German Handelsblatt Releases Stunning Anti-West Op-Ed, Asks If "West Rabble-Rousers Are On The Payroll Of The KGB"

Tyler Durden's picture

Up until this point Angela Merkel, and German media in general, had been staunchly on the side of the west when it comes to dealing with Russia, Putin and realpolitik in broader terms. That changed dramatically today when Gabor Steingart, the chief editor of Handelsblatt, Germany's leading economic newspaper, came out with a stunning op-ed, in German, English and Russian, titled simply that "The West on the wrong path" in which the editor comes out very vocally against the autopilot mode German media has been on for the past several months and calls for an end to a strategy of sanctions and Russian confrontation that ultimately "harms German interests" and is a dead end.

Some of the "must read" excerpts:

  • The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal – and harms German interests.
  • Newspapers we thought to be all about thoughts and ideas now march in lock-step with politicians in their calls for sanctions against Russia's President Putin. Even the headlines betray an aggressive tension as is usually characteristic of hooligans when they 'support' their respective teams. The Tagesspiegel: “Enough talk!“ The FAZ: “Show strength“. The Süddeutsche Zeitung: “Now or never.“ The Spiegel calls for an “End to cowardice“: “Putin's web of lies, propaganda, and deception has been exposed. The wreckage of MH 17 is also the result of a crashed diplomacy.“
  • Our purpose is to wipe off some of the foam that has formed on the debating mouths, to steal words from the mouths of both the rabble-rousers and the roused, and put new words there instead. One word that has become disused of late is this: realism.
  • Germany has waged war against its eastern neighbor twice in the past 100 years. The German soul, which we generally claim to be on the romantic side, showed its cruel side.
  • The politics of escalation show that Europe sorely misses a realistic goal. It's a different thing in the US. Threats and posturing are simply part of the election preparations. When Hillary Clinton compares Putin with Hitler, she does so only to appeal to the Republican vote, i.e. people who do not own a passport. For many of them, Hitler is the only foreigner they know, which is why Adolf Putin is a very welcome fictitious campaign effigy. In this respect, Clinton and Obama have a realistic goal: to appeal to the people, to win elections, to win another Democratic presidency.
  • Even the idea that economic pressure and political isolation would bring Russia to its knees was not really thought all the way through. Even if we could succeed: what good would Russia be on its knees? How can you want to live together in the European house with a humiliated people whose elected leadership is treated like a pariah and whose citizens you might have to support in the coming winter.
  • It is not too late for the duo Merkel/Steinmeier to use the concepts and ideas of this time. It does not make sense to just follow the strategically idea-less Obama. Everyone can see how he and Putin are driving like in a dream directly towards a sign which reads: Dead End.
  • Demonizing Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for the lack thereof. He advises condensing conflicts, i.e. to make them smaller, shrink them, and then distill them into a solution. At the moment (and for a long time before that) America is doing the opposite. All conflicts are escalated. The attack of a terror group named Al Qaida is turned into a global campaign against Islam. Iraq is bombed using dubious justifications. Then the US Air Force flies on to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The relationship to the Islamic world can safely be considered damaged.
  • The American tendency to verbal and then also military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies has not proven effective. The last successful major military action the US conducted was the Normandy landing. Everything else – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – was a clear failure.

Punchline #1:

  • Collective movements start in support of the sanctioned, as is the case today in Russia. The country was hardly ever more unified behind their president than now. This could almost lead you to think that the rabble-rousers of the West are on the payroll of the Russian secret service.

And Punchline #2:

  • History does not have to repeat itself. Maybe we can find a shortcut.

Also maybe those looking for the moment in time when Germany finally rotated away from its pro-western mindset and took a long, hard look at the rising Eurasian/BRIC/counter US Dollar axis, should remember this article...

* * *

Full article:

The West on the wrong path

In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal – and harms German interests.

Every war is accompanied by a kind of mental mobilization: war fever. Even smart people are not immune to controlled bouts of this fever. “This war in all its atrociousness is still a great and wonderful thing. It is an experience worth having“ rejoiced Max Weber in 1914 when the lights went out in Europe. Thomas Mann felt a “cleansing, liberation, and a tremendous amount of hope“.

Even when thousands already lay dead on the Belgian battle fields, the war fever did not subside. Exactly 100 years ago, 93 painters, writers, and scientists composed the “Call to the world of culture.“ Max Liebermann, Gerhart Hauptmann, Max Planck, Wilhelm Röntgen, and others encouraged their countrymen to engage in cruelty towards their neighbor: “Without German militarism, German culture would have been swept from the face of the earth a long time ago. The German armed forces and the German people are one. This awareness makes 70 million Germans brothers without prejudice to education, status, or party.“

We interrupt our own train of thought: “History is not repeating itself!” But can we be so sure about that these days? In view of the war events in the Crimean and eastern Ukraine, the heads of states and governments of the West suddenly have no more questions and all the answers. The US Congress is openly discussing arming Ukraine. The former security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends arming the citizens there for house-to-house and street combat. The German Chancellor, as it is her habit, is much less clear but no less ominous: “We are ready to take severe measures.“

German journalism has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.

Newspapers we thought to be all about thoughts and ideas now march in lock-step with politicians in their calls for sanctions against Russia's President Putin. Even the headlines betray an aggressive tension as is usually characteristic of hooligans when they 'support' their respective teams.

The Tagesspiegel: “Enough talk!“ The FAZ: “Show strength“. The Süddeutsche Zeitung: “Now or never.“ The Spiegel calls for an “End to cowardice“: “Putin's web of lies, propaganda, and deception has been exposed. The wreckage of MH 17 is also the result of a crashed diplomacy.“

Western politics and German media agree.

Every reflexive string of accusations results in the same outcome: in no time allegations and counter-allegations become so entangled that the facts become almost completely obscured.

Who deceived who first?

Did it all start with the Russian invasion of the Crimean or did the West first promote the destabilization of the Ukraine? Does Russia want to expand into the West or NATO into the East? Or did maybe two world-powers meet at the same door in the middle of the night, driven by very similar intentions towards a defenseless third that now pays for the resulting quagmire with the first phases of a civil war?

If at this point you are still waiting for an answer as to whose fault it is, you might as well just stop reading. You will not miss anything. We are not trying to unearth this hidden truth. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it will end. And we are sitting right here, in the middle of it. At least Peter Sloterdijk has a few words of consolation for us: “To live in the world means to live in uncertainty.“

Our purpose is to wipe off some of the foam that has formed on the debating mouths, to steal words from the mouths of both the rabble-rousers and the roused, and put new words there instead. One word that has become disused of late is this: realism.

The politics of escalation show that Europe sorely misses a realistic goal. It's a different thing in the US. Threats and posturing are simply part of the election preparations. When Hillary Clinton compares Putin with Hitler, she does so only to appeal to the Republican vote, i.e. people who do not own a passport. For many of them, Hitler is the only foreigner they know, which is why Adolf Putin is a very welcome fictitious campaign effigy. In this respect, Clinton and Obama have a realistic goal: to appeal to the people, to win elections, to win another Democratic presidency.

Angela Merkel can hardly claim these mitigating circumstances for herself. Geography forces every German Chancellor to be a bit more serious. As neighbors of Russia, as part of the European community bound in destiny, as recipient of energy and supplier of this and that, we Germans have a clearly more vital interest in stability and communication. We cannot afford to look at Russia through the eyes of the American Tea Party.

Every mistake starts with a mistake in thinking. And we are making this mistake if we believe that only the other party profits from our economic relationship and thus will suffer when this relationship stops. If economic ties were maintained for mutual profit, then severing them will lead to mutual loss. Punishment and self-punishment are the same thing in this case.

Even the idea that economic pressure and political isolation would bring Russia to its knees was not really thought all the way through. Even if we could succeed: what good would Russia be on its knees? How can you want to live together in the European house with a humiliated people whose elected leadership is treated like a pariah and whose citizens you might have to support in the coming winter.

Of course, the current situation requires a strong stance, but more than anything a strong stance against ourselves. Germans have neither wanted nor caused these realities, but they are now our realities. Just consider what Willy Brandt had to listen to when his fate as mayor of Berlin placed him in the shadow of the wall. What sanctions and punishments were suggested to him. But he decided to forgo this festival of outrage. He never turned the screw of retribution.

When he was awarded the Noble Prize for Peace he shed light on what went on around him in the hectic days when the wall was built: “There is still another aspect – that of impotence disguised by verbalism: taking a stand on legal positions which cannot become a reality and planning counter-measures for contingencies that always differ from the one at hand. At critical times we were left to our own devices; the verbalists had nothing to offer.“

The verbalists are back and their headquarters are in Washington D.C. But nobody is forcing us to kowtow to their orders. Following this lead – even if calculatingly and somewhat reluctantly as in the case of Merkel – does not protect the German people, but may well endanger it. This fact remains a fact even if it was not the American but the Russians who were responsible for the original damage in the Crimean and in eastern Ukraine.

Willy Brandt decided clearly differently than Merkel in the present, and that in a clearly more intense situation. As he recalls, he had awoken on the morning of August 13, 1961 “wide awake and at the same time numb“. He had stopped over in Hanover on a trip when he received reports from Berlin about work being done on the large wall separating the city. It was a Sunday morning and the humiliation could hardly be greater for a sitting mayor.

The Soviets had presented him with a fait accompli. The Americans had not informed him even though they had probably received some information from Moscow. Brandt remembers that an “impotent rage“ had risen in him. But what did he do? He reined in his feelings of impotence and displayed his great talent as reality-based politician which would garner him a stint as Chancellor and finally also the Nobel Prize for Peace.

With the advice from Egon Bahr, he accepted the new situation, knowing that no amount of outrage from the rest of the world would bring this wall down again for a while. He even ordered the West-Berlin police to use batons and water cannons against demonstrators at the wall in order not to slip from the catastrophe of division into the much greater catastrophe of war. He strove for the paradox which Bahr put as follows later: “We acknowledged the Status Quo in order to change it.“

And they managed to accomplish this change. Brandt and Bahr made the specific interests of the West Berlin population for who they were now responsible (from June 1962 onwards this also included this author) into the measure of their politics.

In Bonn they negotiated the Berlin subvention, an eight-percent tax-free subvention on payroll and income tax. In the vernacular it was called the “fear premium“. They also negotiated a travel permit treaty with East Berlin which made the wall permeable again two years after it was put up. Between Christmas 1963 and New Year’s 1964, 700 000 inhabitants of Berlin visited their relatives in the east of the city. Every tear of joy turned into a vote for Brandt a short while later.

The voters realized that here was someone who wanted to affect the way they lived every day, not just generate a headline for the next morning. In an almost completely hopeless situation, this SPD man fought for western values – in this case the values of freedom of movement – without bullhorns, without sanctions, without the threat of violence. The elite in Washington started hearing words that had never been heard in politics before: Compassion. Change through rapprochement. Dialog. Reconciliation of interests. And this in the middle of the Cold War, when the world powers were supposed to attack each other with venom, when the script contained only threats and protestations; set ultimatums, enforce sea blockades, conduct representative wars, this is how the Cold War was supposed to be run.

A German foreign policy striving for reconciliation – in the beginning only the foreign policy of Berlin – not only appeared courageous but also very strange.

The Americans – Kennedy, Johnson, then Nixon – followed the German; it kicked off a process which is unparalleled in the history of enemy nations. Finally, there was a meeting in Helsinki in order to set down the rules. The Soviet Union was guaranteed “non-interference into their internal affairs“ which filled party boss Leonid Brezhnev with satisfaction and made Franz Josef Strauß's blood boil. In return, the Moscow Communist Party leadership had to guarantee the West (and thus their own civil societies) “respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including that of thought, conscience, religion or belief“.

In this way “non-interference“ was bought through “involvement“. Communism had received an eternal guarantee for its territory, but within its borders universal human rights suddenly began to brew. Joachim Gauck remembers: “The word that allowed my generation to go on was Helsinki.“

It is not too late for the duo Merkel/Steinmeier to use the concepts and ideas of this time. It does not make sense to just follow the strategically idea-less Obama. Everyone can see how he and Putin are driving like in a dream directly towards a sign which reads: Dead End.

“The test for politics is not how something starts but how it ends“, so Henry Kissinger, also a Peace Nobel Prize winner. After the occupation of the Crimean by Russia he stated: we should want reconciliation, not dominance. Demonizing Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for the lack thereof. He advises condensing conflicts, i.e. to make them smaller, shrink them, and then distill them into a solution.

At the moment (and for a long time before that) America is doing the opposite. All conflicts are escalated. The attack of a terror group named Al Qaida is turned into a global campaign against Islam. Iraq is bombed using dubious justifications. Then the US Air Force flies on to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The relationship to the Islamic world can safely be considered damaged.

If the West had judged the then US government which marched into Iraq without a resolution by the UN and without proof of the existence of “WMDs“ by the same standards as today Putin, then George W. Bush would have immediately been banned from entering the EU. The foreign investments of Warren Buffett should have been frozen, the export of vehicles of the brands GM, Ford, and Chrysler banned.

The American tendency to verbal and then also military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies has not proven effective. The last successful major military action the US conducted was the Normandy landing. Everything else – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – was a clear failure. Moving NATO units towards the Polish border and thinking about arming Ukraine is a continuation of a lack of diplomacy by the military means.

This policy of running your head against the wall – and doing so exactly where the wall is the thickest – just gives you a head ache and not much else. And this considering that the wall has a huge door in the relationship of Europe to Russia. And the key to this door is labeled “reconciliation of interests“.

The first step is what Brandt called “compassion“, i.e. the ability to see the world through the eyes of the others. We should stop accusing the 143 million Russian that they look at the world differently than John McCain.

What is needed is help in modernizing the country, no sanctions which will further decrease the dearth of wealth and damage the bond of relationships. Economic relationships are also relationships. International cooperation is akin to tenderness between nations because everyone feels better afterwards.

It is well-known that Russia is an energy super-power and at the same time a developing industrial nation. The policy of reconciliation and mutual interests should attack here. Development aid in return for territorial guarantees; Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even had the right words to describe this: modernization partnership. He just has to dust it off and use it as an aspirational word. Russia should be integrated, not isolated. Small steps in that direction are better than the great nonsense of exclusionary politics.

Brandt and Bahr have never reached for the tool of economic sanctions. They knew why: there are no recorded cases in which countries under sanctions apologized for their behavior and were obedient ever after. On the contrary: collective movements start in support of the sanctioned, as is the case today in Russia. The country was hardly ever more unified behind their president than now. This could almost lead you to think that the rabble-rousers of the West are on the payroll of the Russian secret service.

One more comment about the tone of the debate. The annexation of the Crimean was in violation of international law. The support of separatists in eastern Ukraine also does not mesh with our ideas of the state sovereignty. The boundaries of states are inviolable.

But every act requires context. And the German context is that we are a society on probation which may not act as if violations of international law started with the events in the Crimean.

Germany has waged war against its eastern neighbor twice in the past 100 years. The German soul, which we generally claim to be on the romantic side, showed its cruel side.

Of course, we who came later can continue to proclaim our outrage against the ruthless Putin and appeal to international law against him, but the way things are this outrage should come with a slight blush of embarrassment. Or to use the words of Willy Brandt: “Claims to absolutes threaten man.“

In the end, even the men who had succumbed to war fever in 1914 had to realize this. After the end of the war, the penitent issued a second call, this time to understanding between nations: “The civilized world became a war camp and battle field. It is time that a great tide of love replaces the devastating wave of hatred.“

We should try to avoid the detour via the battle fields in the 21st century. History does not have to repeat itself. Maybe we can find a shortcut.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Aknownymouse's picture

Tell Vlad I will have much more flexibility once elected again. Hussein.

dontgoforit's picture

Right.  Aren't o-peach-me, and many of his supports, KGB?  Didn't they take courses in Harvard on Moscow?

SoberOne's picture

I've been saying this for weeks, if not months now. Something is fishy and fuck obama's flexibility. 

economics9698's picture

Just say it like it is, the United States is controlled by the tribe.  This means never ending wars, debt, and totalitarian government.  Good for them if they reject the bull shit we live with every day.  Fuck the tribe.

fockewulf190's picture

Been checking the MSM over here...so far no one has mentioned a peep about this article.  Not even teletext.  Looks like someone is getting the cold shoulder.  Surprising is that manager-magazin didn´t run with the story.

WTFx10's picture

Just like Germany pre-WW2.

We did lose WW2 didn't we?

ThroxxOfVron's picture

History would seem to indicate that the victor in a conflict/war is the aggresor which is left holding/controlling the most landmass/resources at the end of the conflict/war.

When WW2 ended it was the USSR that had gained control of the largest volume of landmass over which it had not previously controlled.

IMHO that fact pretty much sums up who had won what at the conclusion of hostilites.

piliage's picture

Yes, but traditionally then they don't shut off the economy with communism. In fact the soviets blocked international competition from the traditionally powerful Prussia when they implemented the blockade and built the wall effectively giving the USA market monopoly in Europe. In that way, yes, the USA was the big winner as it gained the most economically.

The Proletariat's picture

We did lose WW2 didn't we?

Yes.  Because nobody wins in war...


SMG's picture

"Just say it like it is, the United States is controlled by the tribe"  You are implying the Oligarchs are Jewish, but ther're not.   They're more fond of Lucifer actually.   You wouldn't want to blame the wrong people right? 

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Maybe he implied a Tribe of Zionists?

InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

Political ideologies do not equate to tribes.

conscious being's picture

That's the enchalada they want you to swallow.

TheReplacement's picture

Ah there I get it.  That is a terrible use of the language.  A much more applicable and accurate phrase might be Gang of Criminals.  Tribe means blood relations.  There is no way all the people behind this are related - Pols (Obama), Bankers, MIC, petty tyrant beaurocrats...  There is a long list of people in on it.

Would people start using Gang of Criminals instead.  It will be factual and much less hateful, thereby not crazy paranoid Nazi sounding.

conscious being's picture

How about the antiSemetism term? Is that a terrible, Orwellian NewSpeak use of language? I mean the Semetics are the people getting slaughtered and maimed in Gaza. Who are the 'anti's?

HamFistedIdiot's picture

The highest level Zionists are members of a Secret Society, the Death Set, and while they may pay homage to their respective religions (Christian or Jewish) they are more indebted to their true God Lucifer/Baal. All this drive toward centralized control (EU, NAFTA, WTO, NATO) is fueled by their soulless greed.

Thisson's picture

Enough with your decisive bullshit.  Believe it or not there are plenty of Jews who are pissed off at Obama and that want to End the Fed.  Go fuck yourself.

WhackoWarner's picture

Most people do understand that Jewish does not EQUAL Zionist.  Not like I say potatoe  and you say POTato. 

TheReplacement's picture

See my post above.  Zionist is not a good word for it.  Tribe is bad too.  One means there is a blood relationship and the other a sort of nationalism, as in for the good of 'the people and the nation'.  The people making all of these bad things happen are not related, hence no tribe.  Many of them do not care what happens to their people or their nation, hence no zionism.  This diverse subset of people really don't share anything in common beyond being criminals of the first order.  They are a Gang of Criminals.  I use criminals because they don't just lie, cheat, steal, murder.  No, they do them all and even worse, they get others to do these things willfully or not, aware or ignorantly.  They are manipulators without conscience. 

What's worse is there isn't just one gang.  There appear to be several.  If all the Muslims were on the same team they wouldn't be killing each other.  Same for white people going to the verge of WWIII.  Latin America is just a cesspool with little tyrants here, there, everywhere.  Examples are limitless.  Within the just the US you have many factions; the MIC, bankers, unions, team red, team blue, and so on.  They are like the olympic rings with different spheres that overlap here and there.  Sometimes the overlap looks like cooperation like the Patriot Act and how that gives them more power over us or it looks like conflict like when one party tries to put the other on trial. 

I'm not sure that accepting reality and trying to reconcile with them all is going to work for us. 

Wow that took a turn.

conscious being's picture

Sorry Replacement, Zionism is the enemy. At its most basic, Zionism is a racist, apparthied ideology.

Ondoron's picture

Btw. polls in Germany show that 80% of the Germans think pro Russian. The MSM propaganda does not succeed!

fockewulf190's picture

Really?  If you have a link to one please post it if you would.

aleph0's picture

Ondoron is correct.

The number I saw was 79% ... good enough .

InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

I guess your text is a good as a link.

disabledvet's picture

To the Khuban! The Volga Germans will be avenged!

(Oh, wait...we're already in the Khuban.)

To the Volga then! AND BEYOND!

tvdog's picture

NTV did a telephone survey and suppressed the results when 89% indicated "understanding" of Putin's position:

http://www.sott.net/article/279079-German-media-censors-poll-result-show...

BTW, use of polls to manipulate public opinion is an old tactic first employed by the Tavistock Institute back in World War I.

papaclop's picture

The only flexibility I've seen in the White House is the backstroking Slobama did on Syria. Putin is not evil, he is a much better chess player than Slobama.

Bokkenrijder's picture

KGB? The KGB no longer exists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

ZH needs to check some facts: many years ago, the KGB was split up into the FSB for domestic and counter-intellegence, and the SVR for international intellegence gathering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_%28Russia%29

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

There were excessive Cold War references in the article, which don't help IMO, but it shows the background of the author, as well as his target audience.

 

dontgoforit's picture

Westerners understand what 'KGB' means, split or not.  Geo. H.W. Bush was Director CIA, so essentially, Putin has held the counterparty position.

Socratic Dog's picture

Got it.  And the moon is made of green cheese, right?

Read his lips.  The kgb hasn't existed for 23 years.  Headline writer looks fucking stupid.  End of story.

TheReplacement's picture

So someone wrote a wiki page and now the kgb doesn't exist?  So what if it was split?  Who do both arms ultimately work for - the same guy they used to work for back in the day. 

If you have a sandwich and cut it in half you still have a sandwich.

Did you read the ZH article above?  You have to first accept reality.  Putin is still in charge of what was the kgb.  Hence it is accurate to refer to it as the kgb still.  It does the same thing and works for the same guy even if it is called new names.

conscious being's picture

MsCreant - not too literal. Part of the Knoodleman-Kaganites agenda is to conflate the new Russia with the old Soviet Union. Given the Holdomor, this has special signifigance in the Ukraine. Strangely, the descendants of those who ran the Holdomor are now running the Junta in Kiev. I would think the typical Ukrainian would be pretty upset about that.

Serfs Up's picture

Energy.  The entire op-ed skipped over the energy part.  How can that still be true in this day and age?  Energy is *everything*, the rest is noise.

1000yrdstare's picture

Bingo! the Germans like Russian energy....soon to be cut off by the Ukes....

MarsInScorpio's picture

I noticed he skipped over the Kosovo vote to break away and become an independent country. For some reason, critics of the Ukrainian votes fail to mention that the legal concept of voting oneself out of a country was validated in Kosovo.

  

They also fail to mention the illegal acts of the US in funding a violent overthrow of a legitimately elected democratic government - and fail to call for the issuance of an international warrant for the arrest and trial of the perps who funneled the $5-billion to the Nazis who now occupy the government buildings in Kiev.

 

Minor points . . . right.

-30-

BlindMonkey's picture

I am just happy to see somebody in the west take a breath and advocate for...wait for it.....statesmanship.

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

We all know this is about one thing: money. With their prior shitstorms winding down (Iraq, Afghanistan) they desperately needed another way to channel taxpayer dollars into more war. We tried Libya, Egypt, Syria, now it's Ukraine

Keyser's picture

Think big picture... If Ukraine cuts off their nose to spite their face and shuts down the pipelines to southern EU, the ONLY pipeline into eastern Europe from Russia goes to Germany... KaChing!!!!

old naughty's picture

but wait...are you in effect saying the opposite is true: 

"This could almost lead you to think that the rabble-rousers of the West are on the payroll of the Russian secret service." 

"This could almost lead you to think that the rabble-rousers of the German papers are on the payroll of the Russian secret service?"

 

So the oligarchs will help, no?

conscious being's picture

One of the points he's making is that the German papers are in a kind of rabid lock-step with the Zato line. Maybe the MSM in Germany is all bought off, just like the USA! USA! MSM? Certainly looks to be the case.  Don't you agree? Maybe the Ruppert Murdochs and other Western Oligarchs are helping out, wink, wink, if you know what I mean. Do you think so?

disabledvet's picture

And Iraq.

Again.

"Third times a charm Big Brother!"

crazzziecanuck's picture

Kosovo didn't vote itself out of anything.  All Kosovo has been allowed to become is a parcelled off part of Serbia/Yugoslavia to become an American military base, like Guantanamo Bay.  But with a token "elected leadership" that can't do anything without Washington's approval.

Kosovo isn't a good example here, except for Western hypocrisy when it comes to military interventions on the other side of the globe.

 

With regards to this portion:

"The last successful major military action the US conducted was the Normandy landing. Everything else – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – was a clear failure."

The author has forgotten about Grenada and Panama.  lol

FlyingDutchman's picture

Cuba was also a great success.

August's picture

"The last successful major military action the US conducted was the Normandy landing. Everything else – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – was a clear failure."

Successful enough. 

"The purpose of war...  is not victory."

  -  Emmanuel Goldstein

conscious being's picture

Kosovo isn't a good example here, except for Western hypocrisy when it comes to military interventions on the other side of the globe.

Huh? Isn't a good example?

I think he was trying to draw attention to Western hypocrisy. And appropriately so. Kosovo set a precedent whether Zato likes it or not.

ThroxxOfVron's picture

No Administration in any nation on this Earth wishes to concede the right of individuals to their self determination.  The plantation system must be maintained at all costs lest the citizenries opt out of the bureaucracies and their programmes and/or rise up in arms against the machinations of the management classes of the Corporate States.

TheReplacement's picture

His point was to be realistic.  You can rave about everything under the sun and nobody will listen.  He is simply calling for everyone to take a deep breath and take an objective and realistic look at this showdown with Russia before it turns into a war.  He was being realistic to set an example.

Sudden Debt's picture

THe war is between those who own the energy. And we don't own it, we pay for it.
So is it for the Americans, they fight for the oil and gas and when they come home, sometimes shot to pieces or shell shocked, they still have to pay for it.
And those who own it, won't send their kids to war. At least not on a battlefield at the front lines.