Wed, 01/11/2017 - 3:01pm — CB

I'm sure that Putin will make a measured response

Look to how he has responded to the provocations in Georgia, Kiev and Syria.

The West Marches East, Part 1: The U.S.-NATO Strategy to Isolate Russia
In early March of 2014, following Russia's invasion of Crimea in Ukraine, the New York Times editorial board declared that Russian President Vladimir Putin had "stepped far outside the bounds of civilized behavior," suggesting that Russia should be isolated politically and economically in the face of "continued aggression."

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, lashed out at Russia's " incredible act of aggression," stating that: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pre-text." Indeed, invading foreign nations on "trumped up pre-texts" is something only the United States and its allies are allowed to do, not Russia! What audacity!
...
Indeed, Russia can only be said to be an "aggressive" and "imperial" power so long as one accepts the unrelenting hypocrisy of U.S. and Western leaders. After all, it was not Russia that invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, killing millions. It is not Putin, but rather Barack Obama, who has waged a "global terror campaign," compiling "kill lists" and using flying killer robots to bomb countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and even the Philippines, killing thousands of people around the world. It is not Putin, but rather, Barack Obama, who has been sending highly-trained killers into over 100 countries around the world at any given time, waging a "secret war" in most of the world's nations. It was not Russia, but rather the United States, that has supported the creation of "death squads" in Iraq, contributing to the mass violence, civil war and genocide that resulted; or that has been destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, increasing the possibility of nuclear war.
...
All of these actions are considered to be a part of America's strategy to secure 'stability,' to promote 'peace' and 'democracy.' It's Russia that threatens "the peace and stability of the world," not America or its NATO and Western allies....

Several further points to be presented from your invaluable must-read link - and thanks for posting it!

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/west-marches-east-part-one.html#.WHajC...

The West Marches East, Part 1: The U.S.-NATO Strategy to Isolate Russia
Andrew Gavin Marshall I Geopolitics I Analysis I April 17th, 2014

...The U.S. Ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991, John F. Matlock Jr., later noted that the end of the Cold War was not 'won' by the West, but was brought about "by negotiation to the advantage of both sides." Yet, he noted, "the United States insisted on treating Russia as the loser ." The United States almost immediately violated the agreement established in 1990, and NATO began moving eastwards, much to the dismay of the Russians. The new Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, warned that NATO's expansion to the East threatened a 'cold peace' and was a violation of the " spirit of conversations " that took place in February of 1990 between Soviet, West German and American leaders.

In 1990, President Bush's National Security Strategy for the United States acknowledged that, "even as East-West tensions diminish, American strategic concerns remain," noting that previous U.S. military interventions which were justified as a response to Soviet 'threats', were - in actuality - "in response to threats to U.S. interests that could not be laid at the Kremlin's door," and that, "the necessity to defend our interests will continue." In other words, decades of justifications for war by the United States - blaming 'Soviet imperialism' and 'Communism' - were lies, and now that the Soviet Union no longer existed as a threat, American imperialism will still have to continue.

Former National Security Adviser - and arch-imperial strategist - Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in 1992 that the Cold War strategy of the United States in advocating "liberation" against the USSR and Communism (thus justifying military interventions all over the world), " was a strategic sham, designed to a significant degree for domestic political reasons... the policy was basically rhetorical, at most tactical."

The Pentagon drafted a strategy in 1992 for the United States to manage the post-Cold War world, where the primary mission of the U.S. was "to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union." As the New York Times noted, the document - largely drafted by Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney - "makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."

This strategy was further enshrined with the Clinton administration, whose National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, articulated the 'Clinton doctrine' in 1993 when he stated that: "The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement - enlargement of the world's free community of market democracies," which "must combine our broad goals of fostering democracy and markets with our more traditional geostrategic interests."
Under Bill Clinton's imperial presidency, the United States and NATO went to war against Serbia, ultimately tore Yugoslavia to pieces (itself representative of a 'third way' of organizing society, different than both the West and the USSR), and NATO commenced its Eastward expansion . ...

...The 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine in 2004 was - as Ian Traynor wrote in the Guardian - " an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing," with funding and organizing from the U.S. government, "deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-governmental organizations." ...

And this was prior to the 'legalization' of US government propaganda for the purpose of conning the American people. And, speaking of the Clintons (bolding mine):

...Mark Almond wrote in the Guardian in 2004 that, "throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989's velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers - and, let's be frank, spies - co-operated to promote what became People Power." This was represented by "a network of interlocking foundations and charities [which] mushroomed to organize the logistics of transferring millions of dollars to dissidents." The money itself " came overwhelmingly from NATO states and covert allies such as 'neutral' Sweden," as well as through the billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundation. Almond noted that these "modern market revolutionaries" would bring people into office "with the power to privatize." Activists and populations are mobilized with "a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by Western-funded 'independent' media to get them on the streets." After successful Western-backed 'revolutions' comes the usual economic 'shock therapy' which brings with it "mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organized crime, prostitution and soaring death rates." Ah, democracy! ...

Two 'political' parties with but a single pathology... no wonder that the two-party trade-off trap is so strictly enforced by TPTB against the American people.

So, what price Clinton Foundation involvement, considering what we've managed to learn, as far as I can see, mostly via whistleblowers leaking, WikiLeaks and the tellingly bizarre 'explanations' of various agency heads and other public officials for extremely corrupt-appearing transactions and communications between/regarding the Clinton Foundation and large donors who happened to be in, acting for or connected to various foreign governments and financial institutions shuffling 'secret' money around for the ultra-wealthy, a group I'd confidently expect to be voted most likely to produce those very few actually benefiting from the overthrow of democratic governments/any Heads of State working for the public good to any extent and of the installation of destructive puppet governments draining and industrially poisoning their people, ecologies and countries for ever-increasing corporate/billionaire profits?

Now that government propagandization of The People of America has been illegally and unconstitutionally 'legalized' by corrupt public officials, with investigations and charges against corrupt public officials illegally and unconstitutionally stymied by such illegal and unconstitutional 'laws' passed against the public interest by such corrupt public officials and Homeland Security has taken control over the long-rigged US elections, shutting out any shriveled hope of independent/citizen oversight/verification of accuracy in reported electoral results, will the American people continue to accept even this degree of blatancy employed by their selected government in their own ongoing dispossession and expendability and the extinction-for-profit of virtually all life on the planet in the near future in order to enable a relative few - however briefly - to claim totalitarian planetary power and control?

I'd suggest (re-)reading this interesting refresher in full at source, ideally right after doing the same with CB's linked paper, if at all possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-million...

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom HamburgerFebruary 25, 2015

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels. ...

... The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.

Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits. ...

... A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. ...

...Foundation officials said last week that if Clinton runs, they will consider taking steps to address concerns over the role of foreign donors.

“We will continue to ensure the Foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State,” the foundation said in a statement. ...

... Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors — or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to “materially increase” their support — was never initiated during Clinton’s State Department years. ...

And the proof is in the pudding! Just look at how many tainted and ineffective AIDs drugs those billions bought and how many luxury hotels that 2 billion - presumably accumulated by 2013/2014, going by the date written and depending upon how recent the available data was at the time - had enabled for suffering people around the world stricken with disaster! Although administrative costs are, indeed, high...

Now the craze for 'charitable Foundations' amongst certain of the politically-connected super-wealthy can potentially be viewed with 20% more perspective!

Looks to me as though the corporate/billionaire terrorists have been partially 'charitably' funding themselves tax-free, as well as using the public money and resources of the people of various countries, en route to global corporate/military theft and destruction of the Earth itself and it all essentially rests on letting faked elections, appalling appointments to public service positions with the clear intent of abuse and unconstitutional 'law-making', as well as law-breaking, for the few and their lackeys, stand as a 'done deal to be fixed later', until it's too late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFs-ycSo-14

Ellwood - Sunshine Garden