Saturday, January 7, 2017

Lies And Distortions At The End Of The Age: Now Targeting And Demonizing Russia

It has become painfully obvious that the ruling elites wish to demonize Russia, blame them for the most recent U.S. election which didn't go their way, and perhaps as a bonus trigger war with Russia. Who knows what their overall plans are, but whatever these plans are, it promises to be catastrophic for citizens not only in America, but in the world. These are the same people who created the carnage in Syria, Libya, Ukraine and attempted carnage in Egypt. Now they are on to Russia. Go figure. But they are desperately attempting to spoil things for Trump's attempts to set reasonable goals for U.S.-Russian relationships:

America’s intelligence chiefs may have been singing their swan’s song Thursday and Friday (Jan. 5-6) when they hurled allegations of election-meddling “ordered at the highest Kremlin level” against Russia at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington. The committee’s chair John McCain picked up the ball and declared that Russian hacking was “an act of war,” after hearing grim testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers.

They disclosed that they had compiled a confidential intelligence report that demonstrated how President Vladimir Putin interfered in the US election campaign in favor of the winner, Donald Trump. They declined to divulge its contents but promised to release a shorter, censored version to the public next Monday, Jan. 9.

CIA chief John Brennan and Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson then proceeded to the White House to present the confidential report to President Barack Obama.
It will be put before President-elect Trump Friday.

The furious clamor keeping the alleged Russian hacking scandal on the boil is being orchestrated by the outgoing president and his intelligence chiefs to ramp up US-Russian friction to an eve-of-cold war pitch.

DEBKAfile’s Washington and intelligence sources find that the campaign is prompted by five motives:

1. The president-elect not only proposes to put relations with Moscow on a new and different footing, his transition teams are already at work with Putin’s advisers to chart areas of cooperation between the two powers, ready for the Trump administration to go forward when he moves into the White House on Jan. 20.

The most prominent area is the war on the Islamic State; another – the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. They are also exploring a joint US-Russian effort to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

2. Obama, who has decided to retain a team for monitoring Trump’s policies, has plunged into a dogged fight against his successor’s decision to reset US-Russian ties.
Battling to salvage a part of his “legacy” is, Obama, exceptionally for departing American presidents, is determined to cast a long shadow over his successors’ actions and policies.
In the next four years, Barack Obama will keep hammering at the Russian hacking affair in order to keep the flames high against Trump’s “Russian steps.”

3. It is important to note that Trump and his advisers, including designated Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, don’t propose rushing into d├ętente with Moscow or any sort of honeymoon. They are acting to restore relations to an even keel and end the disequilibrium of the past eight years, during which Obama just talked and Putin did what he wanted, especially in East Europe and the Middle East.

If the effort to restore balance to the relationship works, cooperation in common areas of concern might follow. But if not, the rivalry will continue, except that henceforth America will operate from a position of strength.

4. Working together in the war on Islamic terror will call for a large measure of cooperation between US intelligence agencies and the Russian secret services.
Sixteen years ago, after 9/11, Putin proposed this kind of cooperation to President George W. Bush in the fight against Al Qaeda.

In 2011, he stepped in again with an offer of assistance to Obama in the Libyan war.
Putin was rebuffed by both presidents rebuffed him. Donald Trump is the first US leader ready to seriously explore Putin’s intentions.

The US intelligence community is up on arms at this prospect, mainly because its clandestine branches were purpose-built to confront Russia, America’s historic Cold War enemy. It is hard for them to wrench the wheel round and head in the opposite direction at the bidding of the Trump administration.

5, Notwithstanding denials by administration officers, the president elect has every intention of overhauling the character and operational methods of America’s intelligence services. His overarching goal is to cut down the vast numbers off officers, analysts and computer operations, which turn out mountains of intelligence reports most of which he claims no one reads.

Trump plans to focus more on the product of secret agents in the field, and so save the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on desk staff and high-tech computer systems. His administration will prefer to rely more on human intelligence and less on technology-based input.

Trump encapsulated his approach to intelligence and computers in a remark to reporters on New Year’s day: “No computer is safe. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier.”

The farce is complete.

One week after a joint FBI/DHS report was released, supposedly meant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia intervened in the US presidential election, and thus served as a diplomatic basis for Obama's expulsion of 35 diplomats, yet which merely confirmed that a Ukrainian piece of malware which could be purchased by anyone, was responsible for spoofing various email accounts including that of the DNC and John Podesta, moments ago US intelligence agencies released a more "authoritative", 25-page report, titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections", and which not surprisingly only serves to validate the media narrative, by concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'ordered' an effort to influence U.S. presidential election.
Specifically, the report concludes the following:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. 

What proof is there? Sadly, again, none. However, as the intelligence agencies state, "We have high confidence in these judgments"... just like they had high confidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And while the report is severely lacking in any evidence, it is rich in judgments, such as the following:

  • We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
  • We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. 

At this point a quick detour, because the intel agencies responsible for drafting the report then explain how "confident" they are: "CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

What do these distinctions mean?  
  • High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.
  • Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.
In other words, while not carrying the infamous DHS disclaimer according to which last week's entire joint FBI/DHS report is likely garbage, the US intel agencies admit they may well be "wrong."  

Oddly enough, there is nothing in the report about the latest narrative change of "go-betweens" linking Putin with Wikileaks, but it has a whole lot of "judgments" on RT...

  • RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war between the United States and Russia.
  • In August, Kremlin-linked political analysts suggested avenging negative Western reports on Putin by airing segments devoted to Secretary Clinton’s alleged health problems.
  • On 6 August, RT published an English-language video called “Julian Assange Special: Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put Clinton in Prison?” and an exclusive interview with Assange entitled “Clinton and ISIS Funded by the Same Money.” RT’s most popular video on Secretary Clinton, “How 100% of the Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to…Themselves,” had more than 9 million views on social media platforms. RT’s most popular English language video about the President-elect, called “Trump Will Not Be Permitted To Win,” featured Assange and had 2.2 million views.

... and "trolls." And this is where it gets really funny:
  • Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton. This effort amplified stories on scandals about Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the election campaign.
  • The likely financier of the so-called Internet Research Agency of professional trolls located in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence.
  • A journalist who is a leading expert on the Internet Research Agency claimed that some social media accounts that appear to be tied to Russia’s professional trolls—because they previously were devoted to supporting Russian actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015.
Then there are pearls like this, exposing the Russian "anti-fracking troll army" whose every move is orchestarted by the RT masterminds:

... who are to blame for everything that is wrong with US democracy because they have more YouTube watchers:

One almost wonders: is RT's audience really that much greater than the that of NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, MSNBC, CNN etc to overpower all of US media?

That's rhetorical.

Every time IC repackages its same assertions in a new form, media acts like it's been proven, even though it - again - includes no evidence: 

Every time IC repackages its same assertions in a new form, media acts like it's been proven, even though it - again - includes no evidence: 

This new report: 1) literally half of it is about RT; 2) contains same assertions made multiple times; 3) includes no evidence for claims.

It's shocking how much this report was hyped and how literally no effort was made to include *any* evidence at all, even stuff like this: 

Meanwhile, in Russia:

Are US Economic Sanctions Against Russia Based on an Obama Lie?

If the March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia was based upon the overwhelming desire by Crimeans that Crimea become again a part of Russia such as Crimea had been until 1954, instead of upon Russia’s ‘conquest’ of Crimea such as Obama has charged, then the economic sanctions that Obama placed against Russia on the basis of that annexation is on false ground, and has no authentic justification in law or in fact. 

Also, in that case, NATO's subsequent military buildup against Russia, purportedly to protect NATO against ‘another such conquest by Russia’, would be based upon this same lie: the lie that Crimea’s becoming again a part of Russia was something other than a legitimate carrying-out of any people’s sovereign right, of self-determination of peoples — a right that the West recognizes for Catalonians in Spain, and for Scotch in UK, but not for Crimeans in Ukraine. 

Consequently, essential to addressing this crucial matter is forthrightly to address misrepresentations that are commonly asserted regarding it, and also to address in a credible way what the motivations might be for any such commonly asserted misrepresentations of this historically crucial matter. 

In other words, an unusually frank discussion is necessary here, which does not mince words where outright lies have been stated and become widespread in the West, and which instead presents the facts that stand forth the most clearly upon the basis of the evidence that is of the very highest reliability and credibility concerning each respective point in question in the matter. 

The most reliable evidence is presented here, and is consistently in favor of the Russian position, and against The West's (the U.S. and its allies) position, on this crucial, even mega-historical, issue.

This question’s importance derives from its concerning the validity, or not, of the rationale for the economic sanctionsagainst Russia, and of the NATO military buildup against Russia on Russia’s borders (which latter buildup now threatens World War III). Nothing is more important than this.

On the American/NATO side of this dispute, both the sanctions and the military buildup against Russia have been alleged to be justified responses to Russia’s ‘conquest’ of Crimea, from Ukraine. However, Russia contends that there was no such ‘conquest’ of Crimea, and that Crimeans’ separation from Ukraine and joining Russia was instead an entirely voluntary act by Crimeans — a fulfillment by Crimeans of their fundamental right of self-determination of peoples — and that it was precipitated by what Russia alleges to have been a «coup» in Ukraine that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted, and so created a suddenly intensified desire of Crimeans to break away from Ukraine, and to rejoin with Russia, of which Crimea had been a part until Crimea was involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954.

The Russian government claims that Russia has protected the right of Crimeans to make this crucial choice, and that Russia enabled Crimeans voluntarily to rejoin Russia, after Crimeans had been forced to become part of Ukraine in 1954 — and, now, after the «coup» in Kiev, Crimeans intensely wanted to rejoin Russia. Russia contends that The West, not Russia, has been, and is, insisting upon dictatorship regarding the Crimean people, by The West’s refusal to respect the right of self-determination of peoples, to the Crimean population, whom Russia has protected and enabled in March 2014 peacefully to exercise that inalienable right, which any people possess the peaceful right to do.

No one can deny that the overthrow of Victor Yanukovych — the democratically elected President of Ukraine, who had won 75% of the votes of the people of Crimea — led directly to the movement of the Crimean people to separate themselves from being ruled by the newly installed, post-overthrow, Ukrainian government. Without the violent overthrowof Yanukovych, there would have been no reason for Crimeans to have been in fear, as they overwhelmingly were. But the question remains of whether the separation of Crimea from Ukraine was a legitimate act of self-determination of peoples, by the Crimeans, in response to a coup (such as Russia contends to have been the case), or was it instead a ‘seizure’ of Crimea by Russia — a seizure against which The West legitimately retaliated by economic sanctions, and now by sending arms (including nuclear weapons) and troops to Russia’s very borders?

So, this question of whether or not the overthrow of Yanukovych was a «coup» — an illegitimate takeover of the Ukrainian government — is absolutely central to world history, at the present stage. If it was a coup, then all of The West’s sanctions and arms-buildups against Russia are on fraudulent ground and thus entirely illegitimate

Only fools don’t care about getting to the truth here, because the truth here answers the question of whether the violator of international law in our time, and the source of the present buildup toward World War III, is Russia, by accepting the overwhelming desire of the Crimean people to separate from Ukraine and to rejoin with Russia, or whether the violator is instead The West, by the West’s now sanctioning Russia and militarily threatening to invade Russia on account of Russia’s having accepted the will of the Crimean people to rejoin with Russia.

This question of whether the separation of Crimea from Ukraine was in response to a coup in Ukraine, is thus the central question in our era of history: the question of whether the source of blame for bringing the world to its current brink of nuclear war is partly Russia’s and is partly The West’s (for The West’s overreacting to Russia’s illegitimate seizure of Crimea); or whether it’s instead entirely The West’s fault (for The West’s having, to begin with, illegitimately seized Ukraine by a U.S. coup, and then fraudulently charged and sanctioned and threatened Russia as having ‘seized’ Crimea).

Though the transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia is treated by Western ‘news’ media as having been a ‘conquest’ by Russia, and as being Russia’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea, and Russia’s ‘stealing’ Crimea, nothing of the sort is true (and Crimeans had good reason to be terrified of the Obama-coup regime that had just been installed, from which Russiasaved Crimeans), but the lie needs to be promulgated in the West, in order for the aristocracy’s invasion of Russia to be able to be organized and carried out (if they’ll go all the way in this).

In any case, The West is continuing to accuse Russia of attempting to ‘seize’ Donbass, after Russia had allegedly ‘seized’ Crimea — and a global nuclear war could ultimately result from these Western lies. But the master-lie is The West’s Big Lie, that the overthrow of Yanukovych «was no coup». 
The aggressor is clearly The West, not Russia. And that is where the danger comes from. And, on a deep level, despite The West’s propaganda, this fact is even widely recognized around the world even before Obama’s outright coup in Ukraine.
If there were any international justice, the economic sanctions would be against the U.S. and its vassal-aristocracies such as the EU, and Russia would be prosecuting those aristocrats in the International Court of Justice, and suing the governments that they control.

The biggest challenge for incoming U.S. President Donald Trump will be whether he will carry on this putrid international policy of its founder, his 1990 predecessor, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and all of Bush’s successors up till the present, or else, finally, end the Cold War on the Western side, just as it was ended on the Eastern side in 1991 by the dissolution of the East’s military alliance the Warsaw Pact: by ending NATO. He would have available to assist him in that heroic action only the warning by an even earlier U.S. President, Dwight Eisenhower, who fatally warned on 17 January 1960:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. 
After 24 February 1990, all U.S. Presidents since have flouted that warning and done exactly 100% the opposite: the will of America’s aristocrats, not really of any democracy at all. And Obama’s coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and subsequent abuse of not only Ukrainians but also of Russians (not to say more), is an even more dangerous culmination of that flouting, than was George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. No penalty is too high for such persistent utter betrayal and lying.

No comments: