In a dramatic stroke of luck for the Kremlin, this morning there is hardly a person in the world who is happier than Russian president Vladimir Putin because overnight state-run OAO Rosneft announced it has discovered what may be a treasure trove of black oil, one which could boost Russia's coffers by hundreds of billions if not more, when a vast pool of crude was discovered in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean, showing the region has the potential to become one of the world's most important crude-producing areas, arguably bigger than the Gulf Of Mexico. The announcement was made by Igor Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive officer, who spent two days sailing on a Russian research ship to the drilling rig where the find was unveiled today.
Well, one person who may have been as happy as Putin is the CEO of Exxon Mobil, since the well was discovered with the help of America's biggest energy company (and second largest by market cap after AAPL). Then again, maybe not: as Bloomberg explains "the well was drilled before the Oct. 10 deadline Exxon was granted by the U.S. government under sanctions barring American companies from working in Russia's Arctic offshore. Rosneft and Exxon won't be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold despite the find announced today."

Having recently published a report into the (literally) incredible Scottish independence referendum result, your hosts this week discussed some of their findings, and provided further analysis illustrating just how unlikely it is for Scots to have turned down the opportunity to separate from the British government and the City of London's casino capitalism.

Running Time: 01:56:00

Download: MP3

The context: a double declaration of war

Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia. Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate. Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia's policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine. What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.

First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world's policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia. Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world. This is not so. Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.

Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world's biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.

Sniping at Putin and missing the point

Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia. If that is really the case, this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening? Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does. Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!

Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.

And what was Putin supposed to do?! Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border? What about Assad? Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb "them" not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it? Most obviously the latter.

In what is more proof that the NATO operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is merely Libya 2.0, the Obama administration is now stating that it is open to the possibility of establishing a "no-fly zone" over Syria.

The statements, made by both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin E. Dempsey, are supposed to hinge upon an agreement with Turkey, that is itself calling for a "buffer zone," one of the wishes of NATO since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.

According to the New York Times , Hagel stated that "We've discussed all these possibilities and will continue to talk about what the Turks believe they will require."

Dempsey added that "a buffer zone might at some point become a possibility" although he also stated that it should not be considered imminent.

A "buffer zone" and/or a "no-fly zone," of course, is tantamount to war and an open military assault against the sovereign secular government of Syria since the implementation of such a zone would require airstrikes against Assad's air defense systems.

Turkey is now whining and groaning over an influx of Syrian refugees as a result of a humanitarian crisis that it helped create with its support and facilitation of Islamic fundamentalist death squad forces funded by the West and allowed to travel into Syria through Turkey's borders. The most recent influx of refugees came from the city of Kobani, where ISIS fighters were herded by American airstrikes for the purposes of reinforcing the fighters already battling Kurdish and Syrian forces there.
Keep in mind that with the terrorists evacuating Deir al-Zor, cities and towns such as Kobani (Ayn El Arab) have seen a dramatic rise in the presence of IS fighters. In short, IS may have reduced the amount of fighters in Deir al-Zor but it reinforced its positions at Ayn El Arab, a smaller town but one located on the Turkish border. Significantly, the Turkish border has facilitated tens of thousands of death squad fighters in their access to Syria over the last four years making it a main artery for the influx of Western-backed foreign jihadis into Syria.

The Huffington Post reported the situation in Ayn El Arab by recording the statement of a Syrian Kurd who had fled into Turkey with his family to escape IS. The report is revealing as to how the situation in Ayn El Arab disintegrated after the bombing of Deir al-Zor and the "escape" of terrorists from that city and region. The article reads,

The Pentagon is to start recruiting undocumented immigrants who came into the US as minors and possess valuable skills like speaking Persian and Chinese. The program offering the opportunity is capped at 1,500 recruits per year.

The new policy revealed by the DoD on Thursday expands the existing pilot program called Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI. It has been tried since 2008, offering positions in the US armed forces to foreigners living in America legally as refugees or under a temporary visa.

Starting next fiscal year, MAVNI will also apply to illegal residents who came to US with their parents before age 16, reports the Military Times. The potential recruits would be selected from those eligible for the 2012 Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA. Getting a DACA illegal immigrant status involves a background check by the Homeland Security Department.

The Pentagon recruits some 5,000 foreigners each year, most of them 'green card' holders. The MAVNI program may account for up to 1,500 recruits annually, although the military services are not required to accept them. In practice the Army has been the only service to accept a significant number, while the Navy and Marine Corps are not seeking applicants under it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's letter to European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso reportedly threatened retaliatory measures if the EU and Ukraine do not stick to their agreement with Moscow to delay the implementation of the deal until 2016.

The European Union said on Friday (Sep 26) that Russian President Vladimir Putin had written to Brussels demanding changes to a landmark EU-Ukraine accord, but it ruled out reopening the deal without Kiev's consent.

Putin's letter to European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso reportedly threatened retaliatory measures if the EU and Ukraine do not stick to their agreement with Moscow to delay the implementation of the deal until 2016.

The Ukrainian and European parliaments last week both ratified the association agreement, the rejection of which by then-president Viktor Yanukovych last year triggered the political crisis in the former Soviet state.

European Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen confirmed that Barroso had received a letter from Putin about the deal and said Brussels "will of course decide on the best way to respond." But she pointed out that the controversial pact was a "bilateral agreement" between Kiev and Brussels.

"If there are any changes they have to be agreed between the EU and Ukraine," Hansen told a press briefing. "We are not seeking any changes to the agreement, Ukraine is free and sovereign to make choices in its interests."

The Association Accord, which includes a wide-ranging Free Trade Agreement, is at the heart of the bitter stand-off between the EU and Russia over the future of its Soviet-era satellite. Moscow has repeatedly charged that the tie-up damages its legitimate interests and its economy.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has ordered his cabinet to "temporarily" close the border with Russia in the east.

In a decree published on the presidential website on Thursday, Poroshenko instructed his government to consider temporarily closing the border in the east of the country to stop what he called Moscow's "continued intervention" in Ukraine's internal affairs.

The ruling orders the government "to settle the issue of temporary closing checkpoints on Ukraine's state border with the Russian Federation to cars, sea and pedestrian traffic."

Poroshenko's remarks come days after the third Russian humanitarian aid convoy of about 200 vehicles crossed the border into the Ukrainian territory.

Did Senator John McCain, a leading advocate of arming Syria's Islamist revolutionaries, meet with members or allies of the Islamic State in al-Sham [the Levant] (ISIS) during his trip to Syria on May 27 of last year?

McCain and his defenders deny it, and McCain's longtime advisor, Mark Salter, is accusing Sen. Rand Paul - who, in a recent interview with the Daily Beast, said McCain had met with ISIS - of "smearing" McCain and indulging in "conspiracy theories," rendering him "unfit" for the office of the presidency. The Washington establishment, unsurprisingly, is siding with McCain, one of their own: the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, in a scathing piece, gives Sen. Paul "four Pinocchios," and regrets that's the maximum allowed. Josh Rogin, of the reliably neoconnish Daily Beast, joined in the pile-on with his colleague Olivia Nuzzi, ex-aide to Anthony Weiner, who accused Paul of "repeating a thoroughly debunked rumor."

Now, however, it's time to debunk the "debunking," because the truth is finally coming out - and it's worse for McCain than even Sen. Paul imagined. It turns out the frenetic Arizona warmonger met with members of the Northern Storm Brigade - the group that handed US journalist Steven Sotloff over to ISIS as he crossed the border into Syria.

And irony of ironies, here is the very same Josh Rogin reporting on a story that proves Sen. Paul and McCain's numerous critics were right all along - far righter than they knew at the time:

"Barak Barfi, Sotloff's close friend and the official spokesman for the Sotloff family following Steven's brutal murder this month at the hands of ISIS, told The Daily Beast in an interview that the group responsible for Sotloff's detention and indirectly for his death is not only a part of the Free Syrian Army, but the same exact brigade that met with Sen. John McCain at that same border crossing only three months before."

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has blamed Western governments for the crisis in the Middle East, calling for a major overhaul of the United Nations and the Security Council in particular.


During his Wednesday evening speech in the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Maduro said the West was attempting to create a monster in the Mid-east, pointing to the support the US-led alliance has been offering to the ISIL Takfiri terrorists in Syria and Iraq over the years.

Maduro further used his address to praise the role of the Syrian government in countering the foreign-backed militant groups in the region and insisted that any military action against the Takfiri terrorists in the region must respect the sovereignty of independent nations.

The Venezuelan president went on to slam the harassment by what he referred to as the "imperial forces" of the American empire "that have tried again and again to undermine democracy."

Deep in Judaismʼs history it was mandated that, due to the awe evoked by the mere contemplation of the supreme and only divinity, the name Yahweh could not be spoken aloud except once a year and only by the High Priest. We, in America today, with a different deity and another form of worship, have no such taboo. Our god, unlike Yahweh in the polytheistic ages, is so firmly established, so mighty, omnipresent, unassailable, and untouchable that we are encouraged to name it, praise it, and venerate it publicly.

Where the cultural parallel is solid, though, is in the utter anathema and damnation that descend on the heads of those who dare to challenge the godheadʼs benevolence, supremacy, and omnipotence. In Judaic history, transgressors were destroyed without exception. In our times - saving trouble, expense, and bad press - the few who dare to blaspheme our god are simply marginalized, jailed or exiled.

Our best minds and most courageous hearts now all affirm that our only god is Predatory Capitalism. Our national religion is no longer in question.

The internet press - not the National Security State Stenographic Bureau laughingly referred to as our "Free Press" - and the rational, progressive blogs are loaded today with analyses and critiques of the blatantly criminal Predatory Capitalist Corporate Tyranny that owns the government, the country and, with our endlessly compounding debt load, you and me.

These dissections run the philosophic and emotional gamut from tame, limp dreams of how "our democracy" might, by electing the right people with good, honorable values, take bold steps to improve itself, to fierce, sharp, intellectually scrupulous denunciations of capitalism for what it is and does.

The volume and consistency of this critical barrage is impressive and at itʼs activist leading edge there are now unmistakable calls for resistance. Some for obstruction of the process...or for civil disobedience. Even for rebellion. What is taboo, though, and almost never suggested let alone stated, is this:

The remedy for Capitalism is not reform: it is its overthrow and destruction.