A breath of fresh air - voices of sanity from Russia

Why do the leaders of 'Five Eyes' now come across as clowns? None of these people are statesmen in the normative sense. Whenever we see them placed in contrast to their Russian counterparts, they come across as truly ignorant buffoons giving knee-jerk responses to matters of international law. They treat leaders of foreign nations as if they were the opposition in their local elections - with disrespect and disdain.

To prove my point, here are Sergey Lavrov and Mariya Zakharova discussing the claimed use of chemical weapons in London and the UK government's response.

Share
up
33 users have voted.

Comments

will see this? How many would consider this IF they did see it? With the Wurlitzer propaganda machine cranked to 11, I'm guessing not many to the first ? and even less to the second ? .
Most on this site will push back, of course, but are We enough to affect any change in discourse?
Regardless, WE have to keep trying.

Stop These Fucking Wars

peace

up
26 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

of a failing politician and party.

Trying to gain back right wing Brexit voters with a ridiculously transparent, bear-baiting false flag. Hell, even UKIP voters aren't that stupid.

But pay attention everyone: because the establishment is clearly signalling its willingness to risk even nuclear war rather than cede power to a socialist.

That's how depraved these people are.

Edit: Could they be more obvious?

up
22 users have voted.

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

Azazello's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger

up
15 users have voted.

@Not Henry Kissinger
that the political leadership of our country wants nuclear war, not just that they're willing to risk it. I think the use of tactical nukes is what this is about in order to save the nuclear weapons industry, which is the lynch pin to the black hole of unlimited spending and thus to the whole wealth through stock market thing. Socialism for the Ruthless.

But they clearly can't come up with much against Russia, even with Crimea. I'm guessing the people of Europe know more about what happened in Ukraine and are not anxious to experience nuclear war because of it, however they see it. And I think they know more about their refugee crisis than we do and understand over 900,000 people escaped from Ukraine and were accepted in Russia as refugees. So I think that one issue, Crimea, has not worked to make more spending on NATO and death by hydrogen bomb a dream come true for the people of Europe.

Also, I think waking up in the morning to see on your phone a message from Huffington Post saying Everything You Need to Know About The Russian Cyberattacks On The U.S. Electricity Grid, and then turning on the lights, verifying that the electricity grid is OK, makes you notice the words, "Russian government hackers sought to penetrate... critical infrastructure..."

Therefore, even if you bought this stuff, which I don't, I don't think you would feel nuclear war was the appropriate response. I mean, what this Huff Post article really says is that the Russian government sought to penetrate our grid but failed. Our grid is fine. It's secure. But if we have nuclear war, it will not be fine. In fact we will have no hospitals in which to treat burns, and no grid, and no food. They can make all the accusations in the world about Russia and the Russian government, aka Putin, but ultimately linking those claims to the trillion dollar modernization of nuclear weapons so they can be used, which is what they've said, is insane, and hopefully most people will see that sooner rather than later.

up
19 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger And I thought the Bush years were bad.

up
10 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

snoopydawg's picture

@Steven D

IMG_1886.JPG

up
7 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

Who was the women in the second video who talked about the international protocol the U.K. Has failed to follow?

up
7 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

CB's picture

@zoebear

She is Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Maria Zakharova. Wickedly smart lady who can hold her own in any heated discussion.

Here's a link to her briefings in English.

You can find her latest briefing where she gives the Kremlin's formal response to the UK here: http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/-/asset_publisher...

You will find a question and answer section at the end.

Question: British Prime Minister Theresa May said that not only diplomats would be expelled from the country. The UK is prepared to freeze Russian assets and cancel the Royal family’s visit to the FIFA World Cup to be held in Russia. What do Russia’s measures in response to Great Britain entail?

Maria Zakharova: Response measures are being worked out and will be made public shortly.

Question: In you view, how dangerous is the current situation?

Maria Zakharova: What scale do you suggest for evaluating it – in percentage points? A colour scale? There are currently different colours for danger levels. What paradigm are we talking about here? If you are asking whether the current situation is dangerous, it is definitely dangerous. Let me repeat, the leader of a nuclear power goes to her parliament, that is, two branches of government meet, those who take critically important decisions, and groundlessly accuses another country of aggression against her own country, gives 24 hours, issues ultimatums and generally acts in a way that is detached from any reality, which in itself is the most scary and dangerous, because the actions are not commensurate with the real situation. It creates the impression that it was a sort of a talk show without real communication or knowledge of international law and the way the world lives, but is rather an opportunity to speak out and make a multi-part saga out of it. In this respect, the situation is extremely dangerous, without a doubt.

As to the scale, please figure out a paradigm, and we will think it over. I think what matters is not the degree of danger but understanding the absolute irresponsibility of those who came and keep coming to power in a number of countries on the wave of populism. These people come with empty promises. Even if earlier politicians used to make promises and proposals to their people as they were fighting for power, being aware from the outset that some of them would never come true, it was not dangerous. Whereas today there is a perception that we are watching a real crisis of the political system in many countries, when not only an external factor is needed to solve internal problems, but a large-scale non-stop campaign which presupposes the use of the complete arsenal of declarations, measures, threats to impact domestic, internal processes. I have no doubts that British Prime Minister Theresa May’s actions also have a domestic subtext. Perhaps, she wanted to present herself as a strong leader but she presented herself the way she did. I think there is no use in offering an assessment of her. You saw everything yourselves.

The other woman is a host of the Russian show.

up
16 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@CB

Yes, Maria Zakharova. Considering her point of view it is not unreasonable for her to ask the UK these questions. Or the rest of us watching this Benny Hill performance in brinksmanship.

Although, I have to admit it was a little discombobulating to hear a government official speak about foreign policy protocol in a reasonable way. I've gotten used to such hyperbole and leaps of conjecture, my synapses weren't prepared for the sanity.

up
12 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

Steven D's picture

@CB or Chemical Weapons Convention. A meber state to the convention is supposed to request an investigation by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) under the CWC

See: https://static.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Secretary-General_Mechanism/

The Secretary-General's Mechanism to carry out prompt investigations in response to allegations brought to his attention concerning the possible use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons was developed in the late 1980s. Triggered by a request from any Member State, the Secretary-General is authorized to launch an investigation including dispatching a fact-finding team to the site(s) of the alleged incident(s) and to report to all United Nation Member States. This is to ascertain in an objective and scientific manner facts of alleged violations of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical and biological weapons, or other relevant rules of customary international law.

The roster of experts and laboratories provided by Member States and the Guidelines and Procedures for the conduct of investigations constitute the key elements of the Mechanism. Member States encouraged the Secretary-General in September 2006 to update the roster of experts and laboratories, as well as the technical guidelines and procedures, available to him for the timely and efficient investigation of alleged use.

The Office for Disarmament Affairs has been working with Member States to update the roster of experts and laboratories and the technical appendices of the guidelines and procedures so that they fully correspond with the rapid and substantial developments that have occurred in the biological area since the 1980s and also take into account the entry-into-force of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the establishment of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 1997.

up
12 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D

why would the Brits not want an official investigation, a confirmation of what it was and where it could have come from? Are they afraid it wouldn't match their accusation?

up
9 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Linda Wood

...that this was a false flag attack. I suppose this was the ideal victim to pick, although there are quite a few retired Russian spies to choose from living in London. They would have left at some point after Putin became President. He pardoned quite a few. I heard.

This reminds me very much of the last Syria Chemical attack when the fired off all those silly Tomahawks in a multimillion dollar display of fail. That was the last time the OPCW was involved.

If you recall, it was too "dangerous" for them to collect a sample so the US got someone to fetch a sample which was taken to Turkey, who much later said it was sarin. The chain of evidence was stupid. Eric Zuess did a forensic study on it, but so did that MIT specialist, Postol. Both debunked the story in so many ways.

This time, the US and UK are not going to bother with samples, perhaps. I doubt there is anything tying the incident to Russia.

I'm actually pretty glad I got to see something like this in my lifetime. There are many historical stories about psycho-political mass brainwashing. Ive seen textbooks from the 1940s that explain the techniques. It's rather amazing.

up
8 users have voted.

If it is a monopoly, then it IS your government.

@Pluto's Republic

that which you describe as "psycho-political mass brainwashing," I agree that it is phenomenal. Because it has effected even people close to me, who have the same values as myself and are in the same age group, I am baffled as to how they got there. I keep thinking it has to do with fear of facing the truth that the Clintons are shifty or crooked, but that doesn't seem likely. Fear of being responsible for the rise of Trump? Nah. Too easy.

It's almost like a puzzle of tangled loops in which, in order to get to the start of it, you have to go all the way back, through every lie that misled you, until you reach the first big lie. I don't know.

up
6 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@Pluto's Republic

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Linda Wood

...that this was a false flag attack. I suppose this was the ideal victim to pick, although there are quite a few retired Russian spies to choose from living in London. They would have left at some point after Putin became President. He pardoned quite a few. I heard.

This reminds me very much of the last Syria Chemical attack when they fired off all those silly Tomahawks in a multimillion dollar display of fail. That was the last time the OPCW was involved.

If you recall, it was too "dangerous" for them to collect a sample so the US got someone to fetch a sample which was taken to Turkey, who much later said it was sarin. The chain of evidence was stupid. Eric Zuess did a forensic study on it, but so did that MIT specialist, Postol. Both debunked the story in so many ways.

This time, the US and UK are not going to bother with samples, perhaps. I doubt there is anything tying the incident to Russia.

I'm actually pretty glad I got to see something like this in my lifetime. There are many historical stories about psycho-political mass brainwashing. Ive seen textbooks from the 1940s that explain the techniques. It's rather amazing to witness it happening. They're not even disguising it.

Just a reality check, here. Statesmen never talked like this to each other on TV before, right?

This is a very bizarre and singular moment, right?

up
7 users have voted.

If it is a monopoly, then it IS your government.

CB's picture

I have yet to watch it. Might comment tomorrow.

up
8 users have voted.
CB's picture

@CB
It was a fascinating expose on how Putin came to power and the speed in which he reinvigorated Russia and its people and pulled the country back from the brink of extinction.

Despite what his detractors in the West say, Putin was/is definitely not in it for the money. This comes through load and clear in his many selfless actions and unrelenting work ethic.

The more Putin empowered the country and its people, the more the unfettered capitalists began to despise him. He spent most of Russia's considerable natural resources on programs of social uplift. We all remember when MLK was assassinated for even suggesting that.

I came across the following this morning that is a summation of Putin's first decade and a half:

Ten Good Reasons to Hate Putin

Or, rather, why our “leaders” hate him

PS: Those figures have improved since 2013, despite sanctions.

up
9 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@CB

I've been noticing that people analyzing the elite who rule them, they seem to pivot at the point of "motive." That's where many narratives go astray, often leading the the investigator off to Crazy Town. It's critical to get the motive right. it's not always about money with the powerful, especially when they are very engaged in the hard work of influential public careers.

I don't think Hillary was about money. She sees herself so differently than others see her. She's disconnected. She seems driven to be a hero to every group she deals with — bankers, women, blacks, Neocons, unions, and the oppressed. But those groups want very different things; they have opposing goals. That was the needle that Hillary couldn't thread — her track record showed that was the very best Republican in the race.

She was running on the wrong ticket, and the DNC letters show that she and her campaign knew that — that's why they had to cheat. They could never be certain what the Democratic voters would do. She spoke only word salads for months until she was finally forced to drop politics and issues completely. Instead, her campaign resorted to threatening Democratic voters — terrifying them with the specter of Donald Trump all the way up to Election Day.

"The General who knows the opponent can win the battle." That was Hillary.

"The General who knows himself can win the war." That was Trump.

People make a big mistake when they think Trump is in it for the money. They think that's how they will finally impeach him, and whine about his tax returns. They make an even bigger mistake when they think Putin is all about money. This is how the People ended up getting bamboozled. They were projecting. It is they who are in it for the money.

Americans reflexively slam Putin about money. Relentlessly, they hit Putin with sanctions. They've grown complacent with their weaponized Dollars. But they're flying blind. That's why they cannot win the war.

up
5 users have voted.

If it is a monopoly, then it IS your government.

CB's picture

@Pluto's Republic

"The General who knows the opponent and who knows himself can win the peace." That was Putin.

up
4 users have voted.

@CB
the documentary about Putin, and I found it compelling. Thank you for making it available for us.

I involuntarily find myself anticipating the reaction of Putin-haters as I'm watching it. But I think, even if you took the position that this is a propaganda piece designed to promote Putin and to leave out his crimes or injustices, the proof is in the pudding. If the standard of living of the Russian people has improved, if health and longevity and the birth rate have improved, and if the rampant crime and destitution we brought to Russia with unfettered capitalism have decreased, then he deserves the credit he continues to receive.

There are so many important things to think about in this documentary, I hope each of us has time to watch at least part of it. Among the most important parts for me were his speeches to European leaders about war and peace, commerce and fairness, honest communication and respect for law among nations. I know those who hate him think Crimea proves these are just words for him, but our support for Nazi forces in Ukraine proves the opposite for me.

Thanks again for posting it, CB.

up
3 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

I was going to do an essay around it but I'll just post it here.

"That is why “they” got away with 9/11 and why “they” will continue to get away with future false-flags because the people lied to, realize, at least on some level, that they are being lied to and yet they simply don’t care."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48967.htm

I responded to the article that most people don't care because they just don't see anything that can be done about it. But it does seem like the criminal ruling class can do and say anything they want without any pushback by the population. This latest false flag is so fucking obvious I haven't even read much about it, just marveling at how Trump, May, Corbyn, Sanders, all of them and the corporate media, fall behind the narrative, reinforcing the lies to the point that they believe them themselves.

up
12 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Big Al

He makes some great points for why people shouldn't be believing everything that they are being told about Russia Russia R ...

I won’t even bother debunking the official nonsense here as others have done a very good job of pointing out the idiocy of the official narrative. If you are truly capable of believing that “Putin” (that is the current collective designator for the Evil Empire of Mordor currently threatening all of western civilization) would order the murder of a man whom a Russian military court sentenced to only 13 years in jail (as opposed to life or death) and who was subsequently released as part of a swap with the USA, you can stop reading right now and go back to watching TV.

When one is going to off someone, make sure to take the hardest route available that will point fingers at you.

The fact that neither nerve-gas, nor polonium nor dioxin are in any way effective murder weapons does not matter in the least: a simple drive-by shooting, street-stabbing or, better, any “accident” is both easier to arrange and impossible to trace.

But the best way of murdering somebody is to simply make the body disappear, making any subsequent investigation almost impossible.

"That’s assuming that the Russians had any reason to want him dead, which they self-evidently didn’t."

This is what no one is asking. Why would Putin have him killed after he had been released from prison 8 years earlier?

In another essay I wrote that another person was murdered over the weekend and his death was apparently caused by Putin too. This guy had laundered millions from an airplane business and he was being tried for it in Britain. Who would have had the biggest motive for keeping him from talking? Putin for some unknown reason or possibly the other people who were involved in the money laundering? Why isn't anyone even bothering to ask themselves this question? Because they have been caught up with so much hatred for Trump and Putin they aren't thinking straight!

up
10 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@snoopydawg countries with MI6 and CIA organizations infamous for their various ways of killing, overthrowing countries, assassinations (like Castro what, 600 times?), causing genocides.
Similar to the election tampering accusations and operations in Syria, the hypocrisy of the U.S. and Britain is about as high as it gets.

up
10 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Big Al

Everything that they accused Putin of doing, their hands are much more dirty regarding actions taken during this century. How many countries have they destabilized during this time period? How many has Russia?

up
9 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@Big Al U.S., Britain, France and Germany more or less shows that this is a manufactured false flag probably with multiple intelligence agencies involved. There's no way you can act that indignant knowing full well your own government has done far worse without it being an act.

up
11 users have voted.
Creosote.'s picture

@Big Al

We all know the type. You tell somebody that his/her theory makes absolutely no sense or is not supported by facts and the reply you get is some vaguely worded refusal to engage in an disputation. Initially, you might be tempted to believe that, indeed, your interlocutor is not too bright and not too well read, but eventually you realize that there is something very different happening: the modern man actually makes a very determined effort not to be capable of logical thought and not to be informed of the basic facts of the case.

Or, as someone I know, and to whom I sent an important article from C99, said they were now just reading good novels and history, and didn't care for 'conspiracy theories.'

up
1 user has voted.

They led off today with the usual litany of anti-Russia crap: Nerve gas in London,deaths of hundreds in Syria, energy grid attacks,... Just their regular anti-Russian, pro-war garbage reporting.
And then without a blush, they proceeded to spend 20 minutes re-hashing the horrors of Vietnam in honor of the Mi Lie event. They even trotted out John Kerry's anti-war performance & another anti-war advocate who pointed out that the pilots who slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians from above were just as guilty of war crimes. Talk about hypocrisy.I can't tell if Amy Goodman is bought off or just stupid.

up
11 users have voted.

chuck utzman

You can blame me. I did not vote for Her Heinous.

snoopydawg's picture

@chuckutzman

I commented on this a few weeks ago and I'll find it and post the link to the article on it.

Funny how no one talks about how it was this country that started the killings in Syria, isn't it? Syria was just the next country in line to be overthrown according to Wesley Clark. And I'm betting that the chemical weapons attacks there have our fingerprints all over them somehow. We are funding the Al Qaida offshoots as well as the White Helmets who stage rescues and might have been the ones who used the chlorine gas on a few of the towns since they were first in line for the rescues.

I wouldn't even put it past the CIA to have a hand in the poisoning to set up a false flag event in order to paint it on Putin.

Any good Kerry did during his winter soldier days is long gone! When he got in congress he voted for every damn war that he got to vote on. Then there's his tenure as SOS and his work with Syria and the other war theaters.

Did Amy mention that? Probably not.

up
10 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@chuckutzman

source

Democracy Now! Let’s get down to it by using well-documented and sourced information on Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, and the stage called Democracy Now! [All Emphasis Mine]:

Serious questions have arisen about how Democracy Now!, begun and developed with the resources of Pacifica Radio and grants from the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund and others, suddenly became independent and the effective property of Amy Goodman without recompense to Pacifica. This transfer apparently included valuable assets such as trademarks, ownership of years of archived programs, affiliate station access, and more. In a contract that remains secret, Amy Goodman is also receiving $1 million per year for a five-year period that began in 2002, according to Pacifica Treasurer Jabari Zakiya, to continue doing what has become Pacifica's flagship morning news program. This is more than double Goodman's officially stated stipend of $440,000 per year from Pacifica Radio. Democracy Now! receives indirect funding from George Soros, and direct funding from the Ford Foundation, the Glaser Foundation, Soros' Open Society Institute… …

By the way, Amy Goodman has this in common with these people:

Prominent journalists like ABC's Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: ''avoid all conflicts real or perceived.'' … Everyone knows that Goodman and her stage, Democracy Now!, has received millions and millions of dollars from GorgeSoros directly. Of course, no one knows how much exactly, because, Democracy Now is never available to answer that question when asked: Just that one Soros-funded operation is heard ''on over 900 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the United States.'' But it posts no formal audience numbers. Phone calls to ''Democracy Now!'' were not returned.

up
15 users have voted.
CB's picture

you can always blame a Russian!

I just ordered a Russian dog. It was a bargain at $99.99.

up
6 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@CB

IMG_1888.JPG

up
10 users have voted.
CB's picture

up
6 users have voted.
CB's picture

up
9 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@CB

Her pink Floyd tshirt?

up
5 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

CB's picture

@zoebear
Nice to see the younger generation appreciates fine music. She also seems to be very intelligent. Maybe the two go together?

up
5 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@CB

Roger Waters narrated the documentary about AIPAC and the "Occupation of the Americam Mind". Thought it might be either coincidental, or a nod to Mr. Waters for speaking the truth about our fucked up government and the agit-prop that passes for journalism.

up
6 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

wendy davis's picture

levels of agitprop against not just 'Putin', but the roosians, isn't it? but then most of them also believe that russia is still communist, so still believe in 'the domino theory', as per viet nam.

i'd been trying to find a tankie tweet that had observed that this is akin to the 'jews poisoned the well water' in the nazi era. i hate to say it, but some authors on the more 'subversive' websites are beginning to make odds on which nation on the 'amerikan enemies' list, as in who's next? i'd even thunk to write it up, with a certain amount of focus on ukraine 'in the news'. but when i checked in with julian assange, i found this variant on 'who's next?'. i confess i did need the chuckle as a departure from all of The Bleak...

thanks for the diary, CB.

up
7 users have voted.

up
1 user has voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.