NATO’s Expansion to Ukraine

While the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya and the supply of illegal weapons to Syrian rebels are relatively fresh in our memory, here we are again being bombarded by words of deceit about the crisis in Ukraine.

By now we should be familiar that Washington, like the fallen angel from heaven, is at its best when it deceives.

By now we should’ve learned how Lucifer tricked the earliest people, by how he careful used words to poison his victims.

By now we know that when America uses the words ‘humanitarian intervention’, ‘democracy’, ‘peaceful protests’, ‘isolation’,  ‘rebel moderates’, ‘international community’, ‘all-inclusive minority-protecting’, it is exercising its right of spreading lies, double standards, and hypocrisy.

NATO’S Expansions to the East

Perhaps the earliest incursion and betrayal of Russian trust regarding Eastern Europe can be traced back to the reunification of East and West Germany in 1989. At the time, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany, as long as Western powers maintain non-incorporation of the united German state into NATO. Nevertheless, Germany joined NATO in 1990, despite previous assurances from George Bush Sr. together with then US Secretary of State James Baker, and then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

At issue then was the Soviet withdrawal from East Germany, which they had the right to protect under a treaty negotiated between the allies after World War II. The Soviet leader agreed to pullout 380,000 Soviet troops in the East, under the condition the US and NATO will not expand to a united Germany.

Conn Hallinan best summarizes the exchanges at the time:

The Russians were willing to exit their troops, but only if US and NATO forces did not fill the vacuum. On Feb. 9, Gorbachev told Baker “any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.” Baker assured him that “NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward.”

The Baker-Gorbachev meeting was followed the next day by a meeting between Gorbachev and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who assured the Soviet leader that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. And, in a parallel meeting between West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Genscher told Shevardnadze “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand to the East.”

But no one anticipated that the USSR will disintegrate a mere two years later. Having faced an existential challenge after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO needed to take a decision on how to become a relevant organization after. And by now, it is clear its interests lie in expanding to the East, to Russia’s very borders.

In 1999 NATO membership was given to former Soviet bloc countries, including to Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. The Atlantic alliance further ate into former Soviet republics with the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in 2004, together with other former Russian allies Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary. Another decade would pass until Albania and Croatia joined the NATO. Not to mention big American bases in Turkey, the West now has a united front against Russia, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Of course treaties and bases are a different matter from actually conducting wars. The Cold War triumphalism of the Reagan years extended well into the Clinton era, which was marked by Western incursions exploiting Russian weakness in the 1990s, namely the Bosnian War and Kosovo War. Perhaps a reality check is useful for determining which block of countries pose a threat to international peace and order.

In the case of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo, Adam Roberts asked the right questions:

Was NATO right to launch Operation Allied Force without at least making an attempt to get authorization from the Security Council? The argument for having at least tried is that the effort would have shown respect for the UN and would have enabled people around the world to see exactly which states were refusing to authorize action to stop atrocities.

Finally the US will be in Russia’s borders

Indeed it may not be a surprise now that the West’s exploitation of the events in Ukraine is part of a larger pattern of expansion and aggression towards Russia. Except for Belarus, Ukraine is perhaps the last straw Russia will be tackling in the relentless military expansion of the West.

Stephen Kinzer of Brown University sums it up accurately:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in Central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

Although the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania hosts active forward NATO air bases, seeing the fall of another former Soviet republic presents perhaps the completion of Russia’s suspicion of the West’s intentions.

As if it’s true the West is ‘just all rhetoric’ and ‘all bark but no bite’, in the recent weeks we are witness to NATO advances towards Russia by deploying forces in the Baltics and Poland as well as sending a guided missile destroyer into the Black Sea, an area where Russia sees as the central issue of the Ukraine crisis.

As for Russia’s strategy in the region, with almost all of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe now a part of NATO, it is clear it has no intentions to expand. Russian forces are in Ukraine under a treaty, which the Western media often portrays as an ‘invasion force’ except that such a force has been there for the past 15 years.

RT News summarizes the facts well:

• A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.
• In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.
• The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.
• Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.
• Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.
• Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures.

Unfortunately, we can only look back at the concern of Khrushchev in the 1960s and Gorbachev in the 1980s being played out today by the West and Russia, not to mention, perhaps, during the thug war that defeated Russia during the Crimean War in the mid-19^th century. We only hope Crimean history does not repeat itself.

Questioning the West’s Intervention in Russia’s Sphere of Influence

While being bloodily engaged in other countries’ affairs, the  hypocrisy of the United States looms ever larger over Russia’s protection of its own interests, doing away with their own morality twisting, and continuing on with a single-sided war of words against Moscow’s legitimate foreign policy.

Not that its mainstream media is to blame for sensationalizing and sugar-coating what in all practical terms is the overthrow of an elected leader by ultra-violent forces in Ukraine, this double standard is a favorite theme of America: from incompetently-informed field reporters (or propagandists?) hailing their news channel’s merit in a world of ever-divided opinion and activism, to its lunatic politicians struggling for relevance (McCain) and consistency (Obama, Kerry).

Never mind the political stunts of American politicians against their own president in the midst of an international crisis, there is a united front against anything about Russia in Ukraine–they just all come in different sour-tasting flavor.

The relentless bad mouthing has been around since the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis, a political calamity hailed in the Western media as a second ‘Orange Revolution’ but which today more looks like a confused ‘blue-yellow-white-red’ colors of the combined flags of the European Union and the United States.

How the West describes ‘Democracy’ in Ukraine

Since when did you describe a protest that has been known for not just harming its own police (as opposed to the violent and quick crackdown by American police against Occupy Wall Street protesters) but also destroying government property? Seeing the footage of warzone Kiev and then later listening to Kerry’s empty description of it as ‘standing peacefully against tyranny’ sure makes for an uncomfortable bowel movement. Since when did you call Molotov-throwing a form of peaceful protest?

Global vs. Regional ‘Intervention’

Quickly describing the Russian involvement in Ukraine as “a 19^th century act in the 21^st century”, Kerry seems to have forgotten that the opening acts of this decade was his country’s involvement in two major conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq) that so far has set new records in unraveling the American empire. In fact, he was among those in Congress who voted for the baseless intervention in Iraq.

And how to do you reconcile the geographical proximity of Ukraine to Russia and the United States’ proximity to ‘all’ countries of the world, in intervention and ‘legitimate interests’ terms–words that are so favored by America? Does it seem America is a little bit all over the place while Russia’s interest is a little bit just around its borders?

 International Law: More about That

It is convenient to cite snippets of violations of ‘international law’ thrown by Obama and Kerry against Putin’s intervention in Ukraine. For one, just in case they skipped that page of international law, Russia and Ukraine has standing, legitimate, and mutually-beneficial military agreement.

To begin with, does the United States even recognize the International Criminal Court? It is a fact that the United States has no obligation and does not recognize the ICC, and obviously its mandates and decisions, such as the imposition of war crimes and crimes against humanity verdicts against individuals and/or countries.

So now we have Obama (a former law professor) who throws his self-righteous punches against Putin’s alleged violation of international law? It is not just a forgivable doubles-standard: Russia has a legitimate military agreement with Ukraine. As RT describes it “especially unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already.’ It further adds that the military deal between Ukraine in Russia, ‘was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a five-year extension option in 2010.’

And what about Obama’s continuous violation of the sovereignty of other countries with his drone army with his targeted killings? How do you then question your rival when you yourself don’t even have the decency to hide your own war crimes, instead bragging that I’m ‘really good at killing people’.

Crimea’s Historical Ties with Russia

The same goes for the skipping of facts to fit the mainstream Western media’s narrative of Russia being the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis. For centuries, Crimea and/or the region south of Ukraine has been part of Russia. Crimea was gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet period, and when the USSR ceased in 1991, Crimea was granted autonomy, even culminating in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 1999.

Fast forward today, the supposed ‘Russian protest tourists’ in Crimea practiced their very own democratic process by voting, by majority, to make Crimea a part of Russia. Instead of reviewing the facts, the West has started its sanctions against Russia and Crimean citizens ranging from visa-free talks to bank assets freezing.

Crimea’s Prime Minister sums up the situation beautifully: “We live here; we can choose our future on our own – since when is it punishable by sanctions…As soon as the Russians for the first time concentrated on defending their interests – and not just Russians, the Ukrainians living here also, everyone got agitated and started talking sanctions. Do we advise America or Germany how to deal with their autonomous regions and tell people what to do?”

EU Reluctance to Follow Washington’s Sanctions

At least the crisis in Ukraine is not confined there: EU officials up to the highest levels are unsure how to cope with the situation, highlighted perhaps by ambassador Nuland’s ‘Fuck the EU’ comment, referring to Brussel’s apparent reluctance to engage Russia through military and economic sanctions.

The EU division over how to react to Russia’s stance over Ukraine stems from the economic impact it will have on the fragile economic recovery in the continent. Even its closest ally, Great Britain is not supporting, “for now, trade sanctions…or close London’s financial center to Russians.”

As the EU’s manufacturing powerhouse, Germany is not sure, at least ‘for now’ also, on how to sanction Russia. Like other members of the EU, Germany obtains about half its natural gas supplies from Russia. Also, Russia is the EU's third biggest trading partner, only behind the United States and China. And the traded goods and services amount to $500 billion in 2012, not to mention major stakes in Russian companies are held my big multinational corporations in the EU. So a trade sanction hurts the EU more than the US.

Regardless of the outcome, there is confidence in Russia’s ability to weather major crises, and this new low in relations with the West will surely be a test not just for Moscow’s patience, but also the persistence of its enemies.

Next Up: Ukraine’s EU Membership: a pretext to NATO Expansion

The Curious Case of Ukraine’s Destruction

At last, Russia is experiencing its share of the austerity madness like in the EU, but in a different form: Ukraine’s possible civil war, an austerity in the form of curtailing people’s ‘freedom to choose their own future’–or is it?

There is even no sign of decency from foreign elements, as signs of the ties with war-hungry American statesmen, such as Vietnam War veteran and former US presidential candidate John McCane toured the carnage in Kiev, proclaimed “I am proud of what the people of Ukraine are doing, so they can restore democracy to their country.” It is not hard to imagine this disrespect: just imagine a Russian statesman visiting an Occupy Wall Street movement in New York and proclaiming the same blasphemy of democracy and you get the picture.

You could be forgiven into thinking these violent protesters are a target of support by renegade former American soldiers; but behold, when a certain American Secretary of State John Kerry meets with a certain opposition leader Vitaly Klitchko and declares “we are with the opposition, we give them our full support”, then you are certain a country like Ukraine will go asunder.

In the present trajectory of bad news coming out of this Ukraine fiasco, it seems America itself is more impatient with how the EU supports the Ukrainian opposition. American interventionism clearly defies not just enemy borders but also its allies as well. In a recent phone-tapped remark, German chancellor Angela Merkel described a remark by a senior US official who said “fuck the EU” as “totally unacceptable.” On the one hand, US mainstream media were quick to dismiss this comment, focusing instead on accusing Russia of the leaked comment, described as “a new low in Russian trade-craft.”

Ukraine’s Historical ties to Russia

What they fail to see is the historical ties of Ukraine to Russia; that a significant portion of Ukraine, especially from the East and South of the country, supports and is comfortable with their Russian neighbor. Even some well-informed commentators from the West are aware of this quandary.

The problem with this new chapter in Ukrainian history is deeply rooted in the expansionist policies Western powers embarked on since the retreat and dissolution of the Soviet Union. During the late 1980s, then-president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev gave assurances about his country’s deep cuts in arms (and with it influence) in the East, as long as the West guarantees non-intervention and expansion to former Soviet sphere of influence.

History has shown the West is nowhere near at honoring its commitments to the Nobel Peace prize-winning Soviet president: NATO bombing during the Kosovo war, the annexation of former Soviet states to the EU, and now more recently their support for violent elements in the Ukrainian opposition.

And what joining the EU is for the Ukrainian people? Certainly they are aware of the social spending cuts in the entire EU are they? Surely they are aware of the unprecedented inequality in the West? Are they aware that this bloody self-destruction will haunt them again the future once they experience the EU’s austerity medicine?

Perhaps other factors are at play here, the aim of which is to destabilize the government and replace it with a pro-EU government hostile to Moscow and wreck the economy by ‘opening up the market.’ Or is it perhaps to complete NATO’s militaristic expansion in Eastern Europe, but now along Russia’s very border?

What is News Media Terrorism?

News media terrorism can be defined easily by enumerating its synonyms:

• Fear mongering
• Brainwashing
• Propaganda
• The act of bashing
• Indulging in ridicule
• Inciting false or misleading information
• Potshot
• CNN
• BBC
• CBS News

Citing a recent example is also easy: try to Google search “Sochi Olympics 2014” and then turn to page result 2. You get results from the Huffington Post, ESPN, Global Post, BBC, CNN, and even an unruly “NoSochi2014” which states the obvious.

Figuring out what is common among them will bring you to learning how to terrorize by means of news media, or properly we call “news media terrorism.”

You see, depending on your news source, especially if it’s from a Western media outlet, there is almost ZERO good news coming from the Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia. This form of media terrorism has only intensified as the games approaches, which will be held starting February.

Here are some of the ready-made fear mongering headlines vis-à-vis the Olympics for your amusement:

ESPN: “US warns against political protest”

Bloomberg Businessweek: “Sochi Olympics Ticket Sales Are on a Downhill Slope”

Time Magazine: "Russian Suicide Bus Bombing Sparks Terrorism Fears for Sochi Olympics”

NPR: “The region surrounding host city Sochi is home to Europe’s deadliest insurgency”

Global Post: “Sochi 2014 Olympics: Triumph or nightmare?”

NoSochi2014: “Petition world leaders today! Have them say No Sochi 2014!”

Personality Café: “Attacks show Sochi Olympics under grave threat”

Reddit: “President Obama selects openly gay delegates to Sochi Olympics”

Twitter: GOP congressman: “Sochi Olympics could become “nightmare like Bengazi”

other notable headlines and excerpts:

“Controversy, not competition, dominates Olympics”

“Why Russia’s Sochi Olympics are now a battleground for gay rights”

“Russia anti-gay law casts shadow over Sochi’s 2014 Olympics”

“International Olympic Committee urged to investigate Russia anti-gay law before Sochi Olympics”

“Russia ‘not really concerned’ about Obama’s absence from Sochi”

“German president boycotts Sochi Winter Olympics”

So far, the list of those boycotting the games is dominated by Western leaders: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British PM David Cameron, US President Barrack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, while France’s President Francois Hollande is yet to join this essentially gayish movement.

To note that the Olympic Games “seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles," these headliners seem rather disrespectful of ethical principles, especially regarding the alleged ‘anti-gay’ media bombardment against the Russian Olympics.

Now let us tackle why these headlines are false.

Perhaps the most enduring controversy is the one relating to ‘anti-gay law’, a catch-all term invented by Western media. In actuality, the law is called ‘gay propaganda law,' which does not discriminate against or threatens gay athletes or spectators visiting the Olympics. Properly, it is a law protecting Russian children from the propaganda of “drug addiction, alcohol use and non-traditional sexual orientation." There is no statement in the law that ‘punishes people for being homosexual.'

This below the belt portrayal of the law has seen its own share of criticism outside Russia. The Italian International Olympic Committee official Mario Pescante was quoted as saying he found it “absurd” and criticized the US for including openly gay athletes in its official delegation to Sochi. Talk about sovereignty, observing, and respecting the laws and culture of other countries.

Western media bombs are more powerful, effective, and enduring.

Another more recent controversy is the one relating to the Volgograd bombings. Omnicom Press author William Dunkerley best explains the dumbing down by Western media on the proximity of Volgograd to Sochi: “Would a suicide bombing in the Italian Alps be a realistic worry for people at a large public gathering in Berlin, Germany? Or likewise an incident 100 miles north of Montreal to people in New York City?”

Apparently, Western news outlets are not only degrading the immense security measures put in place for Sochi (which happen to include other international security organizations like the FBI) but also downplaying the immense geographical stretch between the cities.

Here is an excerpt from his report “Sochi under Attack by U.S.”

A CBS News report read, "Suicide bomber attacks near Sochi." CNN's version said, "Russia bombings raise questions about Sochi Olympics security."

On the Pyatigorsk incident, ABC News proclaimed, "Mystery bodies, explosives discovered near Winter Olympics site." The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported, "Russia launches probe after six found dead near Sochi."

These were certainly tragic events. But the media should have paid a bit more attention to their geography. Those are examples of distances similar to the expanse between Volgograd and Sochi. That's what CBS news called "close."

The target of all this media bombardment is Vladimir Putin.

Alas, we may now properly ask why all the news media terrorism? Now more expensive than the last Vancouver Winter Olympics and surpassing the spending of the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the Sochi Olympics is described by the West as “a tale of Putin-era Russia…a story of ambition, hubris, and greed leading to fabulous extravagance on the shores of the Black Sea."

German news outlets touted the construction of the Olympic site as having had “disastrous consequences for the environment” while The Economist describes the quality of work as ‘patchy’ and Sochi 2014 as Putin’s “pet project:  a sign of his power over people and nature, and his international legitimacy.”

At best, these potshots against the Olympics are part of a greater low-intensity aggression towards Putin. Unfortunately, we can only expect more ‘bad news’ and propaganda as the games approaches.

So there you go, the usual brouhahas of hosting the Olympic Games can be dangerous for the reputation of your country especially if you are not an official ally of the West.

2014: What’s Ahead for the World

In a much-faster changing world, reaching a conclusion to events has become more elusive. As we tire ourselves with 24/7 information, instant gratification, shorter attention spans, and the more pervasive blurring of agenda-driven spread of information (whether it is about cherry-picking which part of an event needs more weigh or the spreading of subtle but dumbing social media gossips and biases), we can only expect the year ahead to be more complex and unpredictable. Nevertheless, much like inquiry into the sciences, collating observations and hypothesis of the previous year will help us anticipate things to come, and that is the key to making an informed prediction.

This year’s forecast format is different from last year’s style in that it focuses on  a per-country reportage and expectations: a good reassessment on geography, just in case you too feel the certain fuzziness of the inexorable globalization of events which continue to transcend borders, economies, culture, nationality and even alliances.

In the United States, the so-called economic recovery, a ghost phrase invented since the end of the Bush Jr. era, will continue to limit what the government can achieve for its people. On a broader scale, this will have an effect on its economic policies abroad as well, and we all know Washington's foreign policy stems from its economic policies. On that front, America will continue to confuse its allies, especially in light of the Snowden leaks and the surprise optimism brought about by Russia’s brokering of nuclear and chemical deals with Iran and Syria, respectively. Other major things to look forward to include the exit of New York city mayor Bloomberg, and the experimental legalization of marijuana in Colorado, which is a strong proof of America’s moral degradation.

On a lighter note, 2014 will bring major sporting (distraction) events, first with Russia’s hosting of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. As the games approaches (this coming February), Western media will continue to lambast Russia’s decision to ‘build a city from scratch’ and its release of political prisoners (publicized by the West as a way to ‘bring good news’ before the sporting events), which is a familiar story, much like how they portrayed the apparent waste and ‘scandals’ of the Beijing Olympics. Moscow will continue to matter more in global issues though as President Putin reaps the rewards of his diplomacy (and the award of the most powerful man in 2013 by Western media). The IMF predicts Russia to be among the biggest GDP gainers for 2014. Besides Sochi, Russia is also embarking on its own smart city in Tatarstan, a development that will soften Western energy-as-leverage pundits for a while.

Elsewhere in Europe, the UK will vote on a decision whether to keep (or let go) of Scotland as part of the entire United Kingdom; Germany will consolidate its soft power gains in the previous years by pursuing its goals through economic, diplomatic, and cultural means; events in Spain may finally see an independent Catalonia; Ukraine’s decision to be part of Europe or linked to Russia will be more and more influenced by major players outside the country; Romania’s and Bulgaria’s entry into the EU labor market; EU parliament elections this summer (an election with historically low turnout); and the exit of Catherine Ashton as EU foreign policy chief (hailed as the ‘unsung hero’ of European diplomacy).

In Asia, China’s foreign policy will be perceived as being more assertive as the US ensnares Japan into a trap that’s hard to extricate from: the establishment of a National Security Council and re-armament of the Japanese military. It also seems the Japanese leadership’s determination to be more independent of America’s stance toward China is well received by its people, especially with the sense of renewed possibility in Japan’s economy. Construction of a new Beijing international airport commences this year and is hailed to be among the biggest and busiest airports in the world once completed. In Australia, ambitious politicians will be playing the American card more keenly this time, where calls for ‘updating Australia’s diplomatic footprint’ are gaining traction among Australians. Afghanistan will by this year need to tackle and decide on whether to allow American soldiers to be on the ground for another ten years, and a new presidential election may or may not destabilize the country anew.

In Latin America, Brazil will be (hopefully) seeing a break from its riots, hosting the much anticipated World Cup this year. 2014 will also see the construction of the Nicaragua Canal, said to be about three times longer than the Panama Canal. Latin American artists will continue to experience an art boom around the world.

This year will also see the completion of the 5th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The last one, in 2007, saw a clearer and grimmer outlook for the Earth's climate, and for this new report (as per the September 2013 summary for policymakers document), it shows yet more evidence of human's impact on the climate, and hinting more about further uncertainties in climate modeling as well as adaptation measures to climate change.

Of course, the year 2014 will mark the 100^th anniversary of World War I and this will last until 2018. For the duration of the event, countries will be planning official commemorative ceremonies and themes. This momentous time in human history is, by now, replete with lessons that ought to be learned. Indeed, with this year’s events and approximate trajectories, we hope history does not repeat itself.

The Specter of US meddling in Asian Affairs

It’s only almost a year since America declared its policy of pivoting its messy militaristic adventure to Asia, and now we have news that it sent two B-52 strategic bombers over the disputed islands between China and Japan.

The flyovers, which is 'part of a regular military exercise' to the region, comes at a perfect time as China declares more control of the region, with a November 25 announcement that aircraft flying over the disputed territory must submit flight plans and communicate with Chinese aviation authorities via an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) policy.

Only in the course of a day the US expressed its dismay. In this most recent unarmed bomber aircraft patrol, Pentagon spokesman Steve Warren told Reuters “we have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus (Japan’s name for the disputed islands). We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies.”

The arrogant announcement comes after Kerry’s rhetoric that China’s new controls over the airspace “constitutes and attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was quoted as saying the Chinese announcement “will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Only America calls the shots anywhere in the world

Never minding the sovereignty of other countries, where the US comes in, trouble and tensions comes out. Regardless of where US troops are stationed in the area (South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia), clearly the US is over-extending its military to show Beijing who’s the ‘police of the world.’

Clearly this dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is a matter two sovereign nations must settle themselves, without the meddling of a third party. Such is the case with the Philippines, with the South China Sea, where the tiny island nation plays puppet to the US’s aggressive military policy in the area.

What these smaller nations fail to know is their role in playing the chess game for America’s larger pivot to Asia policy. It’s a win-win situation overall, let these countries fall prey to US manipulation against China while not committing too much military resources and increased arms sales.

It is almost foolish for these satellite countries to be slave to American policy by projecting a harder unilateral stance against Beijing in the form of ‘territorial disputes’, not knowing they themselves are in more trouble when the situation in the area escalates to open hostility.

US encourages Japanese remilitarization for the sake of containing China

The Chinese reaction and increased patrol in the area comes after recent Japanese provocation.

Ever since the arrests of Chinese fishermen in 2010 and last year’s purchase by the Japanese government of the islands (knowing well they are disputed territory) , China’s actions can be seen more as a reaction to these American-backed provocations.

The international media is replete with the usual suspect keywords of 'an aggressive China' for seeking to 'change the status quo' against 'aggrieved' neighboring countries. Many fail to see through the news. It can be remembered that just last year, the US increased its military forces in Australia and conducted ever-larger military exercises in the region to intimidate and contain China’s influence. The more recent announcement that US military troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond 2020 (despite Obama’s promise to remove them in 2014) is suspect enough since the country shares a border with China.

What the US fails to realize is the scale of its bullying in the region. Just last week, it concluded a mammoth military exercise with Japan which involved 34,000 troops and 350 warplanes, focusing on how to defeat Chinese anti-ship capabilities and a naval blockade to cripple China’s economy once a conflict breaks out. Sadly, we can only refer to the American reaction to Soviet troops stationed in Cuba half a century ago. Can anyone remind America what it feels like to have gargantuan military buildups and war exercise performed in their own backyard?

Europe an Ally, but an Enemy as well?

This week will see the European Summit discuss a quite unusual issue: that of America’s snooping on its allies. Barely a week has passed since the revelations that America’s NSA tapped on government phone calls from Spain and France, and now we have Germany’s top leader Angela Merkel to add to this sorry list of compromised allies.

The fresh NSA leaks showed that the NSA has been tapping on the Chancellor’s phone calls as far back as 2002.

This recent revelation by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden infuriated both Paris and Berlin, where Merkel was quoted saying “Spying between friends—that’s just not done.” “I said that to US President Barack Obama when he came to Berlin and again on the phone [Wednesday],” Merkel said.

As hard-hitting as these relationship snippets between the Western allies are, the mood and tone Britain is quite disconnected from its European friends.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was more worried about how these things are revealed in the first place, expressing concerns that the Snowden leak “is frankly signaling to people who mean to do us harm how to evade and avoid detection”, citing the recent Kenya mall massacre. He added that “it (revelation) is going to make our world more dangerous”.

Just a few days ago, a conservative British politician called for the prosecution of the paper Guardian for publishing NSA documents and “aiding terrorism and endangering national security.” The fear-mongering official diverted the issue of America spying on its allies and instead argued that “once an adversary knows if and how we can read their communications, they will change their behavior.”

Rewind just a couple of weeks ago and you end up opening your morning papers with the less-publicized furry of Brazil’s president Dilma Roueseff over similar NSA accusations. And if you go back a decade ago, you end up with a leaked NSA memo calling for increased “surveillance of and interception of phone calls and emails from United Nations delegations crucial to the (then) upcoming Security Council (Iraq invasion) vote.”

“Everyone spies on friends”

Surprisingly for a conflict-hungry leader, Obama pacified Merkel’s anger, saying he did not know about the spying. The same air brushing language was employed by the president earlier this year: "We should stipulate that every intelligence service —not just ours, but every European intelligence service, every Asian intelligence service, wherever there's an intelligence service — here's one thing that they're going to be doing: They're going to be trying to understand the world better, and what's going on in world capitals around the world…If that weren't the case, then there'd be no use for an intelligence service."

However, these days, not even his allies are impressed. French president Francois Hollande demanded the US to immediately stop any more eavesdropping, saying “we cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies.”

Snowden’s status in Russia

It was August 1 when the NSA whistleblower was granted his application to seek temporary political asylum in Russia. He has since left the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow and his whereabouts are not disclosed, although it is believed Edward Snowden might now intend to apply for full refugee status.

According to Veronika Krasheninnkova, Director General of Institute of Foreign Political Studies and Initiatives in Moscow, Russia has no choice but to grant Snowden asylum.

The Director said “this is the decision made by an independent sovereign state. Additionally, well, Russia has been left without much choice. Mr. Snowden’s passport was cancelled when he was on Russia’s territory. And furthermore when President Obama said on June 27 that he would not send fighter jets to intercept the plane transporting Mr. Snowden, and only a few days later indeed a plane was intercepted with the President of Bolivia Eva Morales on the suspicion that Mr. Snowden was on board. So in this situation it was very difficult to conduct negotiations with Washington. I think that was the only right thing to do and Russia did it.”

She also added that “what is appalling in this situation in the United States is that a young man who helped the government to fight against glaring violations of American constitutional law and International Laws instead of being helped by the government is being prosecuted. Well, that is, and President Obama who as a trained constitutional lawyer  definitely knows the Constitution, well, it is too bad that they have to face hundreds plus years of prison rather than indeed being helping those cases being investigated and the true perpetrators of these violations being punished.”

Social Upheaval of the Times: A New Perspective

The span of time since the unraveling of socialism a little over twenty years ago has given us, contemporary observers, the opportunity to look at this event with unprecedented depth and a bigger perspective. Indeed, that span has uncovered and brought back from obscurity the real factors that contributed to the collapse of this ideology, very much like how history is vindicated well after it has unfolded. What is obvious to us today surely was not clear for that age's participants and observers, thus, a better say on what truly happened, from the personalities who betrayed socialism to the unwelcome external elements that intervened, is aching to be told especially in this time of mass protests in Europe and privacy scandals plaguing America.

Almost exactly twenty years before the financial blunder of the West, Eastern Europe was undergoing a major political transformation; the masses are confronted with a choice that would dictate how their lives will be from then on: to keep under socialism or to succumb to the allure of the supposedly more democratic ways of their Western neighbors. The reverse is true today: Americans are increasingly becoming aware but less patient with how they should be governed, from how taxpayer money should be used in times of crisis to how their private lives are eroded by an increasingly paranoid government. Without realizing it, people are citing elements of socialism to serve as antidote (Occupy Movement) to the woes of contemporary life in 'the land of the free.' In Europe, calls for a loosening of the highly bureaucratic and elitist European Union is needless to say, gaining more ground as state after state succumb to strings-attached-ridden bailouts and the claws of austerity measures eating at people's welfare and ultimately, their existence.

How can you preach 'democracy' when you treat your citizens with distrust, as with the recent Manning-Assange-Snowden expose reveal? In fact, even America's allies can't escape this inexorable surveillance menace. How can you preach 'more integration' for the so-called European Union if you continue to keep out the assignment of management of the continent beyond the approval of citizens? Such trappings were the wedge of classic anti-socialist/communist rhetoric during the Cold War. Can we look at who's speaking now? Indeed we can, with the help of what others call "the ordeal of careful scrutiny."

With Age Comes Greater Understanding: The Truth behind Socialism's Collapse in the 1980s

The typical Western triumphalist thinking has all the success-over-socialism-the-enemy covered in the Cold War dialogue, where claims rest mostly in the belief that socialism is doomed from the beginning, as was the case with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the specific case of the dissolution of the USSR, there are six theories that try to 'explain' why socialism failed, including:

• flaws of socialism
• popular opposition
• external factors
• bureaucratic counter-revolution
• lack of democracy and over-centralization, and
• the Gorbachev factor

The first theory argues that socialism was doomed from the start because it had an inherent anti-human nature flaw. It is misguided thought because it requires a predisposition that socialism in the USSR should've failed before even more pressing challenges, such as collectivization or the Nazi invasion, had gripped the relatively young socialist state.

The second theory subscribes to the idea that popular opposition brought down socialism in the Soviet Union and even Eastern Europe. However, subscribers to this theory fail to explain the fact that a real opposition to Gorbachev did not turn out in the beginning of his reforms. To begin with, mass discontent did not appear during Gorbachev's early years as General Secretary. Moreover, surveys showed that people were actually satisfied with their lives and the system.

While others falsely believed that, some were comfortable with blaming external factors as behind the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory believe in the pressure that Reagan put on the reforming Soviet system, especially on military terms. On the contrary, despite rhetorical musings, there is no evidence of such triumphalism, especially on the buildup of arms that was supposed to 'bankrupt' the Soviets into spending. In fact, archives show that the American military buildup was not reciprocated by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. Proponents of this theory fail to cite the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the plan of Gorbachev to end conscription in the military as well as the eventual reduction of the armed forces.

The fourth theory promote the belief that as Gorbachev's reforms unleashed forces beyond the control of the state, slow-moving leaders were left with no choice but to ride the waves of a fast-emerging market economy by privatizing state assets for their own wealth. Although some in the elite saw an opportunity in the unraveling of the centralized economy, it was motivated by their interest in hanging on to power, rather than subscribing to the return of capitalism.

The fifth theory traces the root of the Soviet collapse to the inability of the state to "democraticize", at least in the Western sense of the word. However, over time, the meaning of democracy changes. In Roger Keeran's and Thomas Kenny's thesis, neither capitalism nor liberalism has an exclusive claim to democracy. To be sure, democracy came to the United States in gradual terms, and was constantly improved as rights became more pervasive and expanded. In fact, 'popular participation' was built-in in the Soviet political and decision-making system. Indeed, the spread of power was even more dispersed than in a Western democracy. As for over-centralization, scholars miss the fact that the USSR was the first socialist country to embark on such economic path; there is no guarantee the plan will work, but nevertheless it produced a system that will achieve the goals of socialism, including free education, housing, guaranteed jobs, zero-inflation and others.

The sixth theory also has the trappings of an incomplete thesis: that Gorbachev was the man to blame, especially because of his abandonment of traditional communism. There is no denying that Gorbachev's policies unleashed wanton forces beyond his control. However, few recall that his earlier policies where a mirror of Andropov's reforms. At best, this theory fails to fully convince, especially since Gorbachev, according to Keeran and Kenny, "was both a legatee of a certain tradition and the product of his times and not just a lone factor making history."

Rebuffing Western Though on the Collapse: Other Areas of Discussion

Even after the end of the First World War, it is undeniable that the Soviet people underwent a major upheaval, when the country retreated from the major war and succumbed to civil war. To think that the ‘crisis’ from 1985 onward was an insurmountable challenge would therefore be invalid, after all, the USSR had survived far greater calamities after the Second World War.

Although the economy of the USSR was slowing down in the 1980s, economists still saw the single digit GDP growth as manageable, one that did not threaten the stability of the country’s economy. Although the price of oil surely caused trouble to Soviet finances, adjusted for inflation, the price of oil was higher than in the previous decade.

The Soviet Union’s military and diplomatic standing is correctly judged as having accomplished or managed well it’s objectives in the 1970s through to the 1980s. Even with Reagan’s military buildup, especially with the threat of SDI, this did not receive serious attention by military and economic planners in the USSR; simply SDI was treated as unfeasible in the short to medium term. Years later, historian Adam Ulam would quip that in 1985, “no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power, and its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR.”

The real situation then was, as with the previous decade, the USSR of the 1980s was a stable one, with no unemployment, no inflation, no mass protests and strength in its foreign policy. There were problems, but there was clearly no real crisis that can threaten the country’s existence. Perhaps more importantly for a country that had many autonomous republics and regions; there were no observable conflicts among its nationalities and ethnicities.

Even with a one-party system, the Soviet bureaucratic machine had many decision makers from top to bottom. Millions participated in the collective soviets, which are institutions of power. More than 150 million workers were involved in unions, and contrary to bourgeoisie denunciations, these institution are not ‘fake’ and functioned with vitality and much room for policy. As for the people themselves, a referendum as late as 1991 showed that the majority of Soviet people (75 percent) where in favor of keeping the Union intact.

Indeed even during the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Soviet central planning in politics and economics was more complex than ever because of the expansion of the economy and the increased freedoms of its people. In fact, as Roger Keeran says “it was the erosion of planning and the flowering of the second (underground) economy that raised barriers to economic growth in the USSR.”

As for the Soviet leader himself, Thomas Kenny rightly observes that “we do not believe that Gorbachev ever acted consciously at the outset to betray socialism and restore capitalism. In contrast to Andropov, who was a deep and genuine Marxist-Leninist, Gorbachev was a brilliant actor…without great theoretical preparation” but that over time Gorbachev “took the conscious decision that he was no longer a communist, but a social democrat…he no longer believed any more in planning, social ownership of the means of production, the role of the working class, socialist democracy.”

America has the Exclusive Right to Bomb the World

US Secretary of State John Kerry meeting Syrian rebels

The past few months since the Syrian chemical weapon incident have seen a sensational back and forth action in international politics. On the one hand, Obama had played a very safe but misleading role in the resolution of the conflict.

Obama cautious on the outcome of British Commons vote

There is no denying the American president played his Democrat-cards well. As the representative of the party supposedly-opposed to wars abroad (unlike the Republicans), he halfheartedly  rallied for an intervention on the Syrian conflict by waiting for the outcome of the British House of Commons on their vote against an attack on Syria.

The epic August 30 disavowal against David Cameron’s support for another British-and-American misadventure reassured the international community that a decade is not too distant to forget the humiliation and outcome of the Iraq and Afghan carnage wrought by the United States. Despite the UK's backing out of the Syria strike, Obama says the US will "continue to consult" its British ally.

Obama ‘consults’ Congress on Syria intervention

In a ‘true’ Democrat move, Obama, the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, played again a safe but misleading path to a ‘resolution’ on the Syria conflict by presenting Congress intelligence reports that apparently proved Bashar al-Assad’s hands on the most recent chemical attack. Certainly, on the back of Obama’s head, he knows he will be denied the vote he needs for authorization of another ‘coalition of the willing’ on Syria.

Now who could deny Obama’s heroism after the Congress turn-down? Undeniably in his Oval Office, the president is whispering he did what he could but that Congress was to blame for a failure to authorize the bombing of another Muslim country. At a lecture at the University of Michigan, David North described the US Syria policy as possibly a “carefully planned diplomatic masterstroke.”

American media’s disgusting propaganda  against Syria

Below the official Washington statements, the media, headed by CNN, has been skillfully playing their deception, including:

• The dropping of the word ‘alleged’ chemical weapons use from news

• That if it weren't for America’s threat, the Syrian government will not be willing to negotiate (from the beginning, Bashar Al-Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and so the willingness-to-negotiate trophy should go to Russia, not the US)

• That Syria’s possession of chemical weapons violates international rules, forgetting that this is the ‘best’ Syrian deterrent against Israel’s far more destructive and illegal possession of nuclear weapons

• That the Syrian rebels are being likened to the ‘freedom fighters’ supported by the West and Saudi Arabia against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan back in the 80s

• In lieu of the threat to use force, there is no mention on how extensive the West supports the rebels in Syria. In fact, the decision to use force is in large part dictated by the desperate situation of the Syrian rebels

Russia’s role in conflict resolution

If there is any other international leader who should be eulogized for brokering a deal on the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, it should be Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin leader knows that a peace deal is the only path to Syria’s return to normalcy, and he knew this from the beginning. Record-wise, Putin was a staunch renouncer of Western interventionism in the past.

In a recent gathering with academics and research analysts in Russia, he felt comfortable in criticizing the West’s double standards (especially with Israel), hypocrisy, and moral decline. Vis-à-vis Israel, the Russian leader proposed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which happens to include Israel’s secret nukes and Syria’s chemical weapons.

Also at the recent Shanghai Security Organization (SCO) meeting held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin insisted that “military interference from outside the country without a UN Security Council sanction is admissible” and that the summit jointly opposed “Western intervention in Syria, as well as the loosening of the internal and regional stability in the Middle East.”

As in the past, China, for its part, mostly favors Russia’s foreign policy. At the SCO meeting, Chinese president Xi Jinping expressed his country's opposition to a Western-led strike against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran,  a major energy supplier to China.

The Iran Response

Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, perceived as a moderate statesman, attended the SCO meeting, where he agreed on keeping Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, adding that this has given “hope that we will be able to avoid a new war in the region.”