Welcome to Sott.net
Wed, 27 Oct 2021
The World for People who Think

Puppet Masters
Map

Russian Flag

Stephen Cohen: The long history of US-Russian 'meddling'

russian flag
© Reuters / Alexander Demianchuk
A man waves a Russian flag in St. Petersburg in November 1998.
Even though the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found "no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia," Russiagate allegations of "collusion" between candidate and then-President Donald Trump and the Kremlin have poisoned American politics for nearly three years. They are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, due not only to the current subpoena-happy Democratic chairs of House "investigative" committees.

At the core of the Russiagate narrative is the allegation that the Kremlin "meddled" in the 2016 US presidential election. The word "meddle" is nebulous and could mean almost anything, but Russiagate zealots deploy it in the most ominous ways, as a war-like "attack on America," a kind of "Pearl Harbor." They also imply that such meddling is unprecedented when in fact both the United States and Russia have interfered repeatedly in the other's internal politics, in one way or another, certainly since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

For context, recall that such meddling is an integral part of Cold War and that there have been three Cold Wars between America and Russia during the past one hundred years. The first was from 1917 to 1933, when Washington did not even formally recognize the new Soviet government in Moscow. The second is, of course, the best known, the 40-year Cold War from about 1948 to 1988, when the US and Soviet leaders, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, declared it over. And then, by my reckoning, the new, ongoing Cold War began in the late 1990s, when the Clinton administration initiated the expansion of NATO toward Russia's borders and bombed Moscow's longtime Slav and political ally Serbia.

That's approximately 85 years of US-Russian Cold War in a hundred years of relations and, not surprisingly, a lot of meddling on both sides, even leaving aside espionage and spies. The meddling has taken various forms.

Document

No, Steele's dossier claims were not 'corroborated' - they were old news in the first place

Trump
© Getty Images
US President Donald Trump
Ross Douthat had an excellent column in Times on Sunday about the state of the Trump-Russia investigation. He homed in on the Steele dossier and its four major claims (or, as he put it, the four "big possibilities" it raised). The first of these "was that Russian intelligence was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and the release of stolen emails through WikiLeaks." Ross adds that this big possibility was "soon well corroborated."

I want to take issue with both the suggestion that Steele should get any credit for this claim and the implication that the corroboration of it is in any way a corroboration of Steele. On the matter of Russia's culpability for hacking the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks, Steele was just following the crowd. His vaunted Russian sources clearly gave him no foreknowledge about it, notwithstanding that he'd been poking around for Trump-Russia conspiracy evidence for well over a month by July 22, 2016, when publication of the DNC emails began.

This is worth exploring because it highlights an insidious aspect of the dossier that has gotten too little attention: This opposition-research screed produced by the Clinton campaign did not, through Steele's purportedly well-placed sources, foretell events. Rather, after events occurred, Steele wove them into the Democrats' Trump-Russia conspiracy narrative.

By autumn 2015, the FBI knew that the DNC servers had been hacked and that Russian operatives were surely the culprit. The Times reported as much on December 13, 2016.

Briefcase

WSJ Editorial Board: Jerry Nadler's hunt for Trump "obstruction" isn't going to fly

maxine waters jerry nadler
© Greg Nash
Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
This week the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Jerry Nadler (D-NY) fired off 81 document requests to various individuals and organizations in a quest to uncover crimes committed by the Trump, his 2016 campaign, or members of the current administration.

Ths long list of recipients includes Julian Assange, the NRA, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, George Papadopoulos, and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg - while Nadler's inquisition is expected to focus on 3 broad areas of interest: allegations of obstruction of justice, public corruption and other abuses of power.

Nadler, meanwhile, has unequivocally stated that he thinks President Trump obstructed justice - telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday: "It's very clear that the President obstructed justice."

To that end, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has some bad news for Nadler;

Nothing Nadler cites is actually illegal...

Comment: When even the Wall Street Journal starts arguing against your case, maybe you don't really have one?


Rocket

'We aren't slaves': Erdogan defies US pressure over S-400 deal with Russia, says S-500 may follow

Russia's S-400 air defense systems
© Sputnik / Vladislav Sergienko
Ankara is not a slave to an America in which Washington decides which weapons system Turkey can purchase, the country's president proclaimed, stressing its deployment of Russia's S-400 air defense systems will proceed as planned.

Ankara's resilience against US pressure over the purchase of the S-400 systems remains rock solid, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clarified on Wednesday, stressing that Turkey is a sovereign nation which has the right to choose its trade partners and arms suppliers.

"It's done. There can never be a turning back. This would not be ethical, it would be immoral. Nobody should ask us to lick up what we spat," Erdogan told Kanal 24.
We're an independent country, not slaves.
The fuss over the Russian deal is now even forcing Turkey to consider upgrading to the next-generation of Russian air defense systems, the S-500, once it enters Russian military service sometime in 2020, Erdogan said.

Megaphone

UN human rights rep demands 'full investigation' on France's 'excessive force' against Yellow Vests

Yellow Vests
© Reuters/Benoit Tessier
Yellow Vests hold banner reading "Stop Police Violence."
UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet has called for a full investigation into reports of excessive use of force by the French police against Yellow Vest protesters resulting in over 2,000 injured and dozens being maimed.

"We encourage the government to continue dialogue - including follow-up to the national discussions which are currently underway - and urge full investigation of all reported cases of excessive use of force," the former Chilean President said in her annual address to the UN Human Rights council in Geneva. Her speech highlighted how the Yellow Vests' demand for "respectful dialogue" has seemingly been met with over the top violence by the state.

Comment: Uhm, there have been 9 deaths in the Haiti protests. There have been 11 deaths in the French ones.

See also:


Windsock

'We don't have gay people in our country' claims Malaysian minister

Datuk
© AFP / Tobias Schwarz
Datuk Mohamaddin Ketapi at the Tourism Trade Fair (ITB) in Berlin.
Malaysia's tourism, arts and culture minister has revealed to German media that he doesn't think there are any gay people in his country.

Minister Datuk Mohamaddin Ketapi reportedly made the claim on Tuesday while speaking to media during a major travel industry trade show in Berlin. When asked whether Malaysia is a safe place for gay travelers, Mohamaddin reportedly responded: "Homosexuality? I think we do not have such a thing in our country. Whether it's safe or not, I cannot answer."

An aide to the minister reportedly said that while Mohamaddin's statement was in line with the government's stance to not recognize the LGBT community, it was his "personal view."

Comment: One would think if there were no homosexuality in Malaysia, they wouldn't have needed a law banning it:


Bad Guys

Sanction the world! US threatens 'secondary sanctions' against countries that refuse to back Venezuela coup

Elliott Abrams Colombian President Ivan Duque
© AFP / RHONA WISE
Elliott Abrams next to Colombian President Ivan Duque at the border with Venezuela.
With the vast majority of the world still seeing Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, America's hawkish special envoy has hinted that Washington might sanction third parties that defy the US regime-change efforts.

The international community must choose sides wisely in the Venezuelan conflict, the curator of US intervention in the Latin American country, special envoy Elliott Abrams, suggested on Tuesday, noting that Washington would not limit itself to economic sanctions just against the Maduro government, but against all who chose to support him.

"Secondary sanctions, it's clearly a possibility," Abrams said at a press conference, warning that a decision to sanction third party countries "would depend on the conduct of the [Venezuelan] regime over time."

Comment: And now John Bolton has threatened all foreign financial institutions that are doing business with Venezuela. RT reports:
"The United States is putting foreign financial institutions on notice that they will face sanctions for being involved in facilitating illegitimate transactions that benefit Nicolas Maduro and his corrupt network," the US National Security Advisor John Bolton said in a statement released by the White House. He was repeating the earlier threat by US special envoy Elliott Abrams.

Washington also reiterated that it "strongly supports" what it called "democratic transition in Venezuela" led by the self-proclaimed 'interim president' Juan Guaido, who has enjoyed consistent support from the US and some of its allies ever since he announced his leadership bid.

The national security adviser also said that the US "is pursuing several new diplomatic and economic initiatives in support of that transition" but did not reveal any specific details.



NPC

CEO Jack Dorsey admits Twitter was 'too aggressive' in targeting conservatives

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey addressed claims his social media platform had targeted conservatives, admitted they had likely acted too swiftly in banning some right-wing users, and failed to explain their reasons.

In conversation with podcast host Joe Rogan, Dorsey and his chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde fielded questions and criticisms regarding widespread accusations of the company catering to liberal viewpoints.

"Probably our team having a lack of context into actually what's happening" Dorsey explained. "We would fully admit we probably were way too aggressive when we first saw this as well, and made mistakes."

Comment: The entire show is available here:




Radar

Satellite images contradict India's "successful" attack on terror camp

India jet strike
© Qrius
As sporadic skirmishes across the heavily militarized line of control, which separates Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistani Kashmir, have continued this week with casualties reported on both sides, an information war has been raging between the nuclear armed powers over just what happened during last Tuesday and Wednesday's events which saw an Indian MiG-21 shot down by Pakistani fighters after an intense dogfight, precipitating a crisis over the captured pilot, later handed back to India.

The whole pretense behind the bold Indian incursion into Pakistani airspace was to bomb terror training camps belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammad, a response to the group's Feb. 14 suicide bombing of a bus carrying Indian paramilitary police reserve officers, which killed 40.

India had vowed a swift and fierce response while denouncing Pakistan seeming tolerance of the terror group on its soil. But now Reuters is questioning India's narrative after examining new high-resolution satellite images of the site near Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of northeast Pakistan:
High-resolution satellite images reviewed by Reuters show that a religious school run by Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in northeastern Pakistan appears to be still standing days after India claimed its warplanes had hit the Islamist group's training camp on the site and killed a large number of militants.

Comment: See also:


War Whore

Top NATO crazy General Scaparrotti cries 'Russian aggression' to secure more funds from congress

General Curtis Scaparrotti
Cries over scary "Russian aggression" were yet again produced by a US military bigwig, who asked the Senate for more of everything for his troops. This, however, might simply be a marketing stunt, RT was told.

General Curtis Scaparrotti, the head of EUCOM and the supreme NATO commander in Europe, faced the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, focusing on the scary - yet elusive - "Russian aggression." While the US still dominates, the Russian "threat" is growing steadily, the official claimed without offering any proof.

To fix that, his command needs more of everything - troops, planes, ships... and naturally, cash.

Comment: For more details on Scaparrotti's appeal for cash - and if you can stomach it...
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, General Curtis Scaparrotti argued that the US maintains global military superiority, but cited "evolving Russian capabilities" as a threat to that dominance, challenging the US "ability to operate uncontested in all domains."

Scaparrotti, who as the head of EUCOM is also the supreme NATO commander in Europe, claimed without evidence that the Russian military posture is "increasingly aggressive" and sought aid from Congress to bolster EUCOM's "assigned and rotational forces."

In addition to more troops, ships, spies and everything but the kitchen sink, Scaparrotti revealed that EUCOM has requested two more destroyers from the US Navy, and maybe also an aircraft carrier, in order to counter what he said were the expanding capabilities of the Russian fleet.

The US currently has four destroyers stationed in Rota, Spain. One of them, the USS Donald Cook, recently ventured into the Black Sea to "promote stability" by posing as a live target for Russian coastal defense missiles.

Washington needs to upgrade its naval capabilities in order "to remain dominant in the maritime domain, and particularly undersea," Scaparrotti told senators.

Scaparrotti's gloom and doom pronouncements are par for the course, however - he sang the same tune last year. The US has been bolstering its troop presence in Europe since 2015, using allegations of "Russian aggression" in Ukraine as pretext. Just last month, the 1st Cavalry and 1st Infantry divisions were sent to Eastern Europe, as part of the ongoing effort dubbed "Atlantic Resolve."

Not surprisingly, the general's shopping list comes ahead of the proposed 2020 US military budget, which is expected to be announced next week and is rumored to be in the range of $750 billion, up from $716 billion allocated for 2019. Meanwhile, Russia has been gradually reducing military spending to devote more funds to infrastructure, education and social programs.

With the US national debt exceeding $22 trillion, however, the Pentagon is looking to save a few pennies here and there, so it is unclear how much Scaparrotti may eventually get. Last month, a report emerged that the Navy was considering retiring the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman in 2024, decades ahead of its expected end of life, in order to divert money into the new Ford-class supercarrier project.

It was the Truman that ventured north of the Arctic circle in October last year - as part of massive NATO wargames on Russia's doorstep - the first US carrier to do so since the Cold War.

On the actually alarming subject of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty expiring in less than six months, Scaparrotti had little to say. Asked how EUCOM was preparing for the end of the INF, the general told senators that the US informed NATO allies that plans would be made in cooperation with them.

"So, I don't know that we have a plan today," he said. "I know that we are working on what we think that plan might be."

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly complained that only a handful of NATO members were spending the agreed-upon two percent of their GDP on the military. Alarmed that the president might take the US out of NATO, the Democrats have spearheaded an effort in the US Congress to pass a bill in January banning such a move, but also demanding NATO allies boost their military spending.