Message added by william.scherk

One person whose opinions I wish we could consult right now is the founder of Objectivism. Having a cold eye on the Soviet Union, a cold eye for any unfree state, a cold eye for dictatorships, Ayn Rand would likely be able to add moral clarity to the 'debates' about Russia Russia Russia.

A  couple of folks here have contended that Rand would be enamoured of Donald Trump, a notion I find preposterous. But I could be very wrong.

What to learn about Russian goals when you don't really care [updated]


william.scherk

4,302 views

One of the items I fish out of the general Russia Russia Russia hoopla is geopolitical strategy. In other words, setting aside the unproven allegations of the Trump-Russia 'collusion' grab-bag, and putting to one side the actual details of the "Russia hack" of the 2016 US presidential election -- leaving the residual "what is this administration's larger strategy with regard to Russia, its hopes and fears, its ambitions."

This is no easy task. The election campaign revealed just a few rules of thumb that a Trump administration would use in a new relationship. 

Each of us will have an impression of just what President Trump hopes to achieve in relation to Russia between now and 2020. For me, having studied utterances of Michael Flynn and the many Russia/Putin statements from the president, it is to "get along," to cooperate where it serves American interests, and perhaps to let Russia back in from the cold by removing sanctions where appropriate. In an sense, it is a desire to move the 'deep state' off its suspicious foundations in order to make a better partnership with the Eurasian nuclear power. 

(the 'deep state' I envision as the intersection of established policy [of the executive branch, including national security agencies] and law [from the legislature]; it is the entrenched state of affairs, the 'ship of state' -- a vehicle of praxis built up over time. The 'deep state' of course takes its orders not from a shadowy cartel, but from department policy as written, intelligence findings as transmitted, and law. Law as in the welter of official acts and regulations, eg, Magnitsky-related sanctions. The 'deep state' vehicle can be refitted and given new missions, but this takes time, time to install new commanders with clear mission statements, time to legislate and decree a change in direction, speed, goal and targets)

Having established their own briefs on facts and values, strategy and intelligence, law and practice, OLers might like me might have asked themselves the same set of questions -- not of the American 'vehicle' commanded by President Trump, but of the Russian ship of state.

What Russia wants.

-- that boring introduction done, here is a well-written analysis of Russian imperatives:

Russia’s Evolving Grand Eurasia Strategy: Will It Work?

NB: at 4200 words the article is not light reading.  But I suspect readers will be better able to answer the question "What is a proper Russia policy for the USA?" 

One person whose opinions I wish we could consult right now is the founder of Objectivism. Having a cold eye on the Soviet Union, a cold eye for any unfree state, a cold eye for dictatorships, Ayn Rand would likely be able to add moral clarity to the 'debates' about Russia Russia Russia.

A  couple of folks here have contended that Rand would be enamored of Donald Trump, a notion I find preposterous. But I could be very wrong.

[Spelling and grammar plotzes fixed Jan 10, 2018]

191 Comments


Recommended Comments



4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Billy, have you seen the actual real examples of the Ruskies previous attempts at influence on social media?

Yes, I have seen examples. Agitation and propaganda by way of the Internet Research Agency has been well-documented. One example of one kind of agitprop misinformation/disinformation is the phony Tennessee GOP account on Twitter. 

Quote

If not I'd suggest checking them out. They have the same quality and effectiveness as obviously uneducated foreigners transparently masquerading as royalty looking for someone to help them move their wealth to America.

I'll check out what you highlight -- if you have a link for readers, or some stories to share.

Quote

"Trumps is be goot president. Will be glorious leader.  Helury horrible smell like stink garbages." Well, not quite that obvious, but awkward and unaware of American culture and how to tap into it, or how to convincingly mimic it.

This begs the question.  How would an average Twitter or Facebook user discover that a followed account is agitprop fakery if it did not show obvious cultural clangers? In the context of Twitter, all manner of kooks and nitwits are represented.

Quote

The idea that it had mass influence is ridiculous. It's a Narrative.

It is amazing to me still how much bullshit is passed along via Twitter. The work of such independent investigative outfits as bellingcat and PropornotID (among others) helps me see just how far a lie can spread and infect the larger discourse.

For example, just this week, a real piece of work: an article in Newsweek suggesting Secretary of Defence Mattis had "admitted" that the USA had no evidence that Syria had used the nerve-agent Sarin on his own people. I won't get into the fine details, but give a link to two  Eliot Higgins articles explaining the errors, mistakes and frank untruths ...

Quote

The continuing grim seriousness about it by important top men in suits and frowny faces is a political clownshow.

If I were American I would likely be most concerned with discrete attempts to intrude on state election systems. It seems pretty easy to dismiss the political theatre yesterday as a "clownshow" if one believe that all Russian active measures were of vanishing impact in all scopes and aspects. I don't  know if that is the most rational starting point for an inquirer (though it could serve as a null hypothesis). I guess we'll see what happens between now and the voting on November 6.

I figure that trying to understand Russian goals/motives in America is a useful, fruitful cognitive endeavor. I think that the prime motive falls under the rubric "Disrupt." 

Readers may be interested in a short Quartz article that looked at the Internet Research Agency.

[Locked for editing] 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

And keep in mind that the evil Russian interlopers also created posts and memes supporting Hillary. Yet we're to believe that somehow only the pro-Trump ones had an effect, and at a magical, Svengali-like rate that exceeded all records of advertising influence. We're to believe that these clumsy Ruskies actually really know their shit when it comes to free market rhetoric. Their work is Where's the Beef, plus Spuds McKenzie, times the California Raisins, times Dilly Dilly cubed. People were absolutely hypnotized by it!

Here are some samples of the least laughably bad ones:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

They're unfocused, advertising camouflage. Boring. Lifeless. Culturally off-track junk.

The idea that this bland, awkward stuff had influence above the rates of success of the most sophisticated advertising in history is a Narrative looking for scraps of evidence to support it. It's a conspiracy theory equivalent to 9/11 inside job and fake moon landings.

The Dems had decided that Narrative was true long before they tried to collect evidence to support it. And now everything they do is designed to appear to support that Narrative. The one thing that they're not doing is actually investigating whether or not anyone was influenced by any of the Ruskies' tactics. They're not even asking how they would logically go about making such a determination. They're not asking if the mere attempt automatically equals success, as they falsely assume, and, if not, then by what mean would they measure the influence of the posts and memes. After all, the Narrative was that people were naturally going to vote for Hillary, and then they were exposed to a few mesmerizing posts and memes, instantly became controlled zombie puppets, and obeyed the command to switch to Trump. Where is the evidence of any of that?

So far, the "logic" is that the Ruskies posted and memed, and Hillary should have won because we wanted her to and it was just an inevitable fact of reality that she would win, but she lost, so therefore something unfair caused her to have her natural birthright stolen from her, and the only answer is that the Ruskies' posts and memes must have hypnotized people. No one in their right mind would vote for Trump, so the fact that people DID vote for him is proof that they must have been hypnotized by Russian memes.

Link to comment

BTW, Billy, aren't you Canadian?!!! Why are you posting about American politics to Americans? Are you trying to have foreign influence over us? WTF?

Fucken Canadian Hegemonist tricksters!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Narrative. The one thing that [Dems]'re not doing is actually investigating whether or not anyone was influenced by any of the Ruskies' tactics.

I'd hoped you would look into and comment on the kind of disinformation exemplified by the Syria Sarin hoopla noted above. The tactic certainly worked to edge the Russian Narrative closer to mainstream acceptance in America. That the intel agencies are hopelessly confused, that ISIS-ish rebels in Syria are responsible for all the Sarin use documented by the OPCW and the UN investigations.

youtubeSearchSyriaSarin2.png

The "Dems," as a blob, can seem a hideous and corrupt political actor, bloodless and instransigeant. That the blob has convinced itself that Trump himself is tainted by Russia I can agree with. 

There are a few independent researchers (meaning non-affiliated groups of ad-hoc diggers and doubters and skeptics) who have and will have dug deep into the particulars of the influence campaigns you remark upon. If you like, I can assemble a primer on that kind of stuff, minus the Louise Mensch-ish outliers and kooks who abound.

Quote

They're not even asking how they would logically go about making such a determination.

Yeah. But you and I aren't doing that.  I mean, by my example of the Syrian Sarin file, I can contend that  influence campaigns have particular effects. I do know a fair bit about this issue, so that is why I go on boringly on about it. It creeps me out that the 'false-flag' 'hoax' brigades do so well in discrediting rational inquiry such that the 'woken' population accepts without question the "Mattis Admits" line. The success of Russian-Syrian misinformation is depressing to me.  Does that throw an election? Not at all. I guess I must expand my remit here.

youtubeSearchSyriaSarin.png

Quote

They're not asking if the mere attempt automatically equals success, as they falsely assume, and, if not, then by what mean would they measure the influence of the posts and memes.

The grossest generalization is that Russia helped swing the election for Trump.  The least gross generalization for me is that it pays rational dividends to be aware as much as possible just what "active measures" Russia employs in disrupting the Western alliance members.

Quote

After all, the Narrative was that people were naturally going to vote for Hillary, and then they were exposed to a few mesmerizing posts and memes, instantly became controlled zombie puppets, and obeyed the command to switch to Trump. Where is the evidence of any of that?

This puts into sharp relief a rather comic vision of "a few mesmerizing posts and memes" on the transmission belts of social media, at least as concerns the blob Narrative and the blob Dems. 

What about an informed person like me, who gets depressed at the penetration of falsity and deception (eg, Sarin) into the American opinion-o-news-sphere?  If media today has an influence, if social media has an influence, if social media led influence campaigns ramify false premises and corrupt erstwhile "independent woke investigators" in the demi-media -- how could one possibly measure effects, ramifications and so on? A good set of queries ...

I try to answer or investigate individual claims and the arguments within which they are embedded. My interests sort of converge in Syria. The cult of Assad has taken root in the alt-right 'woken' fringes. it is disquieting ...

At some point, perhaps, I became a controlled zombie puppet of the Soros-Reptilian-Unwoke Cabal -- which is what the kooks I encounter on Twitter tend to assume about anyone not bought into the false-flaggery crap in re Sarin.  You wouldn't believe what kinds of satanic memberships are presumed by some of Eliot''s most lit critics. Including such leftist stalwarts as Max Blumenthal, who ends up slagging Eliot and associated Syrian claims and groups ... on Sean Hannity. Yes, RT alumni and Sarin truther Max Leftmost Party Blumenthal on FoxNews.

Anyhow, active measures. Cyber-intrusions into state election machinery. Disinformation on bloat, disruption of and weakening confidence in US institutions, diminishing prestige of its brand.  November on the horizon, and six grim clowns suggest the Ruskie has his eye on doing more of the same (mesmerizing).

I have a couple of fleas in my ear, I expect. 

In a slightly larger context, Trump has his own 'committees of benghazi' dogging him -- as it pertains to his enunciated Russia policy, he is constrained.  That may be a defect in the US system -- that the chief executive is stymied in his plans for a major re-set of relations -- or it may be a built-in check and balance.

I see a disjunct between what the Trump-appointed Grim Clowns say and what the President says. I do hope the benghazis come to a conclusion that unconstrains Trump's policy vision. A president is given the power to change policy. He should be given the opportunity to do so. If there is a big re-set on the horizon, however, it may be just out of reach until 2021.  Depending on whether Congress lurches slightly left this fall and how much benghazi-committee bullshit drags on.

For the woken, a report like this one by the BBC yesterday will be trashed as NATO 'narrative' ... that Sarin is always and only used in false flag attacks. Ergo, this is notice of a false flag. 

Syria war: suspected Sarin attack on rebel-held Saraqib – BBC Newsnight


 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Yeah, I'm not saying that the Ruskies didn't succeed in any way, and that each and every one of their misinformations campaigns shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess what I am saying is that when the Grim Clowns don't separate themselves from the bullshit Narrative, I can't take anything they say as being trustworthy.

There's really nothing new about the Russians trying to mess with our heads, to infiltrate and influence our system. Why the sudden concern from the left? In fact, why isn't the left applauding Russian attempts at influence? They have the same goals and ideologies.

Link to comment

While I am almost near the subject ... American military forces kill Russian/Russian-allied military forces. Is this meaningful, or is it according to the law of unintended consequences? Not that these alternatives are exhaustive or mutually-exclusive.

 

Link to comment

Billy, did any of that ads from the link that I posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

...have the effect of pulling you in and altering your views? Did any stir you up and get your blood boiling, or the opposite -- anesthetize you, put you into a trance -- and make you suddenly not care about something that you had previously cared about, or make you forget and abandon previous positions and instantly adopt new passions?

I'm asking seriously. No snark. Not being adversarial. Did they move your needle even in the slightest?

As for the rest of the attempted shenanigans -- the illusions, psy-ops, head games and false flags -- again, what's new? When have these things not happened?

 

 

Link to comment
On 14/02/2018 at 8:34 AM, william.scherk said:

How would an average Twitter or Facebook user discover that a followed account is agitprop fakery if it did not show obvious cultural clangers? 

There are no obvious answers to this, I guess. 

Regarding cyber intrusions and diminishing prestige ...

On 14/02/2018 at 1:22 PM, william.scherk said:

Anyhow, active measures. Cyber-intrusions into state election machinery. Disinformation on bloat, disruption of and weakening confidence in US institutions, diminishing prestige of its brand.  November on the horizon, and six grim clowns suggest the Ruskie has his eye on doing more of the same (mesmerizing). [...]

In a slightly larger context, Trump has his own 'committees of benghazi' dogging him -- as it pertains to his enunciated Russia policy, he is constrained.  That may be a defect in the US system -- that the chief executive is stymied in his plans for a major re-set of relations -- or it may be a built-in check and balance.

Here is stalwart defender of values, Jack Posobiec, giving his opinion on "what Russia wants" -- in light of the grim clowns shtick. Oddly, or not-so-oddly, his opinions parallel some of mine to a close degree.

From a more lengthy Youtube version of a Periscope videocast a couple of days back ... "Russian information operation revealed #4DWarfare."

Link to comment

The President's words in this statement are interesting. So, what kind of prep does he have in mind with regard to this fall's elections?

 

Link to comment

Here below is Gorilla Mindset author, lawyer and Twitter powerhouse Mike Cernovich. In this video I have had some fun with editing,  though not I hope to distort his conclusions about the indictments published yesterday.  He starts off by noting he has read the full text. I invite readers here to do that also, lest they be what Mike rails against ...

His main points are classed in three parts: what is good about the indictments, what is bad, and what is terrifying for all good members of the good people party. He also makes a  prediction. 

In essence he concludes that the indictments put Americans in danger of being prosecuted by Russia.  That could be. It also could be that Russia will double-down on active measures slash information warfare ... 

Notable is that Cernovich and the right-wing fog machine have no questions for the President.  No expectations.  If Trump wants to get ahead of Mueller and Co, Russia may be expecting him to do something/nothing ... as noted earlier, the sanctions bill that attracted massive bipartisan support has not been enforced by the White House. Yet.

From Cernovich's Youtube channelMueller grand jury indicts 13 Russian nationals. What does it mean?

Let us know if you are 'terrified' about the indictments' ramifications ...

Link to comment
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here below is Gorilla Mindset author, lawyer and Twitter powerhouse Mike Cernovich.

William,

You left out lawyer. A damn good one. And maybe legal scourge of Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and other bigshot ruling class elitists who try to abuse power, along with the mighty mean machine, Sam Seder, and other brutal hunky Herculean culture warriors fighting for their right to rule you and me.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here below is Gorilla Mindset author, lawyer and Twitter powerhouse Mike Cernovich. In this video I have had some fun with editing

I also had fun with Tarl Warwick, who is not a lawyer like Cernovich, but who has self-published enough to also be an author. You may know him better under his nom-de-youtube Styxhexenhammer666 ...

In this video I extracted the main Russia points made in his latest appearance, A Reaction to Robert Muellers 13 Russian Indictments (AKA Underwhelming Farce). I laid his pithy Russia-Myooler passages against an extract of hand gestures ... two minutes and thirty-one seconds.  His first fact fail comes at 0:26.

Warwick is not the only one unable to pronounce the special counsel's name. Roger Stone also says Myooler.  Which is neither here nor there.

Readers familiar with the timeline of the 'discovery' of the Internet Research Agency will recall something of the many articles first appearing in the fall of last year that looked under the hood. Here below is a new-to-me Youtuber, Tim Pool, who showed up in my 'suggested for you' highlights. He has a steady demeanour, and a bit more production chops than have David Seaman**, Tarl, or the perpetually-unwashed Cernovich.  According to a couple of online bios, he got his start with Vice and Fusion ...

In this video I have extracted Pool's opinions on Russian propaganda arms RT America and Sputnik. I note he is a sometime guest on Sputnik media and did some reporting on its functions. In the video he is ostensibly reacting to then-hoopla indicating that the FBI had been looking closely at Sputnik ... give him a chance. Three minutes of your life.

The short video is extracted from PROPAGANDA, TRIBALISM, AND BEN SHAPIRO AT BERKELEY, which was posted to Youtube on September 14, 2018. See also his RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA SUPPORTED BLACK LIVES MATTER, published on Sep 28, 2017. Show notes said, "Russian propaganda supported black lives matter in at least one ad, the ad also may have been threatening to some groups. The ad targeted Baltimore and Ferguson."

Today is 'venture out of your information silo' day.


** One of Seaman's many grievances is with Youtube. He accuses it of personal throttling, censorship, targeting and yesterday shared a picture of a black helicopter 'parked' in the sky near his apartment balcony. Today he returns to a theme demon, Susan Wojcicki, whom he calls "Catshit Face" and who he apparently believes is personally directing Youtube harassment via death of a thousand small cuts. Apparently, Google-Youtube has a new system of ratifying payment agreements with monetizers (I myself have so far accrued 0.01 US dollars).  A whole class of Youtubers like me will -- in March -- be unable to monetize; perhaps as part of implementing its new framework, longtime account-holders like David would confirm their payment agreements by use of a 'key' sent in the mail.

Unfortunately, Google did not know he moved to Colorado, and a demand to enter the confirmation 'key' could not be obeyed, as mail was not re-directed from his old address.  So, of course, to the buffet of grievance was added "the final straw" a couple of days ago ... it is not clear what David's next move will be.  I get notifications to join his zany livecasts and view his uploads ... but this is one I am going to skip till Easter ... there is only so much head-bobbing self-referential ranting a silo technician can take.
 

seamanWhingeAlert.png

  
 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

William,

Lawyer? Right in front of my nose?

Dayaamm.

If it was a snake it would have bitten me.

:)

My apologies.

I remember a time when I used to be competent...

:)

Michael

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Warwick is not the only one unable to pronounce the special counsel's name. Roger Stone also says Myooler.

Said by someone who probably pronounces about (ah-BAWT) like ah-BOOT.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
On 18/02/2018 at 9:12 AM, william.scherk said:

there is only so much head-bobbing self-referential ranting a silo technician can take.
 

seamanWhingeAlert.png

  

It wasn't as bad as I thought. It was much worse. Here's the sampling, with added stormy seashore -- since he doesn't use his green-screen blue-screen to any effect:

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Said by someone who probably pronounces about (ah-BAWT) like ah-BOOT.

Ish. I'm not from Newfoundland ... where the insular dialect spoken is a thing of wonder; out of a Newfie mouth, you will indeed hear 'Ah boot.'  The so-called Maritime provinces (New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia) also have accent-dialectical differences from other regions**. The pure Nova Scotia accent is a glory to behold. "On Saerday night I wint to da bairn pairty at my faether's faerm." "Oooh, didya filp da caer?"

My favourite linguistics term is "Voiceless Glottal Plosive."

______________________

** the French dialect of the Acadians is a fabulous outlier as well. It almost completely stumps those who know only standard Metropolitan French.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Get ready for an avalanche of 'Red-Brown' reaction to Theresa May's announcement in the House of Commons. "False Flag," "Fake News," yadda yadda.

Read up on Novichok ...

I wonder if Mr Trump will have anything to say about this ...

Link to comment

President Trump agrees with my assessment above in the OT. Is there anyone who disagrees with him (or me)?

Quote

One of the items I fish out of the general Russia Russia Russia hoopla is geopolitical strategy. In other words, setting aside the unproven allegations of the Trump-Russia 'collusion' grab-bag, and putting to one side the actual details of the "Russia hack" of the 2016 US presidential election -- leaving the residual "what is this administration's larger strategy with regard to Russia, its hopes and fears, its ambitions."

This is no easy task. The election campaign revealed just a few rules of thumb that a Trump administration would use in a new relationship. 

Each of us will have an impression of just what President Trump hopes to achieve in relation to Russia between now and 2020. For me, having studied utterances of Michael Flynn and the many Russia/Putin statements from the president, it is to "get along," to cooperate where it serves American interests, and perhaps to let Russia back in from the cold by removing sanctions where appropriate. In an sense, it is a desire to move the 'deep state' off its suspicious foundations in order to make a better partnership with the Eurasian nuclear power. 

Who needs "collusion" when Russia's Strongman has the US President just where he wants him?

Link to comment

Russia will likely respond to the coordinated expulsions of spies/diplomats in a tit for tat manner. It is interesting to see the Deep Staters prevail and President Trump approve actions against the nation judged responsible for the nerve agent attack in Britain.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Which reels back to one of the three themes of this topic, for me:  What. Is. Trump's. Russia. Policy?

William,

That's easy: "America first."

Reagan used to say it in different words: "We win. You lose."

The rest is a matter of tactics, not policy.

:)

Michael

Link to comment

Many OLers -- lurkers, guests and members -- may have learned of a fresh massacre in Syria, a massacre using chemical weapons. By some accounts by people on the ground (in the Eastern Damascus city of Douma) the attack came from the sky, in two parts, the first being chlorine and the second being a nerve-agent such as Sarin.

The so-called Red-Brown alliance** of socialists and fascists has of course leapt in to rubbish any notion that the attack was carried out by the Syrian military. The key term is "false flag."  The alliance of apologists for the Baath regime has decided this was a provocation carried out by the armed Islamic group currently in control of Douma.  The key hinge of this kind of argument is, "If Assad is winning the fight against the last remnants of 'terrorists' in Douma, having won control of the other hold-outs from his rule, then why oh why would he commit war-crimes now?"

What doesn't seem to enter the deliberations of allied minds is that the government side would itself use terror tactics ...

Be that as it may, you will find that large segments of the so-called alternative media has already rubbished the notion of an Assad nerve agent attack as implausible in the extreme. Expect the Jimmy Dore party & RT-American hirees to run with this.

In the meantime, Fox News reported on the massacre -- with horrifying photos of expired women and children -- and the President reacted on Twitter.  

Here is a sample of the news curated by Memeorandum this moment. I've highlighted items from the more or less 'right' side of the political aisle, to aid those who will not read or credit information from the Fey Canoes media:

Quote
 TOP ITEMS: 
i20.jpg Ben Hubbard / New York Times:
Dozens Suffocate in Syria as Government Is Accused of Chemical Attack  —  BEIRUT, Lebanon — Dozens of Syrians choked to death after a suspected chemical attack struck the rebel-held suburb of Douma, sending a stream of patients with burning eyes and breathing problems to medical clinics, aid groups said on Sunday.
Discussion:
Thanassis Cambanis / The Atlantic:   The Logic of Assad's Brutality
:   , , « » .
RELATED:
i78.jpg Julie Hirschfeld Davis / New York Times:
Trump Vows ‘Big Price’ for Syria Attack, Raising Prospect of Missile Strike  —  WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday promised a “big price” to be paid for what he said was a chemical weapons attack that choked dozens of Syrians to death the day before, and a top White House official …
i36.jpg Jonathan Swan / Axios:
Trump calls out Putin by name for “backing Animal Assad”  —  President Trump responded on Twitter to the alleged chemical attack by Syrian government forces that left dozens dead, calling out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name for his backing of the Assad regime. … This tweet is important.

Here are the US President's tweet mentions. The last time the US believed Assad had used Sarin (almost exactly one year ago), Trump ordered a thumping on an airfield.  I actually expect no punishing military action from the US and allies this cycle.

 


** -- it is a furiously contested term.  Here is a link to an article that goes over the top in finding links and convenient overlap between the two blobs: The Multipolar Spin. See also an explainer of the controversy over that article, An Inside Look at How Pro-Russia Trolls Got the SPLC to Censor a Commie.



 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I actually expect no punishing military action from the US and allies this cycle.

I could be wrong, quite wrong. I don't want to see the fall-out from a USA-Russia clash in Syria, but it could happen. France may also attack, but I hope not.  A regime that will use Sarin will do anything to preserve itself, will blithely lie about its acts of terror against non-combatants ... but I cannot say I have any information about the likelihood of a US /coordinated surgical or punitive action against the regime itself. Who would have thought the USA and Russia would be staring each other down over the corpses of Syria?

Here's a peculiar piece from a leader of the Pizzagate kooks ... who cannot conceive of Trump himself writing the three Presidential tweets posted above. Yes, someone hijacked the Trump account! The replies to this are in some part chilling.

What happened in the Trump-supportive world after the Sarin massacre in Khan Sheikhoun?  Over there, the airbase from which the Sarin sortie was judged to have originated was air-torpedoed from the Mediterranean.

If the US does that again, or pounds a rolling shithammer across some military property in proportion to the offence, will the Russian/Iranian axis be satisfied with posturing and bloviation?  

Here I thought to add a sardonic bit of predictive analysis. But I really don't know. If as usually happens there continues a consultative round of meeting of a crisis cabinet chaired by the President, a military menu shown and explained, how to do nothing?

Back home what would be the constituencies for torpedo barrage or a rolling shithammer or painful airborne surgery in Syria? There again I see nothing but a premonition. Sort of something like America First for some means radically fewer uses of the shithammer, a less bellicose posturing.

Here is a better sardonic predictive analysis:

[Added during edit:  the Tomahawk has struck, perhaps. Syrian state media reports attacks from Lebanese airspace on a military airbase.  CNN: US denies Syrian state media reports of US missile attack on Homs air base]

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now