Turning points

"Things will never be the same as they were just a year ago. For any of us," I wrote this time last year.

I was almost right. For while 2016 was the year of major changes - Brexit, Trump and the victory in Aleppo being the three I would dub the most important - in one corner of the world the Atlantic Empire still reigns supreme.

Serbia is still in thrall of a regime determined to redefine the depths of servility. Its history is still being written by its enemies and kangaroo courts determined to trample all decency in their crusade for global dominion. The Empire has even stretched out its hand to Montenegro, wanting to complete the conquest of the Adriatic.

In that path of that conquest they ran into Russia, which refuses to dishonor its WW2 dead. Moscow seems to have learned the lessons of Yugoslavia, even if Serbia itself has not.

Of course, everything the Empire touches turns to rot, but why worry? It is the natives that suffer all the consequences, and the Imperial leadership that gets all the worshipful attention. Or so the thinking went, until someone appeared to skewer the sacred cow by proposing to restore the Republic.

Those absolutely convinced it was their destiny to rule the Empire refused to learn anything, and kept wallowing in evil in order to maintain the chaos they called order, the desert they called peace. They were so convinced their triumph was ordained in the stars.

They failed. Oh, how they failed. First the British, then the Americans took the off-ramp from ruin that history seldom offers. Now the Imperial elites are flailing about in panic, shrieking conspiracy theories and hatching hapless plots, while Russia holds the high ground.

It is Christmas in Aleppo now, and everywhere the blood-dimmed tide of Empire is receding.

Wake up, my people. We have work to do.

What Putin really said about Trump, Reagan and the DNC

The Atlantic Imperialists really dislike Vladimir Putin. They dislike Russia in principle, as the ultimate "other" - a large, European civilization separate from the post-Roman West. As usual, the Economist is completely wrong: It is really the Empire that sees Russia as an existential threat, because its resurgence provided proof positive that the Western "end of history" paradigm was even desirable, much less inevitable. As for the validity of Western models... how are those working out these days?

Vladimir Putin's goal is to undermine Western democracies whose models present an existential threat to his rule https://t.co/6JUXNKgkTI

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) December 24, 2016

Much has been made of Putin's supposed trolling of the Democrats for being sore losers at the December 23 press conference at the Kremlin. This comes from the same media that kept assuring everyone that Hillary Clinton's presidency was inevitable, so forgive me if I am inclined to take it with a grain of salt. Especially since the actual transcript of Putin's remarks at the marathon year-end press conference paints a different picture (all emphasis mine):

Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

Christmas in Aleppo

The Atlantic Empire tried everything - from recycling Bosnian War lies about starving civilians and a million "last hospitals" to weaponizing a 7-year-old girl - to save its proxy jihadists in Aleppo.

It failed.

Syria's largest city was officially liberated on December 22, after the last of the jihadists ("moderate rebels" in Westernspeak) were evacuated to Idlib or Turkey. Of the devastated hospitals, there wasn't a trace. Nor was there any inkling of the "massacres" the alarmed Western ambassadors spoke of; rather, their "democratic" Islamist proxies had slaughtered all of their prisoners, lest they testify of the true horrors under their rule.

Western-backed Jihadist rebels summarily executed over 100 hostages before leaving east Aleppo https://t.co/UiPsXxMsV6

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) December 23, 2016

Liberators also found warehouses full of food, hoarded by the jihadists. Not surprisingly, the number of people actually living in the jihadist-held area was vastly overestimated: not 250,000, but 40,000 - including some 4,000 militants and their families.

With the "moderate" head-choppers routed, their "plan B" brethren at ISIS have taken initiative. ISIS attacked Tadmur (Palmyra) and Deir-ez-Zor - both held by the Syrian Arab Army - and inflicted heavy casualties at Turkish armored forces attempting to take Al-Bab, northeast of Aleppo. Oddly enough, ISIS seems to be ignoring the advance of the US-backed Kurds towards their "capital" in Raqqa. Very peculiar, that.

The Syrian War is not over, but Aleppo will surely be its turning point. With the new government poised to take over in the US next month, Washington may drop the pretense it can use jihadists as a weapon and leave ISIS and the "moderates" to either sue for peace or achieve the martyrdom they so desire.

Either way, it's Christmas in Aleppo. 

Aleppo's small Catholic minority are preparing the Saint Elias Cathedral for its first Christmas mass in five years
By @AFP pic.twitter.com/jnXOyv2RR4

— Yusha Yuseef (@MIG29_) December 23, 2016

History made

I'm referring to this post, of course. What did you think I was referring to?

An unlikely off-ramp

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night; the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: “You are now entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U-turns.”
- Rise of Empire by Garet Garrett, 1952

Long-time readers of this blog know that I am a subject of the Atlantic Empire and therefore have the right to participate in the quadrennial ritual of electing the Emperor. While I will not disclose which one of the candidates will get my vote, between my background and what's been published here that ought to be intuitively obvious.

What I will say, however, is this. Once a republic turns into an empire, it is rare - unheard of, actually - for it to get an opportunity to turn away. That's what the quote above refers to. Yet through a combination of most unlikely circumstances, the USA has one such opportunity this year. Whether Americans will use it, or lose it (most likely forever) will shape their own destiny - and that of the world.

Let's see what happens.

Deir ez-Zor was no accident

I'm going out on a limb with this - and note that this in no way represents anything but my own, personal opinion - but today's airstrike that killed 62 and injured 100 Syrian soldiers outside of Deir ez-Zor was not an accident. Here's why.

First, the US-led "international coalition" has not previously operated in this area. Though the city is under siege by Islamic State (ISIS), it's an enclave held by the Syrian Arab Army (aka "Assad regime forces" for you mainstream media viewers). There are no US-backed "moderate rebels" anywhere near.

Secondly, the US reaction. The official line is that this was "unintentional." I may have bought that if the strike was conducted solely by F-16s flying at a high altitude, but A-10s are ground-attack planes that can get in low and close. They should have known they were striking a Syrian Army base - especially if they had intelligence on the area, which they say they did.

Now, note the Central Command statement on the incident:

“Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit.” 

Not only does the excuse not apply to this particular area, but "would not" does not mean "did not."  

War Without End

(via Wikipedia)

"I've said everything I've cared to say over the past thirteen years - how one cannot fight terrorism and support it at the same time, how there are no 'good' terrorists just because they currently serve one's agenda, how it's madness to appease jihadists in hopes of earning their gratitude, etc... there was never any war on terror(ism): the grand crusade was all about power."

- Eppur si muove, 2014

"Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled."

- From Beslan to Boston, 2013

"[B]elieving that jihad could be harnessed, controlled and directed to achieve a strategic purpose... was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 2001, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow." 

- 9/11, 2011

It's been 15 years. Yet we seem to have forgotten almost everything that mattered... and learned nothing at all.

Biden Does Belgrade, Again

It was seven years ago in May when Joe Biden, Emperor Obama's establishment Grand Vizier, visited Serbia in order to pressure the quisling cult in charge there to grovel faster. The objective? Finalizing the project of declaring the US-midwifed chaos as the pinnacle of order, in perpetuity:

This isn’t so much about the land as about the symbolism. For Washington’s purpose, it isn’t enough to sever Kosovo from Serbia by force, ethnically cleanse it of all non-Albanians, and obliterate the Serbian cultural heritage in the territory; for this to work as intended, Serbia has to renounce Kosovo, voluntarily. Kosovo was the place where the Serbs fought for their faith and liberty and refused to give them up even after being conquered. Washington’s outgoing ambassador to Serbia, Cameron Munter, told the Belgrade daily Politika that Americans are hoping for a time when Serbia will accept the fait accompli in Kosovo and "move on." But by "moving on," the Serbs would be giving up their soul. (From "Biden does the Balkans," Antiwar.com, May 20, 2009)

Now Joe is back at it again - fresh from promoting Hillary Clinton as the future Empress, back in his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Only this time, Biden is not dealing with Tadic, who though spineless had at least a tenuous understanding of what Serbs tend to do to traitors. Instead, his point of contact is the delusional Aleksandar Vucic, who honestly thinks his treason is somehow beneficial to the country, or even that he himself is the country.

God help us all.

But they put up a monument to Hillary, so it's OK

Remember the Islamic State "kill list" of some 1,300 US government employees - with their credit card records and Social Security numbers obtained by hackers some months ago? No?

While the DNC and its satellite press were in throes of hysteria about "Russian" hackers (based on the completely unproven assertion of a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, naturally), it emerged that the hacker who obtained the list was one "Ardit Ferizi, an ethnic Albanian who was raised in Kosovo."

Now, forgive me for bringing this up nine days after McClatchy named Ferizi, but I was in Cleveland and then in Philadelphia, reporting from the coronations - erm, conventions - of both major parties. While in Philly, I heard no mention of this hack, or who was behind it - or "Kosovia" for that matter - from Hillary Clinton's camp.

I mean, why would I? Albanians are a great shining example that "America is great because America is good," according to the Clintonites, who persevere in the lie that Hillary inspired Bill to intervene against the (nonexistent) Serbian "aggression and genocide" in 1999. And look, the grateful Albanians have erected a gilded statue of Bill in the "Kosovian" capital, and just recently a bust of Hillary in an Albanian seaside resort. Completely unrelated to the prospect of her becoming the Empress, of course.

Even the New York Times (perpetually shilling for Empire) can no longer pretend that "Kosovia" is not an ISIS hotbed - though they throw Saudi Arabia under the proverbial bus for that, because Social Justice forbid they blame the Clintons. But the mainstream media that either made up or justified ever single vicious lie about the Kosovo War will never allow you to add the two and two. You hear hacking, you're not supposed to think "Kosovians" and ISIS and gross carelessness or criminal negligence - no, you're supposed to scream "RUSSIANS," just like the DNC-coached media operatives.

I mean, who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or CNN?

Brexit

As I process the news coming out of the UK, I can't help but think of 25 years ago, when my own country was dismembered as a ritual sacrifice to help summon the EU into existence.

More specifically, Germany demanded of other EEC members to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia - which had been declared unilaterally, illegally, and without consideration of the population that wished to remain in Yugoslavia - in exchange for backing the Maastricht Treaty that would convert the European Economic Community into a political union:

“From a position where the EC members were 11-to-1 in favor of maintaining the unity of Yugoslavia, Germany succeeded at 4 a.m. in forcing approval  for the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as independent states.” (see here)

While I do wish the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all the best, and hope that their divorce from the EU (and maybe each other?) goes more smoothly and peacefully than what happened in Yugoslavia... turnabout is fair play.

A somber reminder

Last month, I wrote about NATO's takeover of Montenegro as part of the alliance's moves to encircle Russia, arguing that the logical end of this sort of behavior was a "Barbarossa II" invasion. Well, today is the 75th anniversary of the original "Barbarossa,"  which - while spearheaded by Nazi Germany - involved legions of their European "allies and partners."

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is.

Phantom dangers, imperial networks: How Pentagon sees the world (Op-Edge by @NebojsaMalic) https://t.co/7OzqSAOR7p pic.twitter.com/KDkbpnBLZg

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2016

Let's not mince words here, folks. In the West - well, the US, specifically - 75 years is a long time and war has become something that happens elsewhere, to other people. Sure, some American soldiers get killed or maimed or driven insane, but those are "heroes defending our freedoms and way of life" and hey, what's Kim Kardashian doing today?

In Russia, there is no family that was not touched by the war that began with an invasion of their country 75 years ago this day, and went on for 1,418 days to claim the lives of 26.6 million. No wonder the Russians remember.

There is a Russian saying, attributed to Prince Aleksander Nevsky of Novgorod: "Whoever comes to us with a sword, will perish by the sword." He put those words in practice in 1242, defeating the Teutonic Knights in the Battle on the Ice.

Many have since tried taking Russia at sword- and gun-point - the Swedish Empire, Grand Duchy Poland-Lithuania, Napoleon's Grande Armee and Hitler's "Anti-Bolshevik Coalition" are just a few examples. All of them not only failed, but their empires perished in the attempt.

There's a lesson there, for those willing and able to learn.

Montenegro, NATO and 'Barbarossa II'

#NATO in Montenegro: Securing the rear before Barbarossa II? (Op-Edge) https://t.co/cQAgqbvZMI pic.twitter.com/7lbFHZLPy6

— RT (@RT_com) May 26, 2016

Yugoslavia was literally decimated, and the USSR lost almost 27 million people fighting the Nazis, only for the modern map of Europe to look eerily like it did in 1942. Many of Hitler’s allies then are NATO members now, and German troops are once again in artillery range of Leningrad (now called St. Petersburg). Having secured Montenegro and expecting no resistance from “softly” occupied Serbia, NATO may be emboldened to act even more aggressively towards Russia. This is madness, of course, but there is an alarming lack of sanity in Brussels and Washington these days.

That is why Montenegro matters.

Read the rest at RT

The next step in fighting "color revolutions"

Ростислав Ищенко: Девять тезисов о войне, которую мы ведемhttps://t.co/mrxM8N0Fa3 pic.twitter.com/5YZOhK6sIU

— Русский новостной (@ZaGraniu) April 29, 2016

I'm highlighting one of nine points from a presentation by political analyst Rostislav Ishchenko (Ростислав Ищенко) at the Russian Defense Ministry's conference on security, April 27-28, on the topic of "color revolutions" (via The Saker, Russian original here). The readers of this blog will quickly understand why.

"This leads us to thesis eight. Color coup can be stopped neither by consolidation of the national elite (it would simply progress to the next scenario), nor by preparedness of its military to fight (it will eventually be exhausted), nor by effective work of the national media (they will be overwhelmed by the technological capabilities of the aggressor).

The preparedness of the victim-state to resist is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to block the mechanisms of the color coup.

Only the support of the legitimate authorities of the victim-country by another superpower able to confront the aggressor-country with equal force in any way with any means can stop color aggression."

This is obviously based on the Syrian example, as Ishchenko himself notes earlier in his presentation. Now that it's clear that Moscow is aware of the key factor in resisting regime change via "color revolution" in the attempt, I'm curious whether Russian policymakers also have plans for rolling back color revolutions that have already taken place, with catastrophic consequences.

Does the superpower have a role to play in that, too, or would the near-impossible task of curing themselves of the Imperial plague be entirely up to the victims?

That Serbian Election

Many questions still remain about the general elections held in Serbia on April 24, mostly whether one nationalist and two liberal-quisling groups will make it past the 5% threshold and thus qualify for seats in Skupština, the Serbian legislature.

Here's why none of that matters: either way, the Progressive Party and its leader, Aleksandar Vučić, will remain in charge - of executing every order and whim of the Empire, that is.

Aleksandar Vucic has won another four-year term as prime minister of Serbia https://t.co/c51ALMW9aJ pic.twitter.com/Z0HoqOKMRI

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) April 25, 2016

(The Economist, official magazine of the Trans-Atlantic Empire, approves)

Elections in a satrapy such as Serbia (or Ukraine, for that matter) are meaningless by default. They don't decide anything. Their sole purpose is to paint a veneer of legitimacy on one quisling or another. Time and again, ever since the 2000 coup, whoever the Serbians voted for they got a quisling government either blessed or directly appointed by the Empire. Time and again, such governments would obey not the will of their electorate, but the orders of their overseas masters. So what difference does it make who gets to be the quisling-in-chief?

So, while the pundits debate who got a vote or two more or less than 5%, I'm going to ignore the entire sordid spectacle and pray instead for the "resurrection of the dead and life of the world to come" at Pascha tomorrow.

For God is just, and His justice cannot sleep forever.

To save the Republic, kill the Empire

“My foreign policy will always put the interests of Ukrainian people and Ukrainian security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make. ‘Ukraine first’ will be the major and overriding theme of my administration."

Imagine for a moment that these words were spoken by one of the Empire's puppets in Kiev, installed after the February 2014 coup. Though official Washington lavishes praise on its Ukrainian stooges no matter how appalling their behavior, the outpouring of support for this kind of a statement would be deafening.

Except it wasn't a Poroshenko, Avakov, Saakashvili or "Yahtzee" who said it, but one Donald J. Trump - using "America" and "American," of course, in the quote I altered above. And because of that, the entire Washington establishment had a point-and-shriek episode.

Establishment figures left and right snarked about the speech being terrible, inconsistent, and awful. None other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Sith Lord of the Democratic foreign policy cult, called it a political suicide. This, mind you, is the same man who came up with the brilliant idea of using "riled-up Moslems" as a weapon against the Soviet Union in the 1970s, unleashing the modern-day jihad on the world, and remains unrepentant about it. It may have delivered his beloved Poland into NATO vassalage, but it sure hasn't helped the average citizen of the United States any.

Others guffawed at Trump's pronunciation of "Tanzania," or claimed that advocating unpredictability and consistent principles was somehow absurd. If there is an inconsistency in Trump's speech, though, it's in his simultaneous denunciation of Iran and ISIS - even though Iran is one of the few countries actually opposing the firestorm of jihad in the Middle East, sparked by Zbigniew and fanned by Bush the Lesser's 2003 invasion of Iraq and Obama's fumbling "regime change" policy in Syria (both of which Trump is on the record for opposing).

I'm neither a registered Republican, nor a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him in my state's primary, either. But as I listened to his speech today - having spent the better part of 15 years poring over US foreign policy and writing hundreds of articles about it at Antiwar.com, here and elsewhere - it struck me that Trump has just made an argument that the Trans-Atlantic Empire has eaten the American Republic alive, and that if there is any hope of saving the latter, the former must be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Hillary Clinton sneers that one can't "make America great again" because it's already great. Easy for her to say, when she's basically running not for a chief executive of a constitutional republic, but the Kaiserin of the Greater Atlantic Reich. Meanwhile, the current Kaiser thinks it perfectly acceptable to visit London and lecture the British on how sovereignty shouldn't really be a thing.

Back in 2012, Ron Paul made the argument against the Empire. He was muzzled by the media, and his supporters were shouted down at the GOP convention, with the establishment creating a special rule to favor its preferred front-runner. Who, by the by, ended up getting destroyed by Obama that November. The establishment has tried every trick in their playbook to do the same with Trump - and failed every step of the way.

Trump has already turned several of the establishment's sacred cows - open borders, free trade, and Muslims come to mind - into so much kebab. Today he challenged the Empire itself, and promised the chattering classes who spill other people's blood and money with reckless abandon that he will throw them out with the dishwater come November. Their snark and smug posturing is hiding what must be panic at the prospect that he may actually win the election six months from now, and put into practice what he just preached.

I don't know if he's genuine, if he'll be able to resist the lure of power and the insidious whispers of the dark side to join the Empire and rule the world - or at least pretend that's the case, as the current lot does - but I've spent enough time gazing into the abyss of trans-Atlantic (and -Pacific) imperialism to know that Trump's speech today made a powerful point. I don't know if that will be enough to save the American Republic, to be honest. But it will be interesting to watch him try, and the imperialists squirm.

(The usual disclaimer about this being strictly my personal opinion and in no way related to my employer or my work applies; ignore it at your own peril.)

Karadzic and the dogs of war

In July 2008, after the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, Brendan O'Neill wrote an article that provided the crucial missing piece to the puzzle of how the Atlantic Empire has interacted with jihadists: Bosnia.

Pointing out that America armed and trained a military machine that was using Mujahideen as "shock troops," O'Neill reminds us of the striking parallels between the positions of Al-Qaeda militants and "liberal hawks in newsrooms across America and Europe":

Indeed, many of the Mujahideen who fought in Bosnia were inspired to do so by simplistic media coverage of the sort written by liberal-left journalists in the West. Many of the testimonies made by Arab fighters reveal that they first ventured to Bosnia because they "saw US media reports on rape camps" or read about the "genocide" in Bosnia and the "camps used by Serb soldiers systematically to rape thousands of Muslim women." Holy warriors seem to have been moved to action by some of the more shrill and unsubstantiated coverage of the war in Bosnia.

Both Western liberals and the Mujahideen ventured to Bosnia in response to their own crises of legitimacy, and in search of a sense of purpose, O'Neill argues, citing a number of sources. The Serbs provided a convenient enemy to project all their pent-up frustration, anger and hatred onto.

"For both Western liberals (governments and thinkers) and the Mujahideen, Bosnia became a refuge from these harsh realities, a place where they could fight fantasy battles against evil to make themselves feel dynamic and heroic instead of having to face up to the real problems in their movements and in politics more broadly."

Both Western imperialists and Islamic jihadists became "super-moralized, militarized, internationalized" in Bosnia, as a result of their struggle against the "evil Serbs." Today, the Empire and its allies accuse Russia of "revisionism" but it was they who chose to trample international law and the existing order by inventing "humanitarian" wars and "responsibility to protect," reviving "coalitions of the willing" 200 years after Napoleon.

As for the Islamists, they went internationalist, spreading the message of jihad everywhere - fueled by Washington's wars, no less - from Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings to 9/11 and Brussels just this week.

O'Neill says Karadzic has much to answer for. I'll accept that. But he also says that the demonization of Karadzic and the Serbs, and the resulting "rehabilitation of both Western militarism and Islamic radicalism, has also done a great deal to destabilize international affairs and destroy entire communities." Just ask the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, Kurds...

Which brings me to a point I've been making here for years. I find it utterly disgusting that the same people who howl in outrage over the "genocide in Srebrenica" never seem to realize - or perhaps don't care - that "Srebrenica" has been used to justify the deaths of a million Muslims, and maybe more, in Western "humanitarian interventions" since 9/11. 

The Karadzic "conviction"

The more astute readers of this blog will remember that I have written and spoken against the so-called Hague Tribunal for years. It is a pretend-court that simply has zero legitimacy to begin with - regardless of its actions - since the UN Security Council cannot delegate (judicial) powers it does not possess. So, it is not meritorious to pass judgment on anyone.

Officials of the Atlantic Empire have outright bragged about creating the Tribunal for their own ends, writing its laws and procedures to ensure the desired outcome. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards," as Lewis Carroll so memorably put it.

The sham court was created to delegitimize the Serbs' right to exist, while legitimizing the aggression of the Empire and its clients. Pure and simple. Even if it were not founded on lies, even if its practices weren't sketchy and sleazy, its own presiding "judge" betrayed the truth behind the curtain when he treated the Big Lie as fact in pursuit of his mission.

Today, that "court" declared Radovan Karadžić guilty of "genocide" they had to rape reality to define as such - and on the anniversary of the NATO attack on Serbia, no less. It is no accident; the sham court has shown before that it chooses its timing with great precision.

Regardless of what he did, or did not do, they had to convict him. That was their mission from the Empire, their entire raison d'etre. But if you really want to know why, read Julia Gorin's excellent breakdown here.

All I have to say is that, if they think their dominion over this world is eternal and unquestionable... they clearly haven't been paying attention. 

Kosovo: An Evil Little War

Still wrong, 17 years later

(This article originally appeared March 25, 2005 on Antiwar.com)

Belgrade, 1999

In the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For some reason, many in the targeted nation thought the name of the operation was "Merciful Angel." In fact, the attack was code-named "Allied Force" – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker. For, however much NATO spokesmen and the cheerleading press spun, lied, and fabricated to show otherwise (unfortunately, with altogether too much success), there was nothing noble in NATO’s aims. It attacked Yugoslavia for the same reason then-Emperor Bill Clinton enjoyed a quickie in the Oval Office: because it could.

Most of the criticism of the 1999 war has focused on its conduct (targeting practices, effects, "collateral damage") and consequences. But though the conduct of the war by NATO was atrocious and the consequences have been dire and criminal, none of that changes the fact that by its very nature and from the very beginning, NATO’s attack was a war of aggression: illegal, immoral, and unjust; not "unsuccessful" or "mishandled," but just plain wrong.

Donald Trump on Kosovo in 1999

When I saw the media in Serbia reporting about Donald Trump's alleged condemnation of the 1999 NATO attack on then-Yugoslavia, also known as the Kosovo War, I shrugged it off as disinformation. Most of them, I'm sad to say, are almost entirely dedicated to gaslighting the general populace, and as likely to spread confusion and cognitive dissonance as actual news.

It turns out that Donald Trump did talk to Larry King about Kosovo - but everyone is leaving out that this took place in October 1999. That is sort of important, though: by that point, the Serbian province had been "liberated" by NATO occupation forces, and the ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians by the terrorist KLA had been going on since mid-June.

Here is the segment touching on Kosovo, from the official CNN transcript (with my emphasis):

KING: But, we don't know the - for example, you and Kosovo. Would you have done what Clinton did?

TRUMP: Well, I would have done it a little bit differently. And I know this would sound terrible. But look at the havoc that they have wreaked in Kosovo. I mean, we could say we lost very few people. Of course, we had airplanes 75,000 feet up in the air dropping bombs. But, look at what we've done to that land and to those people and the deaths that we've caused.

Now, they haven't been caused with us and the allies because we were way up in the air in planes. But, at some point, you had to put troops in so not everybody could go over the borders and everything else, and a lot of people agree with that.
Now, would people have been killed? Perhaps, perhaps more. But, at least ultimately, you would have had far fewer deaths. And you wouldn't have had the havoc and the terror that you've got right now. So, you know, I don't know if they consider that a success because I can't consider it a success.

KING: You don't.

TRUMP: They bombed the hell out of a country, out of a whole area, everyone is fleeing in every different way, and nobody knows what's happening, and the deaths are going on by the thousands.

He could be referring to the KLA ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Roma, and other groups here. But true to himself, Trump is being very vague and it is impossible to pin the statements down. At the time, he was considering running for the presidency, but ultimately decided against it.

It would certainly be interesting if someone asked him the same question today, 17 years later, when he is actually running for president (and may be getting the nomination, too). 

Libya, 5 years later

It's been five years since the Atlantic Empire "liberated" Libya - turning the once prosperous North African nation into a jihadist hellhole. The very same governments that conspired to overthrow the regime of Col. Gadhafi in 2011 now bemoan that Libya is becoming a sanctuary for Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists.

Oh? You mean the Western "estrogen-driven paternalism on steroids" (as my friend Ilana Mercer so aptly described it) didn't result in a liberal-democratic republic based on diversity and human rights? I'm shocked.

Back in September 2011, when the Empire was basking in its "victory" in Libya, I went on CrossTalk to argue that the intervention was wrong on principle. The relevant passage is about 14 minutes in:

"This is no way to run the world. You can’t run a dog-catching operation like this without it backfiring... What we saw happening in Libya was basically the entire circle of Balkans interventions accelerated to hyperspeed – within weeks instead of years – and you ran through the whole gamut of excuses, from refugees to mistreatment of minorities to this and that and the other, to install in power a shadowy movement that we don’t really know much about – except that it’s composed of Al-Qaeda veterans (which isn’t supposed to bother us at all). But that’s sort of not the point. It doesn’t matter how this ended. The outcome of it is frankly irrelevant. It’s the principle of the thing."

A death and a reminder

Zdravko Tolimir (1948-2016) died in The Hague today, of causes unknown.

Reports of his passing will without exception note he was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity. None will say the verdict was passed in a kangaroo court, established by the Atlantic Empire to conjure a fig leaf of legitimacy for its conquest of Yugoslavia.

Everyone will quote the pious proclamations of presiding "judge" Theodor Meron, who said Tolimir "was aware of the genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership and was responsible for genocide.”

Likewise, everyone will bring up Srebrenica, and the supposed Serb massacre of Muslim "men and boys" (always that phrase), not missing to call it the worst atrocity in Europe since World War Two.

Just about no one - in the West, anyway - will mention Prisca Matimba Nyambe, a Zambian judge appalled by her colleagues' abominable standards of evidence. Buried behind 534 pages of farcical "fact" findings, Nyambe's brave dissent calls out the other "judges" for failing to prove even a single charge in the indictment.

“Without a single piece of evidence adduced during this trial of a written plan of a JCE to Murder, or any evidence of direct statements showing such an intent, the Majority relies upon circumstantial evidence to draw conclusions of a culpable mens rea,” Nyambe wrote. 

By JCE she meant the notorious doctrine of "Joint Criminal Enterprise," concocted by an American lawyer for the specific purpose of securing convictions of people the Tribunal sought to convict on the basis of who they were, rather than what they may or may not have done.

The entirety of the Tribunal's evidence against Tolimir, Nyambe wrote, was circumstantial and based on presumptions and suppositions of the other judges.

"On the totality of the evidence on the record, I am wholly unpersuaded that the Accused is
guilty of any of the charges alleged in the Indictment," she concluded.

Not only was Tolimir not guilty, but the prosecutors - and the judges that sided with them - failed to prove that many of the things in the indictment actually happened, Nyambe argued. For heaven's sake, this is the court that decided the killing of three people represented "genocide."

Not seven months after convicting Tolimir, Meron cited as credible third-hand hearsay "evidence" accusing the Bosnian Serbs of a plot that was actually a WW2 Nazi Croatia plan targeting the Serbs themselves. So much about his credibility, or that of the actual joint criminal enterprise that is the ICTY.

I have little doubt the kangaroo court will sink to even lower depths before its fell purpose is served. Until then, however, Zdravko Tolimir will remain a prime example of what Empire's "truth" and "justice" really look like.

Christ is born!

"And may we not be afraid of the difficulties that we inevitably encounter, and may none of us be broken by the trials that befall our lot, for God is with us! God is with us, and from our life fear disappears. God is with us, and we find peace of soul and joy. God is with us, and with steadfast hope in him we shall accomplish our earthly journey."

[...]

"On this light-bearing night of the Nativity and the following holy days let us praise and exalt our Saviour and Lord who, in his great love for humanity, deigned to come into the world. Like the biblical Magi, let us offer to the divine Infant Christ our gifts: instead of gold – our sincere love; instead of frankincense – our ardent prayer; instead of myrrh – a kind and caring disposition towards our neighbours and those afar."

- from the Christmas message of His Holiness Kiril, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus