I think the money quote is “What happens in Ukraine before the election……..”. Given the penchant these airheads have for doubling down on really, really bad ideas, I’m still waiting for the mother of all “October Surprises” to reveal itself.
Disgusting that US media site, The Gateway Pundit, has two headlined stories today that Hamas killed 6 Israeli prisoners in a Gaza tunnel: "Jewish Hostages including an American Are Executed by Hamas " Pure propaganda from a pro-Zionist site.
If you take a close look at the conservative publications with a major online presence, you'll find they fall into two broad categories. They're either 'controlled opposition' or they're financially motivated and can be influenced on that basis, such that they either minimize or avoid certain topics altogether. A third smaller category are allowed to operate more or less independently as a means of identifying emergent trends that can then be either co-opted, or shut down/shadow banned if their audience reaches a critical size.
I get a lot of push-back on this from people on the right, but the fact of the matter is that people of a conservative nature just aren't very discerning in their political views and tend to cluster around populists like Trump. In that sense they resemble the 'true believers' on the left, they just differ in what they truly believe.
Frankly I find the left/right dichotomy to be practically useless. A more useful definition would be ideologues vs. people who just want to be left alone. By definition, ideologues are better organized since they have a motivating ideology, wheres people who just want to be left alone are all over the map, and for that reason have difficulty organizing. This applies to both liberal and conservative attitudes, it's really just a matter of which group is ascendant at a particular point in time.
The real enemy are the Authoritarians - people who imagine they know what's best for everyone else, and will go out of their way to enforce their will. Sadly that describes most people today, they just don't manifest the tendency because they're effectively powerless, which is why they cluster around populists who pander to their ill-formed beliefs. Again, this applies equally to the left and the right, which is why I don't associate with either.
Scroll through the articles to get a sense of what they're reporting on. Anything about Gaza in there? Keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.... Nope. Not a thing until you get to this:
"Barbara Kay on the rise of antisemitic crime in Canada"
It's a paid article, but you don't need to read it to see the obvious slant, just look at the image. A woman in a kufiya holding a Palestinian flag. The inference is clear: protest Israeli genocide in Gaza (as per the UN) and you're antisemitic.
Oh, and right after that: "Iran is trying to start a new world order " Yeah, right.
Now look at the founder's bio (which I'm sure very few of his readers have done)
This is an obvious example, but you'll see this everywhere if you dig deep enough. Must control both sides of the debate. Can't leave anything to chance.
I think the people who run that site are jewish. Normally it casts a pretty wide net for stories that interest anyone on the right. And people can comment disagreeing with the position of those who run the site. But I've written a couple of comments disagreeing with their zionist point of view and they were deleted.
The political Right in America are very pro-Israel. The proof of this is in the number of democrats vs. republicans who sat out Netanyahu's recent address to Congress.
After AIPAC, the most influential lobbyists in America are the MIC and Big Pharma. Both donate generously to both parties. However, few people are lining up to buy air defence systems, armoured personnel carriers, or jets fighters, so you don't see a lot of advertising from that quarter..
Big Pharma, OTOH, accounts for a major part of TV and internet advertising because people are definitely lining up to be 'cured' of whatever they imagine ails them. I remember a time when you couldn't promote prescription drugs on TV. It's obvious why not, and yet there it is. "Ask your doctor" who most likely is also a beneficiary.
It never occurs to people that a for-profit business model based on definitively curing actual disease, or better yet, eliminating it altogether, will eventually run out of customers! It also never occurs to them that when your major revenue source is Big Pharma, you've very unlikely to ever read or see an unfavourable report in the MSM.
Seriously. This is what I ask people who “support” Israel and Ukraine. How is the “support” the US is giving them going? How much better off are they after receiving this “support?” We’re supporting Ukraine back into not being a sovereign country again and supporting Israel’s quest to alienate every human on the planet. Great outcomes guys, really well done!
Concerning the red line, the conflict showed that Russia had a glaring lack of intermediate ballistic missiles even resorting to buying drones from Iran.
Putin is buying time for the industrial complex to get up to speed to mass produce missiles, drones and glide bombs. Not a simple task.
The recent uptick in use of longer range Iskanders shows that the strategy is paying dividends.
"Concerning the red line, the conflict showed that Russia had a glaring lack of intermediate ballistic missiles even resorting to buying drones from Iran."
That was the narrative being spun in the West, but there are other more credible explanations.
Russia accepted drones in payment for S300 AD systems. It's not that they can't produce them, they're simple enough to build that they don't have to go cap in hand to Iran. But if you can source them in exchange for something else you are mass producing, you free up those resources for other purposes. The fact that they were providing AD systems to Iran (and still are) suggests they have an ample supply, otherwise they wouldn't do that.
Same goes for the ballistic missile story. Expensive systems. Maybe they just ran out of high value targets to hit? Maybe it was a ruse to get the enemy to drop his guard? If you think your enemy has run out of missiles, you don't fret as much about assembling forces in large numbers, until of course you get hit, which is apparently what has just happened.
We hear constantly that Russia is running out of this or that. It's almost all propaganda. Obviously there will be constraints in any conflict, but Russia had 8 years to prepare for this, and if you read what they were talking about from 2005 onward, they could see a confrontation with NATO in the offing and took appropriate measures. They just didn't tell their western 'partners' about it, and so nothing much was reported on it unless you read specialized publications.
If anyone's running out of stuff it's Britain and Germany, soon to be followed by France and eventually the USA. This is a war of attrition, and I'd say Russia hold the stronger hand with their national industrial policy and lack of a parasitic MIC whose only aim is profit, not effective combat ready systems.
These are all good points. However, consider my comment here re Belousov and his rise to the top of the MoD. The course of the war suggests that Russia wasn't fully prepared for war. Yes, there was never a doubt that in heads up match, Russia would defeat Ukraine. That was the force behind Russia's move on Kiev to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table--which succeeded but was defeated by the West's pressure on Ukraine's corrupt government. It was also shown by Russia's lightning move in the south. However, Russia was not prepared to move west from Donbass, which it is now doing. The need for more preparation was also graphically illustrated by the evacuation from the west side of the Dnieper in Kherson--which Surovikin publicly and frankly stated would be too costly to hold--at that time.
"The need for more preparation was also graphically illustrated by the evacuation from the west side of the Dnieper in Kherson--which Surovikin publicly and frankly stated would be too costly to hold--at that time."
My source on that situation tells me they moved on Kherson to end the abuse of Russians living there, and that they knew that position would eventually have to be abandoned. The population was evacuated at the same time as the military, which lends credence to that view. They had a river at their back, which is very bad unless you have the forces to repel an attack. I'm sure if they intended to hold Kherson they could have done so, but the primary objective was protecting Kherson's citizens, not holding the city - at least that's what I was told.
Arguably Russia miscalculated by threatening Kiev, but I don't think they were unprepared for the eventuality of joining the fight, which had been ongoing for 8 years. "If you want peace, prepare for war" - some Roman dude.
If they underestimated anything it was the intransigence of the war's western sponsors, not the enemy they'd be facing, which they had ample knowledge of given that they were previously part of the Soviet military, including some of their flag officers. I'm pretty sure their intelligence was up to speed as well.
The commentariat (including some inside Russia) reads Russian restraint as a sign of weakness, rather than a serious effort to avoid a larger conflict. I'm sure you've been in the position, as have I, where someone got up in your face and just wouldn't quit. You had to weigh the option of administering a beat down vs. the consequences that might follow from that, which could be really serious if you accidentally killed the guy. It's the same thing, but on a much larger scale.
The various back and forth maneuvers and adjustment of positions are simply an illustration of what Tyson said about everyone having a plan until they get punched in the nose, but he was still a heavyweight champion. Russia is Mike Tyson in this match, and like him, I'm sure they expected to take a few punches.
Don't forget, Ukraine had 8 years to fortify their lines in the Donbas, and Russia's doctrine, unlike Stalin, was to expend as few men and resources as possible to achieve their aims. That accounts for the conflict being frozen for the past two years, and their aims may well have been unrealistic, again given the intransigence of their opponents which they arguably underestimated. That doesn't reflect on their actual capabilities though, which I'd argue we've yet to see.
Barring a coup and a subsequent surrender, Russia has only one option at this point I would say - occupy the entire country. No easy task, but it could be done. Looking at it from NATO's point of view, assuming there are still rational actors in the mix, this is the best outcome, given that Ukraine has already lost and that NATO is running out arms, which aren't very effective anyway and their poor performance tends to hurt sales. Under that scenario Russia has the expensive task of managing and rebuilding Ukraine. Not an ideal outcome for NATO, but it at least lets you declare victory, throw up a new Iron Curtain and continue selling arms to your European satraps.
Yes. This is something that many in the West failed to understand. If I recall correctly, Belousov--now the Defense Minister--was in charge of coordinating the defense industrial complex.
You have to be cautious of taking anything said during wartime at face value, and that applies to both sides. Is the Russia military actually disorganized, or are they just trying to present that appearance? Are the hard liners really breathing down Putin's neck, or is that just a story to create a 'be careful what you wish for' narrative in the West? Likewise, did France go after Telegram because of money laundering and other nefarious activities, or are they getting uncomfortable seeing images of destroyed NATO wonder weapons and captured mercenaries?
Currency clearing is happening outside the dollar institution / infrastructure.
the US institutions including banks, Chicago exchange, and the futures market have zero visibility into the grain transactions done without dollars.
And this visibility was a key pillar for US grain farming success.
Who would have thought out of control sanctions, threats of more sanctions against China, and seizing Russias foreign reserves would result in blowback.
Precisely, one of those nasty rakes that I mention in my comment below. Seems that the unintended consequences of their poor planning and even worse policy decisions are almost infinite. Excuse the humor, but it is apparently the “grift that just keeps on giving”.
I agree with you Ray! I was born in Kansas and worked on my uncle’s farm in the summer and wheat is not very glamorous, but as you say, it is a BIG deal. I think de-dollarization is going to prove to be a very big deal as well. Lot more rakes out there for these idiots to step on.
I’ve said it before, November seems like a million years away.
Funny the red line narrative - not new of course- but making a comeback right at the hour of need: the need by the losing side to try to shift the focus from the blood soaked battlefield to the hesitant and dithering Putin. It’s the West which has no red lines! It’s the psychopath Zelensky, backed by a cadre of Neocon crazies in DC, who willingly feeds his own comrades into the maw of defeat while dreaming of sending ICBMs to attack the Russian homeland. Red lines? Restraint? Backing off from WW 3? Nope. Let’s bring on Armaggedon and then blame Trump.
I think the money quote is “What happens in Ukraine before the election……..”. Given the penchant these airheads have for doubling down on really, really bad ideas, I’m still waiting for the mother of all “October Surprises” to reveal itself.
Disgusting that US media site, The Gateway Pundit, has two headlined stories today that Hamas killed 6 Israeli prisoners in a Gaza tunnel: "Jewish Hostages including an American Are Executed by Hamas " Pure propaganda from a pro-Zionist site.
If you take a close look at the conservative publications with a major online presence, you'll find they fall into two broad categories. They're either 'controlled opposition' or they're financially motivated and can be influenced on that basis, such that they either minimize or avoid certain topics altogether. A third smaller category are allowed to operate more or less independently as a means of identifying emergent trends that can then be either co-opted, or shut down/shadow banned if their audience reaches a critical size.
I get a lot of push-back on this from people on the right, but the fact of the matter is that people of a conservative nature just aren't very discerning in their political views and tend to cluster around populists like Trump. In that sense they resemble the 'true believers' on the left, they just differ in what they truly believe.
Frankly I find the left/right dichotomy to be practically useless. A more useful definition would be ideologues vs. people who just want to be left alone. By definition, ideologues are better organized since they have a motivating ideology, wheres people who just want to be left alone are all over the map, and for that reason have difficulty organizing. This applies to both liberal and conservative attitudes, it's really just a matter of which group is ascendant at a particular point in time.
The real enemy are the Authoritarians - people who imagine they know what's best for everyone else, and will go out of their way to enforce their will. Sadly that describes most people today, they just don't manifest the tendency because they're effectively powerless, which is why they cluster around populists who pander to their ill-formed beliefs. Again, this applies equally to the left and the right, which is why I don't associate with either.
As an example of what I mean, take a look at this Canadian 'far-right' site:
https://www.rebelnews.com/
Scroll through the articles to get a sense of what they're reporting on. Anything about Gaza in there? Keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.... Nope. Not a thing until you get to this:
"Barbara Kay on the rise of antisemitic crime in Canada"
https://www.rebelnews.com/ezra_levant_show_august_26_2024
It's a paid article, but you don't need to read it to see the obvious slant, just look at the image. A woman in a kufiya holding a Palestinian flag. The inference is clear: protest Israeli genocide in Gaza (as per the UN) and you're antisemitic.
Oh, and right after that: "Iran is trying to start a new world order " Yeah, right.
Now look at the founder's bio (which I'm sure very few of his readers have done)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant
This is an obvious example, but you'll see this everywhere if you dig deep enough. Must control both sides of the debate. Can't leave anything to chance.
Pandering to their audience?
I think the people who run that site are jewish. Normally it casts a pretty wide net for stories that interest anyone on the right. And people can comment disagreeing with the position of those who run the site. But I've written a couple of comments disagreeing with their zionist point of view and they were deleted.
The political Right in America are very pro-Israel. The proof of this is in the number of democrats vs. republicans who sat out Netanyahu's recent address to Congress.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/3097042/every-democrat-and-republican-skipping-benjamin-netanyahus/
38 D vs 1 R. Kind of says it all doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
Pandering to ad money. I suspect that's the story. The people who control the ad money control content on sites.
After AIPAC, the most influential lobbyists in America are the MIC and Big Pharma. Both donate generously to both parties. However, few people are lining up to buy air defence systems, armoured personnel carriers, or jets fighters, so you don't see a lot of advertising from that quarter..
Big Pharma, OTOH, accounts for a major part of TV and internet advertising because people are definitely lining up to be 'cured' of whatever they imagine ails them. I remember a time when you couldn't promote prescription drugs on TV. It's obvious why not, and yet there it is. "Ask your doctor" who most likely is also a beneficiary.
It never occurs to people that a for-profit business model based on definitively curing actual disease, or better yet, eliminating it altogether, will eventually run out of customers! It also never occurs to them that when your major revenue source is Big Pharma, you've very unlikely to ever read or see an unfavourable report in the MSM.
Second, Crooke needs to reconsider the idea that American support for any country is ever “ironclad”.
you kinda almost quoted Kissinger there.
“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”
Seriously. This is what I ask people who “support” Israel and Ukraine. How is the “support” the US is giving them going? How much better off are they after receiving this “support?” We’re supporting Ukraine back into not being a sovereign country again and supporting Israel’s quest to alienate every human on the planet. Great outcomes guys, really well done!
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1830318955530948988
Oh, but the Pundit reports that Hersh's parents were onstage at the DNC...'so close to the time Hamas murdered their son'.
Thanks for showing and telling us the truth, Mark.
Talk about being used as a Pundit…
Dual citizenship paid its dividends to him in the form of The Hannibal Directive.
Concerning the red line, the conflict showed that Russia had a glaring lack of intermediate ballistic missiles even resorting to buying drones from Iran.
Putin is buying time for the industrial complex to get up to speed to mass produce missiles, drones and glide bombs. Not a simple task.
The recent uptick in use of longer range Iskanders shows that the strategy is paying dividends.
"Concerning the red line, the conflict showed that Russia had a glaring lack of intermediate ballistic missiles even resorting to buying drones from Iran."
That was the narrative being spun in the West, but there are other more credible explanations.
Russia accepted drones in payment for S300 AD systems. It's not that they can't produce them, they're simple enough to build that they don't have to go cap in hand to Iran. But if you can source them in exchange for something else you are mass producing, you free up those resources for other purposes. The fact that they were providing AD systems to Iran (and still are) suggests they have an ample supply, otherwise they wouldn't do that.
Same goes for the ballistic missile story. Expensive systems. Maybe they just ran out of high value targets to hit? Maybe it was a ruse to get the enemy to drop his guard? If you think your enemy has run out of missiles, you don't fret as much about assembling forces in large numbers, until of course you get hit, which is apparently what has just happened.
We hear constantly that Russia is running out of this or that. It's almost all propaganda. Obviously there will be constraints in any conflict, but Russia had 8 years to prepare for this, and if you read what they were talking about from 2005 onward, they could see a confrontation with NATO in the offing and took appropriate measures. They just didn't tell their western 'partners' about it, and so nothing much was reported on it unless you read specialized publications.
If anyone's running out of stuff it's Britain and Germany, soon to be followed by France and eventually the USA. This is a war of attrition, and I'd say Russia hold the stronger hand with their national industrial policy and lack of a parasitic MIC whose only aim is profit, not effective combat ready systems.
These are all good points. However, consider my comment here re Belousov and his rise to the top of the MoD. The course of the war suggests that Russia wasn't fully prepared for war. Yes, there was never a doubt that in heads up match, Russia would defeat Ukraine. That was the force behind Russia's move on Kiev to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table--which succeeded but was defeated by the West's pressure on Ukraine's corrupt government. It was also shown by Russia's lightning move in the south. However, Russia was not prepared to move west from Donbass, which it is now doing. The need for more preparation was also graphically illustrated by the evacuation from the west side of the Dnieper in Kherson--which Surovikin publicly and frankly stated would be too costly to hold--at that time.
"The need for more preparation was also graphically illustrated by the evacuation from the west side of the Dnieper in Kherson--which Surovikin publicly and frankly stated would be too costly to hold--at that time."
My source on that situation tells me they moved on Kherson to end the abuse of Russians living there, and that they knew that position would eventually have to be abandoned. The population was evacuated at the same time as the military, which lends credence to that view. They had a river at their back, which is very bad unless you have the forces to repel an attack. I'm sure if they intended to hold Kherson they could have done so, but the primary objective was protecting Kherson's citizens, not holding the city - at least that's what I was told.
Looks like both our replies crossed paths:)
Arguably Russia miscalculated by threatening Kiev, but I don't think they were unprepared for the eventuality of joining the fight, which had been ongoing for 8 years. "If you want peace, prepare for war" - some Roman dude.
If they underestimated anything it was the intransigence of the war's western sponsors, not the enemy they'd be facing, which they had ample knowledge of given that they were previously part of the Soviet military, including some of their flag officers. I'm pretty sure their intelligence was up to speed as well.
The commentariat (including some inside Russia) reads Russian restraint as a sign of weakness, rather than a serious effort to avoid a larger conflict. I'm sure you've been in the position, as have I, where someone got up in your face and just wouldn't quit. You had to weigh the option of administering a beat down vs. the consequences that might follow from that, which could be really serious if you accidentally killed the guy. It's the same thing, but on a much larger scale.
The various back and forth maneuvers and adjustment of positions are simply an illustration of what Tyson said about everyone having a plan until they get punched in the nose, but he was still a heavyweight champion. Russia is Mike Tyson in this match, and like him, I'm sure they expected to take a few punches.
Don't forget, Ukraine had 8 years to fortify their lines in the Donbas, and Russia's doctrine, unlike Stalin, was to expend as few men and resources as possible to achieve their aims. That accounts for the conflict being frozen for the past two years, and their aims may well have been unrealistic, again given the intransigence of their opponents which they arguably underestimated. That doesn't reflect on their actual capabilities though, which I'd argue we've yet to see.
Barring a coup and a subsequent surrender, Russia has only one option at this point I would say - occupy the entire country. No easy task, but it could be done. Looking at it from NATO's point of view, assuming there are still rational actors in the mix, this is the best outcome, given that Ukraine has already lost and that NATO is running out arms, which aren't very effective anyway and their poor performance tends to hurt sales. Under that scenario Russia has the expensive task of managing and rebuilding Ukraine. Not an ideal outcome for NATO, but it at least lets you declare victory, throw up a new Iron Curtain and continue selling arms to your European satraps.
Yes. This is something that many in the West failed to understand. If I recall correctly, Belousov--now the Defense Minister--was in charge of coordinating the defense industrial complex.
You have to be cautious of taking anything said during wartime at face value, and that applies to both sides. Is the Russia military actually disorganized, or are they just trying to present that appearance? Are the hard liners really breathing down Putin's neck, or is that just a story to create a 'be careful what you wish for' narrative in the West? Likewise, did France go after Telegram because of money laundering and other nefarious activities, or are they getting uncomfortable seeing images of destroyed NATO wonder weapons and captured mercenaries?
The grain issue is huge.
And Russia is about to gain a lot more farmland in Ukraine.
A lot of U.S. foreign policy was based on grain exports. Perhaps due to Iowa’s position in the primaries.
It's much broader than that. Tripped across this recently... https://youtu.be/z7m5Z6FuPbk?si=OUMPgFNs1XzJgdG-
Yeah, talk about a brave new world. And our oligarchs in our financialized economy are gonna be blindsided.
Thanks - Wow!
Summary:
Currency clearing is happening outside the dollar institution / infrastructure.
the US institutions including banks, Chicago exchange, and the futures market have zero visibility into the grain transactions done without dollars.
And this visibility was a key pillar for US grain farming success.
Who would have thought out of control sanctions, threats of more sanctions against China, and seizing Russias foreign reserves would result in blowback.
The farmers don’t yet understand their situation. Could be huge.
Precisely, one of those nasty rakes that I mention in my comment below. Seems that the unintended consequences of their poor planning and even worse policy decisions are almost infinite. Excuse the humor, but it is apparently the “grift that just keeps on giving”.
I agree with you Ray! I was born in Kansas and worked on my uncle’s farm in the summer and wheat is not very glamorous, but as you say, it is a BIG deal. I think de-dollarization is going to prove to be a very big deal as well. Lot more rakes out there for these idiots to step on.
I’ve said it before, November seems like a million years away.
Funny the red line narrative - not new of course- but making a comeback right at the hour of need: the need by the losing side to try to shift the focus from the blood soaked battlefield to the hesitant and dithering Putin. It’s the West which has no red lines! It’s the psychopath Zelensky, backed by a cadre of Neocon crazies in DC, who willingly feeds his own comrades into the maw of defeat while dreaming of sending ICBMs to attack the Russian homeland. Red lines? Restraint? Backing off from WW 3? Nope. Let’s bring on Armaggedon and then blame Trump.