Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

US Foreign Policy and The Tangled Matrix of Deceit

Will America do anything and think anything to preserve its hegemony?

Vladimir Golstein

Published

on

1,939 Views

Goethe’s Faust, an ever energetic, never satisfied individual, is the traditional symbol of a Western man. He refuses to stay in the moment and vows never to declare: “Verweile doch, du bist so schön” – “Stay a while, you are so beautiful.” Judging by its elites and by the stories it tells about itself, Modern West has turned into the very opposite of this Faustian man. For the current western leaders, the beautiful moment had already occurred, as was officially pronounced by Francis Fukuyama in his notorious treatise of the1990s, The End of History and the Last Man. That was the moment when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the dreams of the Full Spectrum Dominance and the perennial Pax Americana were cooked up by various neoconservative thinkers and the authors of PNAC. At this “beautiful moment,” such concepts as Truth, West, or Order have finally found their eternal abode in Washington, DC.

Bizarre as Fukuyama’s rejection of change was, it took roots. Of course, Fukuyama dressed it in Hegelian terms, announcing the death of grand narratives and radical revolutions, but underneath these intellectual trappings laid a rather conservative message: “Read my lips: no new paradigms. The history has ended.”

From that moment on, the ever-dynamic USA has fully embraced stasis. Any objective observer is struck by the breakneck speed with which China has developed. Russia has undergone an equally drastic metamorphosis, transformed from socialist and threatening Soviet Union to relatively modern country with its pro-western orientation. Yet, “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” is no longer the motto of some prudent Yankee. It is the very basis of recent policies striving for the preservation of the status quo. The economic and political establishment is rather clear about it, as can be witnessed by the Democratic Party and its continuous failures caused by the refusal of its leadership to change.

The embrace of the status quo is especially visible in the realm of foreign policy. Think Tanks – what an appropriate name for these immobile shrines to bankrupt thoughts  –are doing job in protecting their thinking from outside influences. Most of their employers are former officials and bureaucrats who perfected the art of applying past solutions to current realities.

Various media talking heads, the intellectuals in Trump cabinet, such as NSA’s H.R. McMaster or Pentagon’s James Mattis, or the pundits from Council of Foreign Affairs or Atlantic Council, rarely venture beyond the parameters set by the needs to preserve the status quo. The clearest articulation of this conservative paradigm has been recently delivered at the 2017 Munich Security Conference promoted as The Best Think Tank Conference. This annual conference, which gathers all the key players of Western foreign policy, has crystallizes into a unified front all the forces of US and EU establishment. It is their push for the status quo, which has obviously overcome President Trump’s initial resistance.

Since it reveals what’s in store for Trump’s foreign policy, it is important to explore the Munich narrative and its main principles, which can be summarized as following: Western order is superior; it needs to be defended from both Russia and from those at home, who challenge its superiority. What’s indispensable for this defense is invigorated NATO and the counterpropaganda, which portrays criticism as “fake news.”

In light of these propositions, which Munich Conference univocally reconfirmed, neither recent Trump actions, nor the statements of the key members of Trump cabinet, appear as unique or strange. Thus, H.R. McMuster, the head of NSA, and one of the intellectuals in Trump’s cabinet declares:  “And this [Russian] effort, I believe, is aimed really not at defensive objectives, but at offensive objectives – to collapse the post-World War II, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests.” Likewise, the CIA’s chief, Mike Pompeo observes: “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Wolfgang Ischinger, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference, has entitled his annual report as “Post-Truth, Post-West, Post-Order?”, suggesting therefore, that any move beyond Western dominance inevitable entails the loss of truth and order. To fend off this terrible situation, one has to return to Western verities: “Despite its various flaws, the liberal international order has, in the bigger scheme of things, allowed for a remarkable era of peace and economic development.” (p. 10).  In other words, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The polite, almost academic tone of the discussion–as it frequently happens in the west — hides a rather harsh reality. “Remarkable era of peace and development” is not going to give in easily. It is ready to resort to all sorts of machinations, including military aggression, to preserve itself. This is the blueprint, which has been dutifully echoed by the majority of the participants, that is, by the military, political, and intellectual leaders of the West. It is to this blueprint, that the US president, Donald Trump, has quickly returned, despite his initial challenge of the status quo.

First, Ischinger articulates the threats to the Status Quo, depicting them as antithetical to western values:  “Western societies are troubled by the emergence of populist movements that oppose critical elements of the liberal-democratic status quo. From outside, Western societies are challenged by illiberal regimes trying to cast doubt on liberal democracy and weaken the international order. ..…   “The past twelve months have been a resounding rejection of the status quo. In several elections and referenda, political outsiders succeeded, while the establishment was dealt major blows.” (p. 6)

These dangers are repeated again and again, until they begin to sound like a mantra, an incantation, to be delivered to various governments and citizens: Barbarians are at the doors and the western order is in danger: “The rise of the populists has rapidly become a systemic challenge that threatens to undermine the liberal international order the world’s liberal democracies have built and upheld since the end of World War II … the populists at home and the illiberal regimes abroad form a formidable challenge to the main elements of the liberal international order.” (8)

And of course it is Russia, which is usually referred to as “illiberal regime”: “While Western officials have repeatedly argued that “there is no military solution” to the war in Syria, Russia and its allies pursued one – and seem to be successful … In Ukraine, Russia has violated several key principles governing European security. … Is this a post-order world in which the elements of the liberal international order are fading away because no one is there to protect them?“ (10).

The possibility of post-Western world, where Russia can preserve and assert its interests, is categorically denied and the call to arms is issued: “Despite its various flaws, the liberal international order has, in the bigger scheme of things, allowed for a remarkable era of peace and economic development… Since its creation, NATO has been a central pillar of the Western-led order – and the crucial security link connecting the US, Canada, and their European allies… The European Union is under pressure, too, as it has to deal with Brexit, a populist surge, the refugee crisis, a potential return of the euro crisis, jihadist attacks, and a revisionist Russia.” (8-10) The enemies’ list is remunerated and Russia’s role is defined: “revisionist Russia.” The liberal order and such institutions that support it, be it NATO or EU, are to be strengthen while those who challenge it, are to be pushed back.

This program, articulated by Ischinger, was echoed by numerous participants, including such US luminaries, as Vice President Pence, Defense Secretary, Mathis, and Senator John McCain. Thus, John McCain was quite eloquent about his willingness to fight to preserve western dominance: “We … cannot allow ourselves to question the rightness and goodness of the West… I refuse to accept the end of the West. I refuse to accept the demise of our world order. ….  I refuse to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries. I am a proud, unapologetic believer in the West.”

One is tempted to ask: which West do you have in mind, Senator McCain? The one that unleashed Nazi Germany unto the world? The one that vaporized civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? The one that, turned Cambodia into Zombistan, bombed and dismantled Yugoslavia, wreaked havoc in Iraq and Syria and condoned neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Al Qaeda in the Middle East?

Yet, this highly ambivalent western status quo has to be defended militarily: “From the ashes of the most awful calamity in human history was born what we call the West—a new, and different, and better kind of world order… The unprecedented period of security and prosperity that we have enjoyed for the past seven decades did not happen by accident. It happened not only because of the appeal of our values, but because we backed them with our power and persevered in their defense.”

And then comes the most relevant part. It falls on US to provide this military backbone to the west, and it will do so, some temporary difficulties emanating from the White House, non-withstanding:

I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that is the message you will hear from all of the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend. That is not the message you heard today from Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That is not the message you will hear from Vice President Mike Pence. That is not the message you will hear from Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. And that is certainly not the message you will hear tomorrow from our bipartisan congressional delegation.

Well, Senator McCain has clearly delivered on his promise. Since then, President Trump, has been pushed back into the matrix and fully embraced the status-quo narrative, including his renewed NATO commitment and his willingness to cast Russia as an enemy of the west and the supporter of bloodthirsty regimes. Trump’s surrender to this status quo discourse, has been completed and sealed by his order to bomb Syria and Afghanistan. Trump and his cohort appear to be reading from the script reinforced at this conference: a familiar narrative polished through the years of the Cold War.

So the idea of “Post-Western World Order,” which makes perfect sense in light of the BRIC ascendance, has been soundly dismissed by the majority of the Munich Conference participants. It is NATO and the West all the way.

It is also clear, that the bogeyman was designated or rather reconfirmed during these proceeding. This honorary role has fallen on Russia once again. Luckily for the ideologues that wrote the script, Russia’s role in Ukraine and Syria provided enough rhetorical tools to cast it as the threat to the sacred liberal western order. The matrix has been set, and any attempt to break out of it, will be dismissed as fake news, propaganda and so on.

All the brave Russian dissidents, Polish and Baltic politicians, or Syrian or Iranian refugees are utilized to promote one concept: Russia is the same, dangerous and corrupt; Iran is the same as at the time of Ayatollah, Syria is the same. And therefore these countries should be contained.

In light of this well-oiled narrative, it is hardly surprising that Lavrov speech with its call for Post-Western world order, and its reference to NATO as the relic of cold war,  fell on the dead ears. In the house of the Status-Quo you don’t argue for change. If a Cold War is needed to prop up Western World Order and NATO, the Cold War will be conjured up and ushered in.

The longevity of this model, suggests that it is rather functional. Designating Russia as a dangerous enemy rather than a potential ally enables the west to embark on the win-win situation. Either Russia will buckle up and surrender, or it will fight back, reveal its aggressive side, and thus underscore the need to preserve the military might of the Western Liberal Order.  It is quite telling that the British Foreign Minister, Boris Jonhson, has refused to go to Moscow after Trump’s decision to bomb Syria, accusing president Assad, along with his ally Putin, in orchestrating the chemical attack against its population. The script has already been written; the role of the villain assigned; why go to Moscow and learn of facts that can complicate the story? Playing the role of a good cop, Johnson counterpart, Rex Tillerson, did go to Russia, only to reiterate after his meeting that the story stands. In fact, Tillerson’s remarks at the conclusion of his Moscow visit are quite telling. On the one hand he asserts that Russia is an enemy and should follow the Western script or else; on the other, he suggests that nuclear powers have to talk to each other. “There is a low level of trust between our two countries. The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship.” In other words, lets go back to the Cold War status quo: Russia will be pounded as enemy, but without nuclear escalation.

The establishment’s conviction that Russia is too weak to offer military resistance to Western dominance, yet, not crazy enough to appeal to nukes, has been formulated by the original establishment candidate for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton. In her email of November 30, 2015 she claimed that Russia wouldn’t stay in the way of American assertion of dominance. Russia has done nothing in 1999 in Serbia, and it won’t do anything in the future. Pushing for the aggressive policy in Syria, Secretary Clinton maintained:

Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces… The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation.  Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.

Despite various triumphant assertions, the Western dominance is on the decline, and its reign hardly brought peace or economic development to large segments of the world population, including the western countries themselves. Yet, the struggling order is willing to do anything to prop itself up. From the engine of development it has turned into its break.

Consequently, we can conclude that most if not all recent foreign policies decisions are not driven by, say, Russophobia, or desire to create chaos or redraw the borders in Middle East. It is naïve to blame Zionists or Islamophobes for recent political decisions. There is simply this neurotic need to preserve the Status Quo, while designating certain populations as its threat. It is not the NWO anymore, it is OWO: Old World Order. Neocons and their think tanks are not dangerous revolutionaries bend on transforming the world. They are old fogies who want things to remain the same. Washington consensus, Washington playbook and other well-established paradigms, promote nothing but violent resistance to change.

This pro-western triumphalism clearly brings to mind a myopic estimation of Russia, expressed by one of the tsar Nicholas I’s officials: ““Russia’s past is glorious, beautiful and heroic, its present is magnificent, grand, and beautiful, and its future is so remarkable that can’t be described.” We know from serious academic studies, such as Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed  (2005), that such societies are doomed. Sooner or later paradigm shifts, and those who vested in the old paradigm, come crushing down, does not matter whether they the proponents of Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, Marxist economics, or neocon philosophy.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Moment of Truth on Second Referendum: The Plan All Along or a Head Fake?

If we assume a third meaningful vote goes ahead next week that included the provision for a second referendum, and that it passes with a majority, the motivation for extending Article 50 would then be clear.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Steven Guinness:


The news that Theresa May has officially requested an extension to Article 50 until the end of June has been in the making since the European Court of Justice announced in December 2018 that the UK has the right to unilaterally revoke the article at any point prior to the UK leaving the EU.

In an article published at the time, I argued that the ECJ’s decision was designed to begin the process of the government legislating for a second referendum. To quickly summarise what has happened since, in the past three months the Brexit withdrawal agreement was rejected twice by the House of Commons, Theresa May survived a series of no confidence votes, parliament stated its opposition to both a no deal scenario and holding a second referendum before supporting an extension to Article 50, and finally speaker John Bercow announced that the government would only be allowed to put the Brexit withdrawal agreement to parliament again if it contained a ‘new‘ proposition.

Regular readers will know that since last year my position on Brexit has been consistent, in that I believe a no deal exit from the EU is the most likely outcome and that a ‘People’s Vote‘ could be used to facilitate this eventuality.

One explanation for why the Prime Minister has requested only a three month extension to Article 50 is that it would avoid the UK having to take part in upcoming EU parliamentary elections. Whilst this is possible, I do not think it is the primary reason.

Last week, Independent MP Sarah Wollaston tabled an amendment that called for Article 50 to be extended and for a second referendum on Brexit to be held. The amendment was comprehensively defeated, with the majority of the opposition Labour party abstaining from the vote. Elements of the party and The People’s Vote campaign went on record as saying that the timing of the amendment was too soon, and so as a result they did not rally behind it.

As with other supposed set backs to another vote, critics rounded on the news believing that the result killed off any prospect of another referendum from materialising. As I have stressed before, this interpretation is I believe premature.

On the same day as Wollaston’s defeated amendment, parliament voted by a majority to take no deal ‘off the table‘. But this was only in relation to the exit date of March 29th. It did not account for an extension of Article 50 and with that a new exit date.

It also needs to be stressed that the motions against a no deal and a second public vote were non-binding on the government. What neither did is definitively rule out the possibilities.

A month ago I wrote how on March 23rd a ‘Put it to the people‘ march is taking place in London that will call for a referendum on the government’s Brexit withdrawal agreement. With just a couple of days to go, the line from the European Union is that a request to extended Article 50 would only be granted by its 27 member states for a specific purpose. To extend in order to just give more time for negotiations on an non-negotiable deal would not be acceptable.

Tied in with this was House of Commons speaker John Bercow’s announcement that he would dismiss a motion for a third meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement unless it was markedly different from what has already been rejected.

Asked by MP Geraint Davies if a meaningful vote would be ‘intrinsically different‘ if it included the provision for the final say going to a public vote, Bercow responded by saying that he would look at the specifics but would ultimately abide by the principle that the proposition should be ‘different‘ and ‘not the same or substantially the same‘.

In other words, Bercow has left open the possibility. It is highly unlikely that either he or the European Union would reject a proposal that would legislate for an act of ‘democracy‘.

With the last ‘People’s Vote‘ march this Saturday, it appears to now be designed to move sentiment in favour of a second referendum prior to the original exit day of March 29th. Potential evidence for this comes from EU Commission President Jean Claude Junker, who has strongly intimated that a decision on whether to grant an extension to Article 50 will not be taken until next week,which means after the referendum march. Assuming an extension is approved, the EU may then go on to state that it is a one time deal to accommodate a public vote and that it cannot be extended for a second time.

As for Theresa May’s proposal of extending Article 50 until June 30th, EU Council President Donald Tusk has said a short extension is possible but would be ‘conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons‘.

Many parliamentarians who twice rejected the withdrawal agreement have indicated that they would support it a third time round if it included the proposition for the public to have the final say. This seems to be the direction of travel and the only way in which the deal would be accepted by the speaker as a new proposition.

Of more interest to me, though, is the motivation behind an extension to Article 50 that would only last until June 30th.

It was a few of weeks prior to Donald Trump securing the U.S. presidency that I first mentioned how when the 2016 EU referendum took place, it occurred at the same time central bank chiefs were gathering in Basel for the Bank for International Settlements annual conference. This is a conference that always takes place in the latter part of June.

At the start of January I raised the suggestion that a June referendum could become a reality. My suspicion is that if a second vote goes ahead, it would take the form of a streamlined campaign, one that would offer the public the options of supporting Theresa May’s deal (assuming it still stands), remaining in the EU or leaving on World Trade Organisation terms. This would mean a second referendum taking place in around twelve weeks time.

Should this be the case, then the vote would likely coincide with the movements of the BIS once more. And if my prediction of a no deal exit from the EU is proven correct, the economic fallout from this scenario would require close coordination between central banks, given that currency and equity markets would be heavily impacted.

What Brexit and Trump’s victory showed is that in the background key globalist institutions were convening. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that moves to extend Article 50 are coinciding with the EU Council Summit on March 21st and 22nd – the same two days where a meeting in Cambridge is scheduled between the BIS, the Bank of England, Cambridge University and the University of Basel. The topic? ‘New Economics of Exchange Rate Adjustment‘. The Bank of England and the Federal Reserve also meet this week to decide on interest rates.

If we assume a third meaningful vote goes ahead next week that included the provision for a second referendum, and that it passes with a majority, the motivation for extending Article 50 would then be clear.

Something else to consider is that under this scenario, those in parliament who want to remain in the EU would have to vote in support of leaving the union just so they can secure a referendum for which they would campaign to remain in the bloc. The sense of betrayal already felt by swathes of the electorate would only be heightened if they witnessed MP’s using the deal as nothing more than an opportunity to cancel Brexit altogether.

The next round of theatrics would be over the question on the ballot paper. Recall that in previous weeks the likes of Lord Kerr (author of Article 50 and a member of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission), Chuka Umunna, founder of Best for Britain Gina Miller and ex Prime Minister Tony Blair have all raised the prospect of the ballot containing three options – one of which would be for a ‘hard‘ Brexit.

The popular consensus is that another referendum would offer just two options, to either leave with the negotiated deal or remain in the EU. This would eliminate from the campaign the possibility of a no deal Brexit, something which I have reasoned is beneficial to globalists as they would use it to scapegoat the vehicles of resurgent nationalism / protectionism as being responsible for a major impending economic downturn, but also as an opportunity to further centralise power.

For this reason, I expect a no deal option would be presented to the British public. As in 2016, opinion polls all point to the electorate wanting to remain in the EU. They were wrong then and I believe would be wrong again.

A new leave or ‘hard‘ Brexit campaign would play upon the desires of many to ‘take back control‘ of the United Kingdom from the ‘elites‘ and to talk up the prospects of the country, whereas a remain campaign runs the risk of being condescending to the public by pushing the narrative that they were conned the first time round, or worse were ignorant in their societal outlook.

In the middle would sit Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. If indeed it was carried forward to a referendum, it is feasible that it would become a theatrical tug of war between hard ‘Brexiteers‘ and remainers to convert those minded to support the deal over to their side.

Growing public sentiment is that the establishment have been doing everything it can to overturn the first referendum result. Faith in politicians has never been lower than it is today. In such a febrile atmosphere, if you give voters the option of voicing their discontent through the ballot box, the chances are that they will deliver in kind.

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

Latest

Trump Demands Tribute from NATO Vassals

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO are a captive audience.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Regardless of whether one loves or hates President Trump at least we can say that his presidency has a unique flavor and is full of surprises. Bush and Obama were horribly dull by comparison. Trump as a non-politician from the world of big (real estate) business and media has a different take on many issues including NATO.

Many, especially in Russia were hoping that “The Donald’s” campaign criticism of NATO would move towards finally putting an end to this anti-Russian alliance, which, after the fall of Communism really has no purpose, as any real traditional military threats to Europe have faded into history. However, Trump as President of the United States has to engage in the “realpolitik” of 21st century America and try to survive and since Trump seems rather willing to lie to get what he wants, who can really say which promises from his campaign were a shoot and which were a work.

So as it stands now Trump’s recent decision to maintain and build US/NATO bases across the world “and make country X pay for it” could mean anything from him trying to keep his campaign promises in some sort of skewed way, to an utter abandonment of them and submission to the swamp. Perhaps it could simply be his business instincts taking over in the face of “wasteful spending”. Making allies have to pay to have US/NATO forces on their territory is a massive policy shift that one could only predict coming from the unpredictable 45th President.

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO (and other “allies”) are a captive audience, especially Germany, Japan and South Korea, which “coincidentally” are the first set of countries that will have to pay the “cost + 50%” to keep bases and US soldiers on their soil. Japan’s constitution, written primarily by American occupation forces forbids them from having a real military which is convenient for Trump’s plan. South Korea, although a very advanced and wealthy nation has no choice but to hide behind the US might because if it were to disappear overnight, then Gangnam would be filled with pictures of the Kim family within a few weeks.

In the past with regard to these three countries NATO has had to keep up the illusion of wanting to “help” them and work as “partners” for common defense as if nuclear and economic titan America needs countries like them to protect itself. Trump whether consciously or not is changing the dynamic of US/NATO occupation of these territories to be much more honest. His attitude seems to be that the US has the possibility to earn a lot of money from a worldwide mafia-style protection scam. Vassals have no choice but to pay the lord so Trump wants to drop the illusions and make the military industrial complex profitable again and God bless him for it. This level of honesty in politics is refreshing and it reflects the Orange Man’s pro-business and “America will never be a socialist country” attitude. It is blunt and ideologically consistent with his worldview.

On the other hand, one could look at this development as a possible move not to turn NATO into a profitable protection scam but as a means to covertly destroy it. Lies and illusion in politics are very important, people who believe they are free will not rebel even if they have no freedom whatsoever. If people are sure their local leaders are responsible for their nation they will blame them for its failings rather than any foreign influence that may actually be pulling the real strings.

Even if everyone in Germany, Japan and South Korea in their subconscious knows they are basically occupied by US forces it is much harder to take action, than if the “lord” directly demands yearly tribute. The fact that up to this point US maintains its bases on its own dime sure adds to the illusion of help and friendship. This illusion is strong enough for local politicians to just let the status quo slide on further and further into the future. Nothing is burning at their feet to make them act… having to pay cost + 50% could light that fire.

Forcing the locals to pay for these bases changes the dynamic in the subconscious and may force people’s brains to contemplate why after multiple-generations the former Axis nations still have to be occupied. Once occupation becomes expensive and uncomfortable, this drops the illusion of friendship and cooperation making said occupation much harder to maintain.

South Korea knows it needs the US to keep out the North but when being forced to pay for it this may push them towards developing the ability to actually defend themselves. Trump’s intellectual “honesty” in regards to NATO could very well plant the necessary intellectual seeds to not just change public opinion but make public action against US/NATO bases in foreign countries. Japan has had many protests over the years against US bases surging into the tens of thousands. This new open vassal status for the proud Japanese could be the straw to break the camel’s back.

Predicting the future is impossible. But it is clear that, changing the fundamental dynamic by which the US maintains foreign bases in a way that will make locals financially motivated to have them removed, shall significantly affect the operations of US forces outside the borders of the 50 States and make maintaining a global presence even more difficult, but perhaps this is exactly what the Orange Man wants or is just too blind to see.

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

Latest

Tucker Carlson summarizes the Trump and Russian collusion saga [Video]

Tucker Carlson excoriates the slander against President Trump, but goes farther to call out the establishment elite in their crimes.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Speculation this week has been rather strong that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III is about to release his report concerning his investigation in to the allegation that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with elements of the government of the Russian Federation to…?

What, exactly?

That is where things get a little unclear. The narrative line says to “influence the 2016 presidential elections”, or “to steal the election from Hillary Clinton” – but that is about as far as any official narrative line goes. This ambiguity, masquerading as clear language, has created a further belief among a very large number of Americans that what actually happened was that this collusion actually extended into some form of vote-tampering, and amazingly, a recent poll Tucker Carlson mentions in his video we offer here says that some 53% of Americans actually believe that somehow the election results were altered by the Russians.

The question Tucker Carlson leads his report with is, “did the President betray his country?” However, as one goes through the list of events, insinuations, fabrications, attacks and nonstop innuendo that has led the US and Russian relations to their worst point since the Cold War, for no specifically stated and verified reason, one wonders who is doing the betrayal.

Now, in one sense, America owes no allegiance to Russia. But Russia also owes no allegiance to America, and the idea that Russia should is part of this effort by the American establishment. That establishment seems to believe that all the world should owe allegiance to the United States, at least as shown by words and actions of the Americans vis-a-vie foreign policy matters. But the truth is much closer to President Trump’s own notion of a brotherhood of nation-states rather than hegemony. He stated this noble thought in his first UN address in 2017:

Being in a brotherhood relationship with Russia and China is apparently beyond the pale for the American political establishment, hence, the Russia collusion investigation and over two years of nonstop slander, ostensibly designed to keep this from happening.

This is one reason why the notion that Mr. Mueller will actually release a report now is being met with a lot of distrust. We have heard rumors from DC for probably well over one year that the “report was imminent”, but nothing ever came of it. Even this week, Vox reported that the Mueller office asked for an eleven-day filing deadline extension for some reason.

To be blatantly speculative, the likelihood is that the report is every bit of a non-event as the pro-Trump crowd believes it is. However, bringing a stop to the President’s hoped-for policy is something that must not happen. The chances are therefore that whatever is released (if anything) will also be somehow curiously coincidental with some very similar allegation coming from somewhere that shows that while Mueller didn’t find anything, someone else did… and then the full-on media blocking has a new basis for continuing its efforts to disrupt and even destroy the work of the current administration.

As a parenthetical side note, Tucker Carlson is known for excellence in reporting and following stories like this one. What is particularly striking in this video is the directness with which he calls out other examples of very bad policy and actions that resulted in zero punishment for the people who did it. In particular, he calls out the whole 2003 Iraq War noting that the narrative of “weapons of mass destruction” was similarly false, costing thousands of American lives (not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq) and a trillion dollars wasted, yet the chief players in that event, such as John Bolton still hold important posts in US government today. The bitter truth is that there remains a strong “untouchability” in Washington, and there is nothing that is likely to change that except President Trump.

Perhaps that is the reason for the resistance to his presence there.

 

 

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