction.

comment image

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

Thank you for the graphic. You should go back farther. The Spanish-American war I’m almost sure was for corporate interests as well, as all the US’ wars have been it seems. I have to look it up, but amazingly, it is TRUE, more than 90% of the time, the “exporter” of democracy has been at war with somebody. Who are the hessians of the NWO? WE are. America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776 Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011) 1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second… Read more »

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Sad isn’t it? Yet, I bet the citizens of the US wanted no part of it?

Thanks for the detail in your reply. Nice work,

Jeffrey Spinner
Guest
Jeffrey Spinner

Dude, I grew up thinking the US was doing what I was taught it was doing.

Then I saw a drunk black man yelling at me the CIA is the drug importers and dealers in the 1980s…I said no way!

Then I saw the Iranians say the US is the great satan…I said, how could that be!?

Now I know better, because now I am a man, and only hold truth probable, if I verify it for myself. Holy crap, was I taught a total heaping hot pile of horseshit.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Not just you. I am over in the UK and happily believed all that we were told, by our leaders and the media. Then I started following events in Ukraine and woke up. So agree with what you say and so sad, what they get upto in our name.

Shahna
Guest

“Coming soon” seems to have been clamped down on……
Not for want of trying.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

President Trump: “We are killing terrorists.”

Sounds like the song “Kill for Peace”:
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Near or Middle or very Far East
Far or near or very Middle East
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
If you don’t like the people
Or the way that they talk
If you don’t like their manners
Or they way that they walk,
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace”.

Shahna
Guest

US invaded Russia 1918-1922?
Why?

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Not only US but also Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, France as well as occupied China joined the fight against Bolsheviks. Horrors of civil war in Russia are to a large extent due to western countries support of anti revolutionist forces and their creation of what should be correctly called terrorists. Why US joined fight against Bolsheviks? Are you serious? You don’t buy into propaganda Bolsheviks are created by the west and bankers, do you? Soviet Union was seen in the west as a very serious threat since their own subjects might start asking for freedom as well. They took good… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

“Not only US but also Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, France as well
as occupied China joined the fight against Bolsheviks. Horrors of civil
war in Russia are to a large extent due to western countries support of
anti revolutionist forces and their creation of what should be correctly
called terrorists.”

—————-
Ta. Yes.
Covert support is not a military invasion – did these countries officially put boots on the ground in Russia at that time?

(I’m asking for boots because no-one was conducting serial mass murder by airstrike or drone bomb in those days.)

Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

Yes they did. Britain was in Baku until the bitter end. US had soldiers in far east and so on.

Shahna
Guest

Thanks – that’s what I was asking!

gragor11a
Guest
gragor11a

Funny they missed Japan . . .

Also the islands in the Pacific where they exploded atomic bombs and relocated the populations for example. Not a complete map to my way of thinking.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Why omit Canada? US attacked it when it was British territory (stolen from Indians) in 1812.

Latest

Parliament Seizes Control Of Brexit From Theresa May

Zerohedge

Published

on

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

Latest

Schaeuble, Greece and the lessons learned from a failed GREXIT (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 117.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine a recent interview with the Financial Times given by Wolfgang Schäuble, where the former German Finance Minister, who was charged with finding a workable and sustainable solution to the Greek debt crisis, reveals that his plan for Greece to take a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone (in order to devalue its currency and save its economy) was met with fierce resistance from Brussels hard liners, and Angela Merkel herself.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via FT

“Look where we’re sitting!” says Wolfgang Schäuble, gesturing at the Berlin panorama stretching out beneath us. It is his crisp retort to those who say that Europe is a failure, condemned to a slow demise by its own internal contradictions. “Walk through the Reichstag, the graffiti left by the Red Army soldiers, the images of a destroyed Berlin. Until 1990 the Berlin Wall ran just below where we are now!”

We are in Käfer, a restaurant on the rooftop of the Reichstag. The views are indeed stupendous: Berlin Cathedral and the TV Tower on Alexanderplatz loom through the mist. Both were once in communist East Berlin, cut off from where we are now by the wall. Now they’re landmarks of a single, undivided city. “Without European integration, without this incredible story, we wouldn’t have come close to this point,” he says. “That’s the crazy thing.”

As Angela Merkel’s finance minister from 2009 to 2017, Schäuble was at the heart of efforts to steer the eurozone through a period of unprecedented turbulence. But at home he is most associated with Germany’s postwar political journey, having not only negotiated the 1990 treaty unifying East and West Germany but also campaigned successfully for the capital to move from Bonn.

For a man who has done so much to put Berlin — and the Reichstag — back on the world-historical map, it is hard to imagine a more fitting lunch venue. With its open-plan kitchen and grey formica tables edged in chrome, Käfer has a cool, functional aesthetic that is typical of the city. On the wall hangs a sketch by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, who famously wrapped the Reichstag in silver fabric in 1995.

The restaurant has one other big advantage: it is easy to reach from Schäuble’s office. Now 76, he has been confined to a wheelchair since he was shot in an assassination attempt in 1990, and mobility is an issue. Aides say he tends to avoid restaurants if he can, especially at lunchtime.

As we take our places, we talk about Schäuble’s old dream — that German reunification would be a harbinger of European unity, a step on the road to a United States of Europe. That seems hopelessly out of reach in these days of Brexit, the gilets jaunes in France, Lega and the Five Star Movement in Italy.

Some blame Schäuble himself for that. He was, after all, the architect of austerity, a fiscal hawk whose policy prescriptions during the euro crisis caused untold hardship for millions of ordinary people, or so his critics say. He became a hate figure, especially in Greece. Posters in Athens in 2015 depicted him with a Hitler moustache below the words: “Wanted — for mass poverty and devastation”.

Schäuble rejects the criticism that austerity caused the rise of populism. “Higher spending doesn’t lead to greater contentment,” he says. The root cause lies in mass immigration, and the insecurities it has unleashed. “What European country doesn’t have this problem?” he asks. “Even Sweden. The poster child of openness and the willingness to help.”

But what of the accusation that he didn’t care enough about the suffering of the southern Europeans? Austerity divided the EU and spawned a real animus against Schäuble. I ask him how that makes him feel now. “Well I’m sad, because I played a part in all of that,” he says, wistfully. “And I think about how we could have done it differently.”

I glance at the menu — simple German classics with a contemporary twist. I’m drawn to the starters, such as Oldenburg duck pâté and the Müritz smoked trout. But true to his somewhat abstemious reputation, Schäuble has no interest in these and zeroes in on the entrées. He chooses Käfer’s signature veal meatballs, a Berlin classic. I go for the Arctic char and pumpkin.

Schäuble switches seamlessly back to the eurozone crisis. The original mistake was in trying to create a common currency without a “common economic, employment and social policy” for all eurozone member states. The fathers of the euro had decided that if they waited for political union to happen first they’d wait forever, he says.

Yet the prospects for greater political union are now worse than they have been in years. “The construction of the EU has proven to be questionable,” he says. “We should have taken the bigger steps towards integration earlier on, and now, because we can’t convince the member states to take them, they are unachievable.”

Greece was a particularly thorny problem. It should never have been admitted to the euro club in the first place, Schäuble says. But when its debt crisis first blew up, it should have taken a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone — an idea he first floated with Giorgos Papakonstantinou, his Greek counterpart between 2009 and 2011. “I told him you need to be able to devalue your currency, you’re not competitive,” he says. The reforms required to repair the Greek economy were going to be “hard to achieve in a democracy”. “That’s why you need to leave the euro for a certain period. But everyone said there was no chance of that.”

The idea didn’t go away, though. Schäuble pushed for a temporary “Grexit” in 2015, during another round of the debt crisis. But Merkel and the other EU heads of government nixed the idea. He now reveals he thought about resigning over the issue. “On the morning the decision was made, [Merkel] said to me: ‘You’ll carry on?’ . . . But that was one of the instances where we were very close [to my stepping down].”

It is an extraordinary revelation, one that highlights just how rocky his relationship with Merkel has been over the years. Schäuble has been at her side from the start, an éminence grise who has helped to resolve many of the periodic crises of her 13 years as chancellor. But it was never plain sailing.

“There were a few really bad conflicts where she knew too that we were on the edge and I would have gone,” he says. “I always had to weigh up whether to go along with things, even though I knew it was the wrong thing to do, as was the case with Greece, or whether I should go.” But his sense of duty prevailed. “We didn’t always agree — but I was always loyal.”

That might have been the case when he was a serving minister, but since becoming speaker of parliament in late 2017 he has increasingly distanced himself from Merkel. Last year, when she announced she would not seek re-election as leader of the Christian Democratic Union, the party that has governed Germany for 50 of the past 70 years, Schäuble openly backed a candidate described by the Berlin press as the “anti-Merkel”. Friedrich Merz, a millionaire corporate lawyer who is the chairman of BlackRock Germany, had once led the CDU’s parliamentary group but lost out to Merkel in a power struggle in 2002, quitting politics a few years later. He has long been seen as one of the chancellor’s fiercest conservative critics — and is a good friend of Schäuble’s.

Ultimately, in a nail-biting election last December, Merkel’s favoured candidate, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, narrowly beat Merz. The woman universally known as “AKK” is in pole position to succeed Merkel as chancellor when her fourth and final term ends in 2021.

I ask Schäuble if it’s true that he had once again waged a battle against Merkel and once again lost. “I never went to war against Ms Merkel,” he says. “Everybody says that if I’m for Merz then I’m against Merkel. Why is that so? That’s nonsense.”

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

Latest

The conclusion of Russiagate, Part I – cold, hard reality

The full text of Attorney General William P Barr’s summary is here offered, with emphases on points for further analysis.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The conclusion of the Russiagate investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was a pivotal media watershed moment. Even at the time of this writing there is a great deal of what might be called “journalistic froth” as opinion makers and analysts jostle to make their takes on this known to the world. Passions are running very high in both the Democrat / anti-Trump camps, where the reactions range from despondency to determined rage to not swallow the gigantic red pill that the “no collusion with Russia” determination offers. In the pro-Trump camp, the mood is deserved relief, but many who support the President are also realists, and they know this conflict is not over.

Where the pivot will go and what all this means is something that will unfold, probably relatively quickly, over the next week or two. But we want to offer a starting point here from which to base further analysis. At this time, of course, there are few hard facts other than the fact that Robert Mueller III submitted his report to the US Attorney General, William Barr, who then wrote and released his own report to the public Sunday evening. We reproduce that report here in full, with some emphases added to points that we think will be relevant to forthcoming pieces on this topic.

The end of the Mueller investigation brings concerns, hopes and fears to many people, on topics such as:

  • Will President Trump now begin to normalize relations with President Putin at full speed?
  • In what direction will the Democrats pivot to continue their attacks against the President?
  • What does this finding to to the 2020 race?
  • What does this finding do to the credibility of the United States’ leadership establishment, both at home and abroad?
  • What can we learn about our nation and culture from this investigation?
  • How does a false narrative get maintained so easily for so long, and
  • What do we do, or what CAN we do to prevent this being repeated?

These questions and more will be addressed in forthcoming pieces. But for now, here is the full text of the letter written by Attorney General William Barr concerning the Russia collusion investigation.

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice.
The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B) Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
* * *
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General

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