Tear-Stricken? Satan's Hold On Your Soul Is Far Deeper Than You Imagine...,

variety  |  The tear-stricken faces peering up adoringly at James Bond producer Michael G. Wilson, seated in the royal box at Royal Albert Hall, during a lengthy standing ovation at “The Sound of 007” concert said it all: It’s not just movie music — the music, for this franchise at least, is the movie.

Tuesday’s charity event at London’s grandest venue preceded the Oct. 5 release of feature documentary “The Sound of 007” on Amazon’s Prime Video (the streamer’s top executives for Europe were, unsurprisingly, in the box next to the Bond guardians), and didn’t hesitate to remind both Bond novices and grizzled veterans that the franchise is virtually synonymous with some of cinema’s most iconic tracks. 

The concert — part of a cavalcade of events marking the British spy’s 60th anniversary on screen — was produced and overseen by five-time Bond composer David Arnold, who was front and centre the entire evening, shredding with Hans Zimmer on an electric guitar or belting out late Soundgarden frontman Chris Cornell’s divisive rock anthem “You Know My Name,” from “Casino Royale.” Arnold was musical director for Danny Boyle’s London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, but this — you could tell — was a night he relished.

Dame Shirley Bassey, who dazzled Royal Albert Hall at the BAFTA Film Awards in March, was back to kick off the concert with “Diamonds are Forever” and “Goldfinger.” (The audience gave Bassey a standing ovation well before she’d even sung a single note.) Other vocalists included the movies’ original performing artists Lulu and Garbage, who sang “The Man With the Golden Gun” and “The World is Not Enough,” respectively, and were warmly received by fans.

Other standouts included BRIT School graduates and powerhouse singers Emma Lindars, who ably took on Adele’s hit song “Skyfall,” and Ella Eyre, who smashed both “Licence to Kill” and “Nobody Does it Better.” Deborah Anne Dyer, better known as Skin, also put her own riff on Paul McCartney’s “Live and Let Die” with thrilling results. Performers were accompanied by the spectacular Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra conducted by Nicholas Dodd, which had many in raptures over a three-minute rendition of “Come In 007” from “The World Is Not Enough.”

It’s puzzling why Billie Eilish’s “No Time to Die” title track or even Sam Smith’s “Writing’s On the Wall” from “Spectre” were omitted, but one can only assume that Arnold and his team were keen to pay homage to the 60-year-old franchise’s older films, such as “Thunderball” and “The Spy Who Loved Me” (both of which received moving orchestral pieces) in addition to the more pop-heavy entries of the last decade.

The evening also paid tribute to the late John Barry, who arranged the original Bond theme tune for the first movie and wrote for 11 of the films. Don Black, a lyricist for several Bond pics and a close friend of Barry’s, regaled the audience with memories of the debonair British composer, who once described writing “The Living Daylights” for the titular movie with Norway’s A-ha to “playing table tennis with four balls.”

 

Victoria Nuland Wasn't Kidding When She Said "Fuck The EU!"

globaltimes  |  Europe's energy issues are growing even bigger. The recent sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines has exposed how fragile European energy infrastructure security is. But even as the energy crisis deepens, Europe is still following Washington's hard line against Russia, disregarding the impact such a policy may have on itself.

On Wednesday, in response to the results of referenda on "joining Russia" in four Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed that the European Union (EU) was proposing the eighth round of sanctions against Russia, including a price cap on Russian oil. This continues to jeopardize the hope for Europe to resolve its current energy problems.

It is an absolute tragedy for Europe that its dependence on Washington has grown to such an extent that it has to dance to US' tune regarding its Russian policy. EU countries have escalated their sanctions against Russia step by step. In the end, the EU and Russia will both suffer, but the needs of the US will be satisfied.

Europe's strategic autonomy and control over its economy have been substantially crippled by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and US' manipulation. Europe has fallen into confusion after losing its strategic autonomy, which is leading to the emergence of certain irrationality. The imprudent sanction decisions made by EU officials harm Europe itself, because some people and businesses have to leave the continent in the face of worsening crises.

When the military conflict between Moscow and Kiev broke out, many Europeans believed that it's them plus Americans against the Russians. But reality has proven them wrong: Europe is also a piece of meat on Washington's chopping block.

Europe's sufferings are worth thinking about by countries all over the world, especially some of the US allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region: When they blindly follow the US to consolidate its dominance in the world, who on earth will actually benefit?

These countries also need to see that while the European economy falls deeper into recession, Washington continues leeching onto it to rake it in from the disasters Europe is suffering from.

Despite Ukraine's Violent Objections - Turnout Is High In The Rejoin Russia Referenda

RT  |  Preliminary results on the third of five voting days shows the threshold having been reached in Donbass and Zaporozhye and almost met in Kherson 

The referendums on joining Russia are continuing in the Donbass republics and Russian-controlled regions of southern Ukraine. On Sunday, the turnout already reached the required 50% threshold in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics and Zaporozhye Region, with only Kherson lagging behind.

In the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), more than 76% of eligible voters have already cast their votes, according to official figures. The referendum in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) is proceeding at a similar pace, with some 77% of voters having shown up at the polling stations.

Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, which were largely seized by Russian forces amid the ongoing conflict, have demonstrated a lower turnout. Still, the latter region has already met the required legal threshold, with some 51.55% of registered voters already casting their ballots, according to the head of the Zaporozhye electoral committee, Galina Katyshenko. Kherson has so far demonstrated lower turnout, with nearly 49% of voters showing up for the referendum. Polls across the two regions and in the Donbass republics are set to stay open for the next two days.

Ukraine and its Western backers have rejected the referendums on joining Russia as illegal and have vowed to not recognize them regardless of their outcome. Speaking to US broadcaster CBS on Sunday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky warned that should Russia complete the referendums, it would “make it impossible, in any case, to continue any diplomatic negotiations” with Moscow.

How Did Western Political Leadership Come To Be Comprised Exclusively Of Compradores?

imetatronink  |  this war has reached the stage equivalent to Nazi Germany in mid-January 1945: the war is lost; everyone knows it is lost, and all that remains is the positioning in advance of the inevitable surrender, the unrestrained looting, and the occasional harassment of the never-say-die snipers who will fight to their last round of ammo and last drop of blood.

In other words, we’ve finally arrived at the most dangerous juncture of this conflict.

You see, as I have frequently observed, this war, at its deepest root, has always been an existential struggle between Russia and the rapidly declining fortunes and dominion of the long-since irredeemably corrupted American Empire.

Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, and continuing throughout the 1990s, the western vulture capitalists raced to divide, conquer, and despoil the unfathomable natural resource wealth of the former USSR. And indeed, in ten short years, they managed to extract a massive pile of treasure at Russia’s expense, only to be prematurely thwarted by the unforeseen rise of the previously obscure Vladimir Putin.

At first, the finely accoutered locusts believed they could manipulate Putin as easily as they had his immediate predecessors. But they were soon disabused of that fallacy. So then they began to pressure Putin and Russia by methodically assimilating into their “defensive alliance” all the previously unaligned nations that stood between NATO’s 1997 borders and the Russian frontier.

This, of course, awakened in Russia a sober sense of their increasingly precarious position, and in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin delivered a landmark speech wherein he put the Empire on notice that Russia was drawing a line in the sand beyond which it would not permit further NATO expansion. That line extended from eastern Poland to northern Armenia.

Predictably, Putin’s declarations were first mocked and then summarily dismissed.

I suspect this was the point at which Russia came to see that war was very likely inevitable in order to retain its sovereignty and security.

Nevertheless, Putin exhibited extraordinary patience. While initiating an aggressive military upgrade and expansion program, he bided his time for the next several years.

But with the threat to Russia’s strategic naval base in Syria and the US-orchestrated coup d’etat in Ukraine, he was compelled to act, albeit with considerable restraint, to alter the trajectory of events. He dispatched an expeditionary force to Syria to prevent the fall of the Assad regime at the hands of US-supported “moderate rebels”; he moved to reclaim historically Russian Crimea, and to much more aggressively support the ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbass region of Ukraine who were waging a tenuously balanced civil war against the US-installed regime in Kiev.

American designs in Syria were foiled. But the ongoing de facto NATO assimilation of Ukraine continued, as the US and its NATO allies set out to methodically construct what would eventually become the most formidable proxy army in history, with ambitions to lure Putin into a Slavic civil war that would sap Russian strength, mortally wound its still-fragile economy, and induce social unrest within Russia and discontent among its various loci of domestic power, and ultimately effect “regime change” in the Kremlin.

But, at every juncture, Putin out-maneuvered them.

Meanwhile, the decades-long superiority of Russian missile technology produced for Putin several trump cards in the form of long-range stand-off weapons capable of threatening prime US military assets virtually anywhere on the planet.

Armed with this “ace in the hole”, Putin’s negotiation posture was significantly fortified, and from 2018 onward he began to articulate much more forcefully that Russia would not abide any further NATO expansion towards its borders – most explicitly in the case of Ukraine, where the ambitious training and outfitting of a NATO proxy army continued apace.

80 Year Old Pretending To Run NASA Says "China Will Take Over The Moon!"

thesun.co.uk  |  NASA'S boss has warned that China could try to seize control of the Moon as the space race heats up.

The secretive nation is going to build a research station on the lunar surface as part of huge space plans in the next few years.

And the US appears to be getting nervous about it.

Nasa Administrator Bill Nelson has said we should be cautious about China's ambitions.

Speaking to German paper Bild, he said: "We must be very concerned that China is landing on the Moon and saying: 'It’s ours now and you stay out.'"

China hit back, accusing the Nasa boss of lying "through his teeth".

Escalating tensions come after China has already managed the difficult feat of landing on the far side of the Moon.

The country has also sped up work on a lunar research base by eight years - in collaboration with Russia.

But experts have warned that there's no reason to panic about China's intentions.

Professors Svetla Ben-Itzhak and R. Lincoln Hines say it's unlikely that any country would be able to simply takeover the Moon in the near future.

 

Space Force 2024: All Suited Up But With No Place Left To Go...,

MoA  |  Russia to withdraw from International Space Station after 2024

Russia has said it will withdraw from the International Space Station (ISS) after 2024 to focus on building its own orbital outpost.

Yuri Borisov, who was appointed to lead the state-controlled space corporation Roscosmos earlier this month, said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia would fulfil its obligations to other partners before it leaves the project.

Mr Borisov said "the decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made."

The U.S. had planned to operate the station until 2031:

Earlier this year NASA published plans for the ISS which could see the 444,615kg structure taken out of orbit in January 2031 and crashed into a "spacecraft cemetery".

It said the laboratory would continue operating until 2030 but its long-term future is unsustainable.

The end date will now likely be earlier than NASA had planned. As an earlier report explained:

Russia provides the propellant and thrusters needed to periodically reboost the station, a critical capability NASA cannot currently replace. Maneuvering is provided by thrusters built into the Russian Zarya and Zvezda modules and aboard visiting Progress supply ships.

A Northrop Grumman Cygnus cargo ship that arrived earlier this week is the first U.S. vehicle after the space shuttle to be capable of reboost, but it cannot on its own replace the Russian capability.
...
NASA astronauts are not trained to operate Russian systems and vice versa for the cosmonauts. Neither side can safely operate the lab on its own.

Without the Russians thruster modules the station will continuously slow down and sink towards earth until it breaks up and burns in the atmosphere.

For the U.S. to build its own thruster modules would very likely take more than two years. They would probably arrive too late to rescue the station.

Russia has plans to build a new space station. An alternative for it may be to hook up with the Chinese space station which was launched last year. Yesterday it received its second large module, a laboratory. A third large module will be added later this year.

China build its own space station because the U.S. had excluded it from participating in the ISS:

China has been barred from the ISS since 2011, when Congress passed a law prohibiting official American contact with the Chinese space program due to concerns about national security. “National security,” of course, is the lingua franca excuse for any country to do anything it jolly well wants to do even if it has nothing to do with, you know, the security of the nation. But never mind.

Just 11 years after the ban China has launched and operates its own space station.

It is likely that from 2025 on there will again be only one international space station. But it will be operated by China and probably Russia while the U.S. and its allies will likely be excluded from it.

This is the consequence of the U.S. hostile behavior which excludes and sanctions others for unserious reason.

It Doesn't Matter How Many Have To Die This Is About The Future Of The Liberal World-Order

mate'  |  Citing interviews with the White House, the Washington Post reports that Biden "officials have described the stakes of ensuring Russia cannot swallow up Ukraine — an outcome officials believe could embolden Putin to invade other neighbors or even strike out at NATO members —as so high that the administration is willing to countenance even a global recession and mounting hunger." (emphasis added)

CNN: "What do you say to those families that say, 'listen, we can't afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?’"

BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: "This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm." pic.twitter.com/LWilWSo72S

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 1, 2022

Left unquestioned is why a group of officials in Washington have arrogated themselves the right to "countenance" a global recession and mounting hunger – including pushing millions toward famine -- on behalf of the rest of the planet.

Because the Biden administration is willing to countenance hunger, Africa is now being pushed into what a recent New York Times article describes as a major "dilemma." African countries who seek to accept Russian grain imports, the Times notes, "potentially face a hard choice between, on one hand, benefiting from possible war crimes and displeasing a powerful Western ally, and on the other, refusing cheap food at a time when wheat prices are soaring and hundreds of thousands of people are starving."

Under policies set by Washington, it is apparently a "dilemma" for Africa to have to choose between feeding hundreds of thousands of people or risk "displeasing" its "powerful Western ally," — which would presumably prefer that they starve.

European states are also facing the impact of pleasing their powerful ally in Washington. "Western Europe as a result of the war," the Wall Street Journal reports, "now faces surging energy and food prices that look set to worsen as winter approaches."

The crisis is particularly acute in Germany, "the largest and most important economy on the continent." Germany's top union official, Yasmin Fahimi, has warned that "entire industries are in danger of permanently collapsing" as a result of the reduction in Russian natural gas supplies effectively imposed by the US. "Such a collapse would have massive consequences for the entire economy and jobs in Germany," Fahimi said.

Germany faces the additional prospect of "stringent rationing this winter if Russia turns off the gas," a prospect that the US has done all it can to encourage after its successful sabotage of the Russia-Germany Nordstream 2 gas pipeline.

On top of the economic toll of severing Russia from the continent, Europe is also grappling with the consequences of flooding Ukraine with billions of dollars in weapons that are impossible to trace. Europol, the European Union's top law enforcement agency, recently warned that "weapons trafficking from Ukraine into the [EU] bloc to supply organised crime groups had begun and was a potential threat to EU security." A western official told the Financial Times that once NATO weapons shipments cross over into Ukraine from Poland, "from that moment we go blank on their location and we have no idea where they go, where they are used or even if they stay in the country."

The entire planet must also grapple with the growing nuclear threats. After Russia's invasion in February, the US and Moscow suspended talks on the future of New START, the last remaining treaty that limits the nuclear weapons stockpiles of both countries. A senior administration official told the New York Times that "right now it’s almost impossible to imagine" that the talks might resume before the treaty expires in early 2026. "I can’t predict when it would be appropriate to resume that dialogue," Adam Scheinman, Biden's envoy for nuclear nonproliferation recently told Arms Control Today, "but we'll certainly consider doing so when it best serves U.S. interests."

Returning to the Washington Post's rendering of guiding US strategy, the administration's stated rationale for countenancing global hunger and other calamities is based on a false premise. Russia has no intention of moving on "to invade other neighbors or even strike out at NATO members." Bogged down in Ukraine -- a nation on its borders and where it already has an allied rebel military force in the Donbas -- Russia is in no position to invade elsewhere, even if it were crazy enough to want to.

Declaration On Allied Interaction In The Heartland

indianpunchline |  If the metaphor of the “Great Game” can be applied to the Ukrainian crisis, with the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) at it core, it has begun causing reverberations across the entire Eurasian space. The great game lurking in the shade in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions in recent years is visibly accelerating. 

The edge of the game is above everything else the targeting of Russia and China by the United States. This unfolding game cannot be underestimated, as its outcome may impact the shaping of a new model of the world order. 

Starting with the Caspian Summit in Ashgabat on June 29, the inter-connected templates of the great game in the Caucasus began surfacing. The fact that the summit was scheduled at all despite the raging conflict in Ukraine — and that Russian President Vladimir Putin took time out to attend it — testified to the high importance of the event. 

Basically, the presidents of the 5 littoral states — Kazakhstan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Russia — synchronised their watches, based on the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea — the Constitution of the Caspian Sea — that was signed at their last summit in 2018. While doing so,  they considered the current international situation and geopolitical processes worldwide. 

Thus, one of the key points of the Final Communiqué of the Ashgabat Summit was the reiteration of a fundamental principle regarding the total exclusion of the armed forces of all extra-regional powers from  the Caspian Sea (which primarily meets the geopolitical interests of Russia and Iran.) The fact that the heads of the Caspian countries confirmed this in writing can be regarded as the main result of the Summit. Secondly, the leaders focused on the Caspian transport communications and agreed that the region could become a hub for the East-West and North-South corridors. 

The Caspian Summit was held just 5 weeks after Russian forces  gained control of Mariupol port city (May 21), which established its total supremacy over the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait in eastern Crimea. Kerch Strait has a strategic role in Russian policies, being the narrow maritime gateway (5 kms in length and 4.5 km. wide at the narrowest point) which links the Black Sea via the Sea of Azov to Russia’s major waterways including the Don and the Volga. 

In effect, it is yet to sink in that in the geopolitics of the entire Eurasian landmass, the liberation of Mariupol by Russian forces  was a pivotal event in the great game, since the Kerch Strait ensures maritime transit from the Black Sea all the way to Moscow and St Petersburg, not to mention the strategic maritime route between the Caspian Sea (via the Volga-Don Canal) to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

 

United Deep Waterway System of European Russia linking Sea of Azov and  Caspian Sea to Baltic Sea and the Northern Sea Route

Now, to get the “big picture” here, factor in that Volga River also links the Caspian Sea to the Baltic Sea as well as the Northern Sea Route (via the Volga–Baltic Waterway). Suffice to say, Russia has gained control of an integrated system of waterways, which connects the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Baltic and the Northern Sea Route (which is a 4800 km long shipping lane that connects the Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean, passing along the Russian coasts of Siberia and the Far East.) 

No doubt, it is a stupendous consolidation of the so-called “heartland” — per Sir Halford Mackinder’s theory (1904) that whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland and controls the “world island.” 

Looking back, therefore, there is no question that the reunion of Crimea with the Russian Federation in 2014 was a major setback for the US and NATO. Putin caught Washington and its allies by total surprise. It complicated their objective to integrate Ukraine into the NATO.

FUKUS Will Be Broke, Cold And Hungry This Winter - Just To Spite Russia

nakedcapitalism  |  The Military Summary channel has observed that once Russia secures Donbass, there are no major lines of defense to the west until the Dnieper. That may also explain the claim he made in his latest report (at 12:50), that Zelensky told the troops in Donass that the US told him if they lose the so-called Zaluzny defense line (Kramatorsk and Sloviansk are on this line) that it would be considered to be the total collapse of Ukraine forces and no more Western support would be forthcoming. I doubt that politically that the US can totally abandon Ukraine but they can certainly send only eyewash, and more importantly, stop funding the Ukraine government, which has become a money pit.

tThe remaining major troop concentration is around Kiev. The question is what Russia does next.

My belief is still that Russia will give priority to taking Odessa unless there are logistical considerations that argue against that. The Ukraine military is so close to collapse that Russian forces going to Odessa sooner rather than later is a real possibility. It’s the psychologically most important target for the Russian people, and economically more valuable than Kiev. The West would recognize that Russia getting control of what was Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coast as an enormous loss.

I suspect what Russia decides to do with or about Ukraine to the west of the Dnieper is event dependent. However, the West has decided to tie itself even more tightly to the Ukraine albatross. I had said to Lambert that it was not impossible for Russia to have decisively won (as in taken Odessa) by sometime in October, but even with the Western forces clearly unable to rout Russia, that Europe and the US would keep its citizens cold and hungry this winter just to spite Russia.

It’s already official. From TASS:

The EU will not withdraw the sanctions, imposed on Russia over the situation in Ukraine, if Moscow and Kiev sign peace treaty on Russia’s terms, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in his article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagzeitung, published Sunday.

“The part of the new reality is that the EU has also consolidated. It has reacted to the Russian aggression quite unanimously and imposed unprecedentedly harsh sanctions,” Scholz said. “We knew it from the start that we will potentially have to keep these sanctions for a long time.”

“And it is also clear that not a single one of these sanctions will be withdrawn in case of peace, dictated by Russia,” he continued. “There is no other path for an agreement with Ukraine for Russia than the one that could be accepted by the Ukrainians.”

It does not seem to occur to Sholtz that even Ukrainians who are not that keen about Russia would choose having Russian or Russian-lite rule over the West’s plan of fighting to the last Ukrainian. It also seems likely that Russia will hold referendums, again to legitimate its actions in the court of non-collective-West opinion. But of course those will be deemed to be bogus even if the most reputable independent observers say otherwise.

So this is not going to end well for the West. But you knew that already if you were paying attention.

According To Foreign Affairs - It's Time For NATO Soldiers To Volunteer To Die In Ukraine

foreignaffairs |  As the world looks on while Ukrainians fight for their lives and their freedom, many feel a burning desire to do more to support them. The problem is not a lack of forces or resources—it is fear of provoking a wider, perhaps nuclear, war with Russia. That fear is why U.S. President Joe Biden and other NATO leaders have consistently made clear that they will not intervene directly in the conflict, instead limiting their help to weapons, money, intelligence, and sanctions. As devastating as events in Ukraine are today, a nuclear war with Russia could kill more people than Ukraine’s entire population of roughly 44 million.

NATO leaders understand that they must walk this fine line between aiding Ukraine and risking war with Russia, but they have no theory of how to do it. The German and French governments hem and haw about whether to provide Ukraine with tanks. When Poland proposed a plan to transfer MiG-29 fighter aircraft to Ukraine, the United States refused. U.S. Defense Department spokesperson John Kirby warned that it “raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance” and therefore was not “tenable.” Yet the United States was already shipping Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger surface-to-air missiles. Soon after, it began sending other weapons, including M777 howitzers and now HIMARS multiple-rocket launchers. What is the difference? Those weapons do more to strengthen Ukraine’s combat power than MiG-29s, so the theory cannot be that Russia reacts more strongly to policies that do more harm to its interests. Why, then, missiles and artillery but not planes? The answer is that there is no answer. It is simply arbitrary.

NATO needs a strategy predicated on a theory of what it can do to aid Ukraine without widening the war to a direct conflict between it and Russia. Lessons from past crises point to the principles that should guide such a strategy. History shows that NATO would recklessly risk war only by crossing two Russian redlines: openly firing on Russian forces or deploying organized combat units under NATO-member flags into Ukraine. As long as NATO stops short of unmistakably crossing those lines, it can do more to help Ukraine at an acceptable risk of war.

Arms transfers and sanctions are both wholly consistent with this approach, so it is tempting to conclude that NATO members are doing all they can. They are not. They should build on current policies by dispensing with arbitrary limits on the types of conventional weapons they are providing Ukraine and expanding sanctions. Moreover, there is a third way to support Ukraine besides arms and sanctions—one that NATO is neglecting. It is time for NATO to encourage, organize, and equip its soldiers to volunteer to fight for Ukraine.

Woke Imperium: Identity Politics Co-opted By Neoconservatism To Justify Empire

 

peacediplomacy | The advocates of American primacy within the United States foreign policy establishment historically rely on prevailing ideological trends of the time to justify interventionism abroad. The new ‘woke’ face of American hegemony and projects of empire is designed to project the U.S. as an international moral police rather than a conventional great power—and the result is neo-imperialism with a moral face.

• This is an iterative and systemic process with an internal logic, not one controlled by a global cabal: when the older rationalizations for primacy, hegemony, and interventionism appear antiquated or are no longer persuasive, a new rationale that better reflects the ruling class norms of the era is adopted as a substitute. This is because the new schema is useful for the maintenance of the existing system of power.

• The rise of a ‘woke’ activist-driven, social justice-oriented politics—particularly among the members of academia, media, and the professional managerial class—has provided the latest ideological justification for interventionism, and it has become readily adopted by the U.S. foreign policy establishment. These groups now have an even greater level of symbiotic relationship with state actors.

• Professional selection and advancement under these conditions require elite signaling of loyalty to ‘progressive’ universalism as the trending state-sanctioned ideology, which further fuels the push towards interventionism. This combination of factors encourages a new institutional and elite consensus around trending shibboleths.

• The emerging hegemonic posture and its moral imperialism are at odds with a sober and realistic appraisal of U.S. interests on the world stage, as they create untenable, maximalist, and utopian goals that clash with the concrete realities on which U.S. grand strategy must be based.

• The liberal Atlanticist tendency to push moralism and social engineering globally has immense potential to create backlash in foreign, especially non-Western, societies that will come to identify the West as a whole with niche, late-modern progressive ideals—thus motivating new forms of anti-Westernism.

Read the full paper at the download link.

DOWNLOAD PDF

 

It's Conspicuously Obvious To The Casual Observer That Biden Is A Senile Old Man

technofog |  The troubling thing is that most of the presidency is off-script.

How do you address inflation and families being priced-out of groceries when you struggle through a press conference?

How do you formulate a strategy about China or Russia when you rely on a cheat sheet for a 5-minute meeting?

Make no mistake, Biden’s senility is one of the biggest stories in the world. The media’s silence on this matter is telling. Never before has the press tried to so hard to ignore so big a story (I venture this is bigger than Hunter’s laptop), as they’re afraid of what a correct assessment of Biden’s facilities might reveal. Ask whether Dementia-in-Chief is a threat to national security or economic recovery.

Also revealing is the media’s attempts to explain-away or otherwise repackage Biden’s mental and physical deficiencies. Peter Baker, writing for The New York Times, says Biden’s “age has increasingly become an uncomfortable issue for him, his team and his party.” Of course, Biden’s age isn’t the issue per se - it’s Biden’s mind. “Age” is just The New York Times’ way of being polite, of serving the Biden Administration.

To make matters worse, there was the unbelievable “uniform” reporting of Biden’s competence by those interviewed by Baker:

In interviews, some sanctioned by the White House and some not, more than a dozen current and former senior officials and advisers uniformly reported that Mr. Biden remained intellectually engaged, asking smart questions at meetings, grilling aides on points of dispute, calling them late at night, picking out that weak point on Page 14 of a memo and rewriting speeches like his abortion remarks on Friday right up until the last minute.

Those comments by Biden’s closest advisors and Democrat officials are certainly contrasted by how they treat Biden, and Baker unfortunately makes no effort to push-back on that point. As Baker concedes: “He stays out of public view at night and has taken part in fewer than half as many news conferences or interviews as recent predecessors.”

“Out of public view at night.” Could it be because Biden struggles with sundowning, which causes confusion, aggression, anxiety, and depression? Baker doesn’t ask.

But - if you have any concerns about Biden’s health or acuity - don’t worry. The New York Times has found experts that “put Mr. Biden in a category of ‘super-agers’ who remain unusually fit as they advance in years.”

Sadly, Baker doesn’t challenge that conclusion either. And what an easy challenge it would have been.

There’s the old cliché that journalists must speak truth to power. As Chomsky once observed, speaking truth to power is pointless because the powerful already know the truth. Better to speak truth to the powerless. As to Biden’s age-related failures - dare I say dementia - the press has chosen to avoid speaking the truth to the power and the powerless.

How much it matters is another story. This is likely a one-term president and the public is seeing Biden’s real-time deterioration for themselves.

But - if the press is willing to cover-up Biden’s dementia - then what other stories are they euthanizing?

Any Minute Now Merica's Gone Have To Bring Uganda Some "Democracy"...,

tfiglobal  |  The major issue African countries face even after the presence of valuable minerals and metals under their soil is the unavailability of technology and capital for extraction. Major developed countries with the appropriate means are known to have considerable interest in African countries majorly due to their resources.

Moscow has maintained strong relations with Kampala. Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni did call Russia ‘Europe’s Center Of Gravity,’ and expressed strong support for the Kremlin amid the ongoing war.

The EU’s and Biden’s disregard for the African nations has placed the West in an unstrategic position there. Due to their broad disregard for the food security and inflation problems in African nations, Biden and his minions have lost all political clout in Africa. A master strategist like Putin would never have missed this chance to solidify his position.

Putin’s Masterstroke

Biden has done the damage and it is time for Putin to come into the picture and take steps to strengthen the already powerful Russian economy. Russia’s masterstroke to control a big chunk of the commodity market of the world is making Moscow unbeatable and irreplaceable.

Uganda’s reserves and Moscow’s interest in the region would be a demonstration of a show of strength in this time of crisis. Russia’s interest in Uganda is not newfound. Russian investors backed the first gold refinery in Uganda more than ten years ago.

The refinery, established by Russian-owned Victoria Gold Star Limited, has a capacity to process 1.2 tonnes of raw gold per month, the company’s managing director told Reuters.

Of late, Russia has also taken advantage of loopholes in sanctions and has strategically used its humongous $140 Billion gold reserves to hold down its economic fort. You see, gold is more of an elixir for Russia right now. Since Russia invaded Crimea back in 2014, the Russian state has been constantly working hard to steer its economy against the impact of sanctions. One avenue to do so was to increase its gold reserves, as gold tends to soar in times of conflict.

Putin also understands that the West cannot just sanction commodities such as crude oil, grain and gold because they would have severe repercussions on the global order. This is precisely why Moscow is all set to assist Uganda in its future mining endeavours and parallelly solidify its stronghold on the commodities trade. Africa in general and Uganda, in particular, would soon become one of the strongest allies of Russia.

Ukraine Is Crawling With Western Special Forces And Spies

caitlinjohnstone | "American intelligence agencies have less information than they would like about Ukraine’s operations and possess a far better picture of Russia’s military, its planned operations and its successes and failures," NYT told us earlier this month. "U.S. officials said the Ukrainian government gave them few classified briefings or details about their operational plans, and Ukrainian officials acknowledged that they did not tell the Americans everything."

It seems a bit unlikely that US intelligence agencies would have a hard time getting information about what's happening in a country where they themselves are physically located. Moon of Alabama theorized at the time that this ridiculous "We don't know what's happening in our own proxy war" line was being pushed to give the US plausible deniability about Ukraine's failures on the battlefield, which have only gotten worse since then.

So why are they telling us all this now? Well, it could be that we're being paced into accepting an increasingly direct role of the US and its allies in Ukraine.

The other day Antiwar's Daniel Larison tweeted, "Hawks in April: Don't call it a proxy war! Hawks in May: Of course it's a proxy war! Hawks in June: It's not their war, it's our war!"

This is indeed exactly how it happened. Back in April President Biden told the press the idea that this is a proxy war between the US and Russia was "not true" and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said "It's not, this is clearly Ukraine's fight" when asked if this is a proxy war. The mainstream media were still framing this claim as merely an "accusation" by the Russian government, and empire spinmeisters were regularly admonishing anyone who used that term on the grounds that it deprives Ukrainians of their "agency".

Then May rolled around and all of a sudden we had The New Yorker unequivocally telling us that the US is in "a full proxy war with Russia" and hawks like US congressman Seth Moulton saying things like, "We’re not just at war to support the Ukrainians. We’re fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia, and it’s important that we win.”

And now here in June we've got war hawks like Max Boot coming right out and saying that this is actually America's war, and it is therefore important for the US to drastically escalate the war in order to hand the Russians "devastating losses".

So the previously unthinkable idea that the US is at war with Russia has been gradually normalized, with the heat turned up so slowly that the frog doesn't notice it's being boiled alive. If that idea can be sufficiently normalized, public consent for greater escalations will likely be forthcoming, even if those escalations are extremely psychotic. 

Back in March when I said the only "agency" Ukraine has in this conflict is the Central Intelligence kind, empire loyalists jumped down my throat. They couldn't believe I was saying something so evil and wrong. Now they've been told that the Central Intelligence Agency is indeed conducting operations and directing intelligence on the ground in Ukraine, but I somehow doubt that this will stir any self-reflection on their part.

 

U.S. And NATO Running Out Of Weapons - And - Lack The Industrial Capacity To Make What's Needed

asiatimes |    The long and short of it is that, while the US and NATO can fight a short conflict, neither can support a long war because there’s insufficient equipment in the now-depleted inventory and the timelines to build replacement hardware are long.

Despite a history of having done so before, starting in 1939, there is little chance that the US today can put in place a surge capacity, or that it any longer knows how to do so if it is even feasible.

Based on those circumstances alone – and there are additional, compelling reasons – the US and NATO should be thinking about how to end the war in Ukraine rather than sticking with the declared policy of trying to bleed Russia.

Let’s start by looking back at a time when the United States did know how to plan for surge weapons-building capacity.

WW2 precedent

In 1939 the Roosevelt administration, with Congressional support, passed the Protective Mobilization Act.  Ultimately this would lead to the creation of a War Production Board, the Office of Production Management and the marshaling of US industry to fight the Nazis and Japanese

In 1941 the President declared an unlimited national emergency, giving the administration the power to shift industrial production to military requirements. Between 1940 and 1945, the US supplied almost two-thirds of all war supplies to the allies (including the USSR and China) and for US forces – producing some 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces (all types) and 86,000 tanks (light, medium and heavy).

Russia faced an altogether more difficult challenge because after Nazi Germany attacked the USSR in June 1941 much of Russia’s defense industrial infrastructure was threatened.  Russia evacuated 1,500 factories either to the Ural Mountains or to Soviet Central Asia.  Even Lenin’s body was moved from Moscow to Tyumen, 2,500 km from Moscow.

Notably, Stalin Tank Factory 183 would be moved from Kharkiv, now a contested city in the Ukraine war, to the Urals, rebranded as Uralvagonzavod and situated in Nizhny Tagil. The facility had been a railroad car maker, so it was suitable for tank manufacturing. The tank factory relocation was managed by Isaac Zaltzman. 

At that factory the Soviets produced a massive number of tanks (light, medium and heavy), most notably the T-34, the world’s most successful tank design (based on the Christie tank chassis from the United States). Altogether the Soviets produced almost 78,000 tanks and self-propelled guns mounted on tank chassis.

This is now 

It is noteworthy that today Russia as well as the US and America’s NATO partners all face supply problems as the war in Ukraine grinds on. While the US and Europe maintain a significant commercial industrial base, needed to supply key components for defense equipment, Russia lacks an in-depth civilian manufacturing infrastructure – especially in advanced electronics, sensors and electro-optics. 

The US and Europe face a risk because they are increasingly dependent on high-tech supplies from Asia. Today there are severe supply bottlenecks, shortages and risk dependencies. Even China, which has a huge commercial manufacturing infrastructure, faces difficulties in obtaining the most sophisticated integrated circuits, manufactured only in Taiwan by Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC).

Procurement of defense goods in the US and Europe is episodic, not continuous. Funds are allocated to purchase a certain quantity of defense equipment. When the contract is completed and there are no immediate follow-on purchases, production lines are shut down and second- and third-tier component suppliers also stop production – or they shift to work on other projects (and in some cases go out of business). 

This means that if a new order comes in later, the supplier network and the production lines will have to be started almost from scratch. In addition to the loss of infrastructure for certain types of weapons, there is the related loss of skilled factory workers and engineers.

 

As The Mighty Wurlitzer Admits Defeat In Ukraine Brandon Throws Zelensky Under The Bus

apnews  |  President Joe Biden, speaking to donors at a Democratic fundraiser here, said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “didn’t want to hear it” when U.S. intelligence gathered information that Russia was preparing to invade.

The remarks came as Biden was talking about his work to rally and solidify support for Ukraine as the war continues into its fourth month.

“Nothing like this has happened since World War II. I know a lot of people thought I was maybe exaggerating. But I knew we had data to sustain he” — meaning Russian President Vladimir Putin — “was going to go in, off the border.”

“There was no doubt,” Biden said. “And Zelenskyy didn’t want to hear it.”

Although Zelenskyy has inspired people with his leadership during the war, his preparation for the invasion — or lack thereof — has remained a controversial issue.

In the weeks before the war began on Feb. 24, Zelenskyy publicly bristled as Biden administration officials repeatedly warned that a Russian invasion was highly likely.

moa  |   The New York Times, here via Yahoo, has some rather weird piece over alleged lack of intelligence on Ukrainian warplanes:

U.S. Lacks a Clear Picture of Ukraine's War Strategy, Officials Say

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine has provided near-daily updates of Russia’s invasion on social media; viral video posts have shown the effectiveness of Western weapons in the hands of Ukrainian forces; and the Pentagon has regularly held briefings on developments in the war.

But despite the flow of all this news to the public, U.S. intelligence agencies have less information than they would like about Ukraine’s operations and possess a far better picture of Russia’s military, its planned operations and its successes and failures, according to current and former officials.

Governments often withhold information from the public for operational security. But these information gaps within the U.S. government could make it more difficult for the Biden administration to decide how to target military aid as it sends billions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine.
...
Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence, testified at a Senate hearing last month that “it was very hard to tell” how much additional aid Ukraine could absorb.

She added: “We have, in fact, more insight, probably, on the Russian side than we do on the Ukrainian side.”

One key question is what measures Zelenskyy intends to call for in Donbas. Ukraine faces a strategic choice there: withdraw its forces or risk having them encircled by Russia.

Andrei Martyanov rants about the piece:

Well, NYT decided to start steering clear of this whole Russia "lost in Ukraine" BS it promoted together with neocon crazies, and begins this ever familiar tune of the "intel failure". Right.

U.S. Lacks a Clear Picture of Ukraine's War Strategy, Officials Say

Hm, how about I put it bluntly--the U.S. never had clear picture on anything, especially on Russia, or, as a private case, [the Special Military Operation] and completely bought into Ukie propaganda, which shows a complete incompetence of the "intel" in the US.
...
The narrative on [the Special Military Operation], in reality, is dead and the failure is not being set, it already happened. It is a fait accompli no matter how one wants to put a lipstick on the pig.

Larry Johnson thinks there is another another motive behind the story:

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that there are not solid analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency who know the answers to all these questions. The real problem may not be a lack of intelligence. Nope. It is the fear of telling the politicians hard truths they do not want to hear.

Given the billions of dollars the United States is spending on “intelligence” collection systems, it is time for the Congress and the American public to demand that the intelligence services do their damn job.

I do not believe for one moment that U.S. intelligence services do not know what is going on in Ukraine and in Kiev. They know that the Ukraine has lost the war and will have to sue for peace as soon as possible.

They also have told the White House that this is a case and that the whole idea of setting up the Ukraine to tickle the Russian bear was idiotic from the get go. The question now is who will take the blame for the outcome. Who can the buck be passed to?

 

A Fish Rots From The Head - Ours Stinks To High Heaven

responsiblestatecraft |   Biden’s problem is that the United States no longer enjoys the political or economic dominance that enabled it to dictate the terms of hemispheric relations, and Latin Americans are no longer willing to simply accept Washington’s priorities as their own. Rebuilding U.S. leadership in the Hemisphere will require that Washington confer with its neighbors and genuinely listen to them rather than dictating to them. Occasionally, it will require Washington to take the unfamiliar and uncomfortable step of deferring to them.

The Ninth Summit of the Americas, hosted by President Biden last week in Los Angeles, was in trouble even before it convened. Planning for it was erratic, with no clear theme or agenda in place until the last minute. Invitations went out just a few weeks before the event, delayed because of a very public controversy over whether Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela would be included. In the end, they were not.

Senior U.S. officials hinted early on that the Summit would be restricted to “democratically elected leaders.” That prompted pushback from a number of Latin Americans, foremost among them Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Although the host nation sends out the Summit invitations, some Latin Americans regarded the decision to exclude the three governments as an abuse of the host’s prerogatives.

To mollify López Obrador and others who voiced similar concerns, the White House toyed with the idea of inviting Cuba to send a lower level official, or participate as an observer. Not surprisingly, Cuba rejected this second-class citizenship even before it was offered. López-Obrador politely declined to attend the Summit, sending his foreign minister instead. The presidents of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador declined as well. At the Summit, other heads of state openly criticized Washington for not inviting all the nations of the Americas.

Irregular migration was a main focus of the Summit, but between them, the countries excluded and those whose presidents stayed home accounted for 69 percent of the migrants encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in April — nearly 180,000 people. Trying to formulate a strategy to stem irregular migration without engaging the governments of the migrants’ home countries is a recipe for failure.  

 

Truth Is Treason In An Empire Of Lies

caitlinjohnstone |  The empire has had mixed feelings about the internet since its creation. On one hand it allows for unprecedented surveillance and information gathering and the rapid distribution of propaganda, which it likes, but on the other it allows for the unprecedented democratization of information, which it doesn’t like.

Its answer to this quandary has been to come up with “fact checking” services and Silicon Valley censorship protocols for restricting “misinformation” (with “facts” and “information” defined as “whatever advances imperial interests”). That’s all we’re seeing with continually expanding online censorship policies, and with government-tied oligarchic narrative management operations like NewsGuard.

Twitter has imposed a weeklong suspension on the account of writer and political activist Danny Haiphong for a thread he made on the platform disputing the mainstream Tiananmen Square massacre narrative.

The notification Haiphong received informed him that Twitter had locked his account for “Violating our rules against abuse and harassment,” presumably in reference to a rule the platform put in place a year ago which prohibits “content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured, and when the content is shared with abusive intent.”

“This may include references to such an event as a ‘hoax’ or claims that victims or survivors are fake or ‘actors,’” Twitter said of the new rule. “It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters.”

That we are now seeing this rule applied to protect narratives which support the geostrategic interests of the US-centralized empire is not in the least bit surprising.

Haiphong is far from the first to dispute the mainstream western narrative about exactly what happened around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 as the Soviet Union was crumbling and Washington’s temporary Cold War alignment with Beijing was losing its strategic usefulness. But we can expect more acts of online censorship like this as Silicon Valley continues to expand into its role as guardian of imperial historic records.

This idea that government-tied Silicon Valley institutions should act as arbiters of history on behalf of the public consumer is gaining steadily increasing acceptance in the artificially manufactured echo chamber of mainstream public opinion. We saw another example of this recently in Joe Lauria’s excellent refutation of accusations against Consortium News of historic inaccuracy by the imperial narrative management firm NewsGuard.

As journalists like Whitney Webb and Mnar Adley noted years ago, NewsGuard markets itself as a “news rating agency” designed to help people sort out good from bad sources of information online, but in reality functions as an empire-backed weapon against media who question imperial narratives about what’s happening in the world. The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal outlined the company’s many partnerships with imperial swamp monsters like former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and “chief propagandist” Richard Stengel as well as “imperialist cutouts like the German Marshall Fund” when its operatives contacted his outlet for comment on their accusations.

 

 

Not Even Middle East Garrison States Can Be Bothered With Brandon....,

thecradle  |  It appears that the US has effectively lost most of the Gulf states (with the exception of Qatar) in favor of the new, more wily Russian ally. This loss was reflected in the recent decision of OPEC to increase oil production by only 200,000 barrels per day, significantly below the one million barrels per day. the US has sought.

Will the US administration accept this defeat easily and raise a white flag? The answer is ‘no,’ as Biden will cleave to long-established Beltway policy for West Asia, the most important aspect of which is the US military bases in the Persian Gulf.

Contrary to what local populations are encouraged to think, the US military bases were not established to protect the host states, but rather to ensure – even force – their government commitment to US interests and to submit to Washington’s diktats.

With regards to the current US pre-occupation with Ukraine, the war is tilting in Russia’s favor, both in the military and economic realms, with an almost complete failure of western-imposed economic sanctions.

The longer Biden delays his West Asia tour because of ‘non-ideal conditions’ in the host countries, the more those conditions are likely to evolve against US interests. Neither Saudi Arabia nor what’s left of the Israeli coalition government are waiting around for Biden – especially when nothing is delaying frequent trips by the Russians, Chinese, and other multipolar actors from filling that American gap.

As Predicted, Brandon's Summit Of The Americas Is An Epic Failure

mronline  |  The U.S. government’s Summit of the Americas started on June 6 in Los Angeles, California. And the event proved to be a major diplomatic failure for the Joe Biden administration.

Washington refused to invite the socialist governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

So to protest this exclusion, the presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, and Honduras boycotted the summit. Guatemala’s president also chose to skip the conference.

This means heads of state representing Latin American countries with a total population of more than 200 million people–a significant percentage of the Americas–refused to attend Washington’s Summit of the Americas.

The most significant absence was Mexico’s left-wing president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known popularly by the acronym AMLO.

“I am not going to the summit because not all of the countries of the Americas were invited,” AMLO explained in his morning press conference on June 6.

“I believe in the need to change the policy that has been imposed for centuries, the exclusion, the desire to dominate, the lack of respect for the sovereignty of the countries and the independence of every country,” the Mexican president explained.

“There cannot be a Summit of the Americas if all of the countries of the American continent do not participate,” López Obrador continued.

We consider that to be the old policy of interventionism, of a lack of respect for nations and their peoples.

AMLO criticized the U.S. Republican Party for its “extremist” positions against Cuba and racist policies against immigrants. But he also pointed out that some prominent figures in the Democratic Party, such as New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, have also contributed to “hate” against Cuba and hawkish meddling in Latin America’s sovereign affairs.

“I don’t accept hegemonies,” AMLO added.