Sunday, November 30, 2014

Nazis and Countries That Back Them

After Canada, USA and Ukraine were the only countries that voted "No" in the UN General Assembly to a resolution proposed by Russia condemning the glorification of Nazis, Peter Lavelle had Alexander Mercouris, Dimitri Babich and I over to discuss the meaning of that on CrossTalk.


(or watch on YouTube)

As you can see, I agree with the other two guests on almost everything - except for their assertion that Washington has ever actually regretted the consequences of its misdeeds. From where I stand, the Empire is not only absolutely unrepentant, it declares its wrongdoing to be right and just!

I mean, the New York Times of all media recently published an admission that a thousand (at least!) actual German Nazis still receive Social Security. How many thousands were brought over after WW2, and how many were propped up in Europe to "fight Communism"? And that's not counting the seven decades of collaborating with Nazis from the so-called "captive nations" (the Baltics, Ukraine, Croatia, etc), documented in The Nation (again, of all places). So it's fine that Croatians are sieg-heiling at fooball games while Kyevite militias are flying swastikas, since that represents "democracy and European future" merely defending themselves against "Serbian and Russian aggression" (see here, for example).

Another thing we didn't get a chance to mention is that all of the EU - and its hangers-on - abstained from voting. The sole European country that supported the resolution was Serbia. Personally, I'm shocked the quisling regime in Belgrade dared oppose Brussels and Washington on this, considering their absolute willingness to cut Serbia's throat on every other issue. Perhaps even they draw the line at backing Nazis, for what it's worth.

The show aired on Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and was recorded the day prior. Thus there was no time to fix the error in the titles identifying me as director of the Reiss Institute (I resigned earlier this month. It was a personal decision - nothing against the Institute, and I wish it all the best in future endeavors.)

10 comments:

dave said...

I don't think the Empire regrets instigating a civil war in Ukraine thus forcing Russia and Europe to back out of the South Stream construction.
Also, Biden promised Croatia that it would become the new regional gas hub in the Balkans.

Unknown said...

My friend, when I wrote you right after Crosstalk aired I forgot to tell you about that wrong title. Forgive me. It is so disappointing that you resigned and the Institute's website has no new articles since then. I will say it again: it was, even more than usual, a fantastic episode of Crosstalk. It always is when you are on but this time there was Dmitry Babic too. I am a big fan of his for his accurate view on the Serbs and the same is true for the great John Robles. Too bad Peter Lavelle isn't as much on that side as they are......

CubuCoko said...

The South Stream thing is definitely a curveball, but if I have learned anything about the Russians over the years, it is that while they are maddeningly unpredictable, they are NEVER random. There is a plan at work here. Let's see what happens.

dave said...

Merkel & co are already predicting (threatening) a Ukrainian scenario for Serbia and it's neighbours because of Russian influence.

I am getting the impression (some elements of) the Empire is trying to open up a new front against Russia in the Balkans no matter what and who is in charge of Serbia!

CubuCoko said...

"Russian influence"?! The Empire has made the Balkans into a hellhole, and when people try and claw their way out, that's denounced as "nationalism" and "Russian meddling"...

dave said...

@CubuCoko I've read your column at AntiWar.com. You mentioned Turkey becoming Empire's next target because of their gas deal with Russia. What if the Empire drives a wedge between Turkey and Russia through Bosnia and Serbia (incl. Kosovo)?! I have got a feeling Empire's next target is the Balkans...

balkaninfo said...

German leaders see Serbia as thier colony like during both world wars. In 2003 they even threatened the NATO puppet regime in Belgrade because it sold a steel plant to a US corporation. It's blatant German imperialism again.

"The German Ambassador in Belgrade has threatened Serbia in an official note with severe economic and legal consequences if the decision is not revoked."
http://german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/33804

"The Hegemony over Southeast Europe"
http://german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58777

With the same greedy eyes German leaders look at Ukraine. They want to destroy any Russian influence there and they choose genocide by nazi death squads (supplied with German uniforms and financed with billions of tax payers money) to achieve that and to make Ukraine a German colony again. That explains why they refused to have any dialog with Russia over Ukraine before the nazi coup. After all "the Ukraine" is a German invention.

"Germans Taught Russian Prisoners of War the Idea of Ukraine"
http://tarpley.net/metaphysical-doubts-concerning-the-existence-of-modern-ukraine-a-1918-creation-of-the-german-general-staff/

CubuCoko said...

@ dave - the Balkans has never stopped being the battlefield, really. Now things are likely to escalate - but that's not necessarily a bad thing, if it leads to a resolution. Two decades of slow death are long enough...

@balkaninfo - I agree with much of this, but that doesn't explain why Germany is seemingly accepting its role as the *American* colony. Possibly because Berlin figures it is better to be Washington's enforcer in Europe, than try again for being an actual empire, and getting crushed again (twice in the XX century being enough). But if they think they can have it both ways, they are sorely mistaken.

balkaninfo said...

German leaders still have the ambitions to conquer Eastern Europe but they lack the military power for that. So they are dependent on the US military. That is thier main motive for choosing to be the junior partner of the USA and that is why Germany pressed for NATO expansion to the East and the destruction of Yugoslavia. Bush called it "partners in leadership" in 1990.
In contrast to that Germany did not approve the US attacks against Iraq and Libya because German leaders don't have the ambitions to be colonial masters there. Also they don't have reliable collaborators like the Ustashe, KLA, "Volksdeutsche" and OUN there.

In the 90s German leaders brazenly demanded:
"expansion to the East"
"outwards it is essential to achieve something whereby we have failed twice before"
"Without Germany it is impossible to integrate the East European peoples."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=632_1323437313

"In March 1993, Bonn's Minister of Defense at the time, Volker Ruehe, was the first to publicly declare that the war alliance should be expanded to include several East European nations, says Brill."
http://german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56303

"Varwick considers that, at least for the time being, it is conceivable that Berlin and Brussels should "grit their teeth and continue to flexibly attempt to benefit from US capabilities," because for now, the EU's military capabilities are insufficient for an independent global hegemonic policy.[6]"
http://german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58808

Steinmeier with nazi leader Tiahnybok in the German embassy on 20 February:
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/pics/steinmeier_tiahnybok.jpg

panix Panixgr said...

Goths are able to bow elbows and knees to the ground kissing hands and feet of their patrons and protectors, the Saxons, and when this ritual is done, they shamelessly unleash all their brutal vanity on the heads of the isolated balkans. Of course the Saxons are watching and laugh both on their distant now defunct and harmless cousins, and on the slavic subhumans of the south.