Donald Trump should un-recognize 'Kosovo'

 (Originally published March 24, 2019, on Rt.com)

Here is one simple trick US President Donald Trump could pull right now to bolster the rules-based world order, decisively derail Russian criticism of US foreign policy, and stick it to his domestic critics in the process.

All Trump has to do is withdraw the US recognition of ‘Kosovo’, the fake state established as a result of an illegal occupation, following a war that began exactly 20 years ago.

Confused? Unaware? Let me explain. Claiming the government of what was then Yugoslavia was conducting a genocidal campaign against ethnic Albanians in its province of Kosovo (it wasn’t), President Bill Clinton launched what would become a 78-day NATO air campaign to “end human rights abuses” there. What it actually did was displace hundreds of thousands of people – including ethnic Albanians, who even got bombed by NATO on occasion – and turn the province into a NATO protectorate. In 2008, the “Kosovians” declared independence, and have been recognized by around half the UN since then. The other half includes Russia, China, India and – thus far, anyway – Serbia.

But wait, why un-recognize it, then? Wouldn’t that be siding with “adversaries”? Proof of “collusion” with the Kremlin? In a word, no. Correcting this historic mistake would actually disarm the critics of Washington, who currently – and rightly so – point out the US hypocrisy, double standards and selective reasoning.

(Wrong) Message to Russia

In the minds of the architects of the 1999 war, Serbia and Yugoslavia served as a proxy for Russia, a way to send a message to Moscow that “resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform” would not be tolerated by the West. That, by the way, was the argument laid out by John Norris, former aide to the State Department’s topmost Russia hand Strobe Talbott, in a 2005 book, complete with the quote from its preface.

Russia got the message all right: that the West was a duplicitous enemy that could not be trusted. Russian disillusionment with the West can be traced to 1999, and the anger at their government’s surrender to NATO in Yugoslavia, at least to some extent, paved the way for Yeltsin’s surprise resignation and the takeover by one Vladimir Putin.

Putin actually brings up 1999 and Yugoslavia almost every time when he talks about the West, using it as an example of arbitrary and lawless behavior by the US even as Washington talks the talk about the “rules-based world order” supposedly threatened by Russia and China. Speaking of which, Beijing is also nursing a grudge from that war, because its embassy in Belgrade was destroyed by a NATO strike in May 1999. By “mistake,” supposedly.

Fast-forward to 2014, when Crimea rebelled against a US-backed government in Kiev and voted to rejoin Russia. When the US howled in protest, Putin merely said that people who seized Kosovo from Serbia in an illegal war had no leg to stand on:

“It’s beyond double standards. It’s a kind of baffling, primitive and blatant cynicism. One can’t just twist things to fit his interests, to call something white on one day and black on the next one.”

In response, President Barack Obama invented a referendum in Kosovo to justify US actions. Eagle-eyed fact-checkers in the Western media gave him a pass. Don’t you hate when that happens?

Snubbing the Clintons

But wait, there’s more. Back in 2009, Bill Clinton personally unveiled a gilded statue to himself on the central square of the “Kosovian” capital. Three years later, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called independence of Kosovo a “personal” issue to her and her family. A city in Albania actually erected a monument to her in 2016, anticipating her presidential triumph. Emoluments much, anyone?

Senator Bernie Sanders supported the ‘99 war too, prompting one of his senior staffers to resign in protest. Former senator and VP Joe Biden was also a big Kosovo War backer. Meanwhile, Trump was actually critical of the war, if his 1999 interview to Larry King is anything to go by. He hasn’t said much about it since, though.

These days, when Trump talks about “sovereignty” and denounces globalism, Russia responds that maybe the US should respect the sovereignty of others – and brings up Kosovo. Awkward. 

Meanwhile, both liberal and conservative think-tanks in Washington constantly fret over “Russian malign influence” in the Balkans – specifically Serbia – which always amounts to Moscow simply voicing support for UNSCR 1244 and Serbia’s claim to Kosovo. Frustrating!

Values and principles

Critics of the Trump administration, who accuse him of failing to uphold American values abroad, would have to admit it’s virtuous to stop propping up a place that engages in “endemic government corruption; crimes involving violence or threats of violence against journalists; and attacks against members of ethnic minorities or other marginalized communities” per the State Department’s most recent human rights report.

With all that in mind, it becomes obvious that un-recognizing Kosovo would make US foreign policy great again. In one simple step, Trump can demolish Russia’s argument that Washington is cynically applying double standards, and show that no, the US does believe in rules – “and how about that Crimea now, Putin?”

Postscript: 

When I wrote this, five years ago, I accurately predicted such a development was not actually going to happen, because Trump had “turned over foreign policy to warmongers interested only in perpetuating the American Empire the Clintons established in the 1990s by any means necessary.”

But it's a new day. With new opportunities. 

The USA had a color revolution after all

(Another article from the Vault, originally written for RT on February 5, 2021, shortly after TIME published its infamous "fortification" piece explaining how 2020 happened. Reposting here for the "I told you so.")

There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – and its architects now BOAST of how they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election

The 2020 US presidential elections wasn’t “rigged,” oh no, but “fortified” by a conspiracy of activists united in saving “Our Democracy” from the Bad Orange Man, now proud to share their story in a friendly tell-all piece in TIME.

“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” writes Molly Ball – a biographer of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by the way – in TIME magazine this week, describing it as a “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election – an extraordinary shadow effort.”

Ball’s article reveals a lot, from why there were no street riots by Democrats either on November 4 or on January 6 – the organizers of this “conspiracy” stopped them – to who was behind the push to alter election rules in key states and set up mail-in voting, who organized “information” campaigns about the results of the election, and who even threatened election officials into making the “right” decision to certify the vote.

While everyone – myself included – was focused on the summer riots as a possible “color revolution,” they turned out to be misdirection. According to TIME, the real action was taking place behind the scenes, as Democrat activists and unions joined forces with NeverTrump Republicans, Chamber of Commerce, corporations, and Big Tech to make sure the 2020 election turns out the way they wanted. They call this a victory of democracy and the will of the people, of course, for no one is ever a villain in their own story.

“Their work touched every aspect of the election,” Ball writes, from getting states to “change voting system laws” and fending off “voter-suppression lawsuits,” to recruiting “armies” of poll workers and pressuring social media companies to “take a harder line against disinformation.” Then, after Election Day, “they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.” 

Alarmed yet? Maybe you should be.

So who are these shadowy saviors of Our Democracy? One of them is union organizer Mike Podhorzer of AFL-CIO, a traditional Democrat powerhouse. Another is Ian Bassin, associate White House counsel in Barack Obama’s first administration. The roster of his “nonpartisan, rule-of-law” outfit called Protect Democracy includes a lot of Obama lawyers, a John McCain campaign aide, an editor from the defunct neocon Weekly Standard, and someone from SPLC, while among their advisers is the NeverTrump failed presidential candidate and ex-CIA spy Evan McMullin.

Bear that in mind when you read Bassin’s quote that “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” (emphasis added) but “it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.” Chilling words.

A leading member of this effort is Norm Eisen, another White House counsel under Obama. The pro-Trump Revolver News even raised the alarm about Eisen plotting a “color revolution” in September – but by then it was too late, even if anyone had been paying attention.

By then, the National Vote at Home Institute – an organization barely two years old, and part of the effort – had already instructed secretaries of state across the US with “technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes,” and even provided them “communications tool kits,” i.e. talking points.

In November 2019 – a full year before the election! – Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg hosted “nine civil rights leaders” for dinner, one of whom was Vanita Gupta, Obama’s assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. It was part of this shadowy coalition’s campaign for “more rigorous rules and enforcement” on social media platforms – just in case you were wondering how Trump ended up deplatformed, or the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop got suppressed before the election.

Ironically, as part of their pressure on Big Tech, Democrats had whipped up a moral panic about super-targeted “Russian” internet memes that somehow “influenced” the 2016 election – yet Ball’s article says that two groups involved with the conspiracy “created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted.”

Podhorzer’s messaging efforts were informed by Anat Shenker-Osorio, who “applies tools from cognitive science and linguistics in her work with progressive organizations globally,” according to her 2018 fellowship bio from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

Though Ball doesn’t mention it specifically, those Twitter and Facebook “pre-bunking” labels about safety of mail-in ballots and the winner not being known on Election Day are also the activists’ talking points.

Remember how Republican observers were thrown out of the ballot-counting facility in Detroit? Reports at the time said it was because of overcrowding, but the Time article reveals that a Democrat activist mobilized “dozens of reinforcements” to “provide a counterweight” to them, so eventually “racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe worked alongside suburban women from Fems for Dems and local elected officials.” It was activists who came up with a strategy of denouncing any challenge to Detroit vote counts as racist, too.

When President Donald Trump asked Michigan’s Republican-majority legislators to challenge the results, Eisen called it “the scariest moment” of the election, and the “democracy defenders” sprung into action.

Eisen’s lawyers dug up dirt on the two lawmakers invited to Washington, activists hounded them at airports, NeverTrump Republicans made calls to party friends, and Bassin’s outfit commissioned an op-ed threatening criminal charges by Michigan’s Democrat AG – whose office then retweeted it. The two were even picketed at the Trump Hotel in DC. The brigading eventually worked, as Michigan Republicans agreed to certify the elections – and other contested states followed.

Perhaps the most intriguing part is buried towards the end. Ball reveals that she got a text from Podhorzer – the AFL-CIO organizer – on the morning of January 6, hours before what the Democrats would describe as “insurrection” by Trump supporters at the US Capitol, saying that the “activist left” was “strenuously discouraging counter activity” in order to “preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem.”

How did Podhorzer know there would be “mayhem,” hours before the “storming” of the Capitol that Democrats claim Trump “incited” at the rally outside the White House at noon? It’s a mystery.

What’s not a mystery is the result of the “conspiracy” Ball has revealed: a de facto one-party state in which Democrats hold absolute power at every level of government and seek to prosecute dissent and disenfranchise the opposition.

Last month, with no inkling of the behind-the-scenes operation just revealed in Time, I wrote of a non-kinetic “fifth-generation” civil war that had unfolded as “a battle for hearts and minds, a series of psychological operations that played out on the media, political and economic fronts.” I argued it had successfully swapped the American Republic for something called “Our Democracy,” which maintains the form but has a radically different content.

One of the “heroes” of Ball’s piece, NeverTrump Republican Jeff Timmer, has a quote in the article about how “Our democracy only survives if we all believe and don’t look down,” referring to the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote.

It’s an interesting admission, as the coyote is the villain of those cartoons – and the one actually immune to the effects of gravity is the roadrunner bird. But you’re not supposed to notice this – and besides, in Our Democracy, noticing will soon be a crime.

USA: From Republic to 'Our Democracy'

(This article was originally published on January 14, 2021, on a website since blocked in many jurisdictions of the Globalist American Empire. I'm reposting it in light of the current Emperor declaring he would abdicate in favor of his Grand Vizieress.) 

Fears that the current political situation in the US could spiral into a civil war are off the mark, because that war has already been fought – and the Democrats won. What’s playing out before our eyes now is the aftermath.

Just look at the glamour photos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), reviewing the National Guard troops at the Capitol on Wednesday. Does she look scared for her life – as the congressional Democrats have claimed in the aftermath of the “insurrection” last week – or like a leader of the winning faction relishing her triumph?

In voting to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday – even though he has but a week left of his term – the Democrats invoked the same language used to outlaw the defeated Confederates in 1865, insisting that those who engaged in “insurrection” and “rebellion” should be barred from public office forever. This doesn’t mean just Trump, but everyone who ever supported him, too.

This rhetoric makes zero sense coming from a political party that supposedly seeks to unite the country, cool the partisan passions and peacefully transfer power. Coming from the winners of a war, however, it’s a whole different story.

Meanwhile, the Republicans who opposed the impeachment – aside from the 10 members of the Liz Cheney caucus, who defected to the Democrats – kept invoking Lincoln, all about “malice towards none” and “charity for all.” Supposedly a plea for unity, it sounds unmistakably as a plea for mercy from the vanquished.

As to what kind of mercy the conquered can expect, it’s more likely to resemble that of Genghis Khan than of Lincoln. The Mongol conqueror was invoked by none other than Barack Obama, in another sycophantic Atlantic interview back in November. It seemed puzzling at the time, but obvious in retrospect: Obama knew there was a war on.

Instead of physical battlefields, this conflict took place in the narrative space. Violent “but mostly peaceful” protests are the closest it came to the ‘kinetic’ level. Mostly it was a battle for hearts and minds, a series of psychological operations that played out on the media, political and economic fronts, with the general population – and arguably, the Republicans – none the wiser until it was all over. Call it a ‘fifth generation’ (5G) battle, where the objective is to defeat the enemy before they even pick up a gun, convinced that the age of civil wars is over.

The starting point may have been the summer of 2016, when Hillary Clinton commissioned the ‘Steele Dossier’ to accuse Trump of “collusion” with Russia – and blame Moscow for the DNC’s dirty laundry getting aired all over the internet. While it failed to get Clinton elected or prevent Trump from taking office, it opened a battlefront that eventually delivered results.

‘Russiagate’ was used to spy on Trump’s campaign, through the fraudulent FISA warrants against Carter Page. It also served to throw the White House off balance, by ousting General Michael Flynn, and get the Mueller probe launched on behalf of fired FBI director Jim Comey. It was allowed to fizzle out only after the 2018 midterms delivered the House to Pelosi.

Determined to impeach Trump over something, the Democrats then latched on to the Ukraine phone call. That plan, too, hit a snag when only Mitt Romney turned out in the Senate to greet them as liberators. No matter. Within weeks, a novel respiratory virus that emerged in China would present a new opportunity. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” as Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once proudly said.

Trump was blamed for both opposing the coronavirus lockdowns and the economic hardship inflicted by them, at the same time. Every single American death was somehow his fault, while governors who sent the infected into nursing homes and killed thousands were celebrated as heroes – so long as they were Democrats. Another hot summer of racial grievances, a replay of 2016, was used to endlessly repeat the tropes painting Trump as a racist, fascist, Nazi dictator.

There was one more thing Russiagate was used for – to neutralize social media, censoring legions of Trump supporters (and in the end, Trump himself) under the guise of fighting “Russian bots” and “misinformation.” In 2016, Trump had been able to leverage the platforms to bypass the mainstream media gatekeepers and communicate with millions of Americans directly. So the Democrats moved to deny him that – and Silicon Valley, already sympathetic to them politically, eagerly delivered.

By the time the New York Post was censored over the Hunter Biden laptop story – openly, brazenly, and without any fallout – the situation on that front should have been obvious. Both social and legacy media had declared, by fiat, that new rules for mass mail-in ballots were “safe and secure” and anyone saying otherwise was a “denier.” Trump and the Republicans protested this was unfair, but did nothing, still believing they were dealing with a political process within the system operating under the old rules.

With their total control of the media, it was trivially easy for the engineers of global ‘color revolutions’ to derail and spin a ‘people power’ event like Trump’s January 6 rally and present it as another Fort Sumter – or better yet, Pearl Harbor. Because, as you might have guessed by now, they believe what happens doesn’t matter, only the narrative they create about it.

The Capitol unrest was way too disorganized to be a coup d’état, but narrative management turned it into a coup de main. And though the Republican Party and Trump himself surrendered in its aftermath, the “impeachment” is supposed to be the coup de grace.

You may complain that it does little to unify the country, or calm the concerns of half the population. They don’t care. They believe might makes right and act as if they just fought and won a war, not against fellow Americans but a group totally illegitimate and irredeemable. Deplorable, if you will.

There is an odd phrase that Democrats and their media allies have used a lot over the past few years: “our democracy.” It’s never explained or defined, but has simply become a stand-in for the United States of America. On paper, the US remains a constitutional republic – just like on the surface, there never was a war. Yet there is no more talk about the Republic, only “Our Democracy,” the same way the US went from plural to singular after 1865.

History never actually repeats itself, but sometimes it does rhyme.

Killing Soleimani

If you thought 2019 was suffering from a time-compression effect, where every day seemed like a month and every month a year, it looks like 2020 is going to be more of the same.

Last night, US helicopters or drones attacked a convoy outside the Baghdad airport in Iraq. The convoy was transporting several several leaders of the Iraqi Shia militia that Washington blamed for Tuesday's siege of the US embassy in Baghdad, but also Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran. Later that evening, US President Donald Trump confirmed Soleimani was the target of the operation. Seems like several high-ranking militia leaders were just a bonus objective, so to speak.

I won't get into whether Soleimani was a terrorist - as the American Empire claims - or not. There is ample evidence that his forces contributed massively to the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, however, and among the people celebrating his death are some of the vilest neocon warmongers known to humanity, including the crew responsible for the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a prima facie crime against peace.

There is no doubt, however, that the hit was a quintessentially imperial act. What else do you call assassinating someone who is traveling openly with diplomatic papers, in a country where the US is not at war and its troops only have a tenuous legal pretext for being present? States care about sovereignty, legality and legitimacy; empires do not.

What's especially ironic is that, while he acts like the God-Emperor of memes abroad, Trump is the polar opposite at home, either powerless or unwilling to do anything - aside from tweeting - about the media-Democrat-Deep State complex that is relentlessly persecuting his supporters, or anyone who dares step out of the ever-shifting line they keep redrawing.

One would think the domestic "Resistance" would be a lot more circumspect with an Emperor that is willing to be this ruthless abroad, but they're not. That should tell you a thing or three about the real character of the Empire, and the extent of Trump's actual power.

Some recent writings

Just because I've neglected posting here for a while doesn't mean I haven't been busy at work. We live in interesting times, after all.

Of the things I'd like to point out here, I've written on the drumbeat of war with Iran, and the possibility Justin Raimondo's theory is correct and all this inept imperialism is a feature, not a bug.

I have also touched on the finale of 'Game of Thrones' and the very real lesson about the power of narratives, however poorly it was communicated in the show.

Closer to home, I touched on the embarrassing idolatry of "Kosovarianians" for their imperial overlords, and the self-serving lies they continue to tell to justify their crime.

I've also touched on the Culture War currently affecting the Empire itself, an ongoing conflict between the mainstream media and Big Tech, and the dissidents caught in the crossfire.

So if you're still hanging around these parts, give these a read. I promise I'll write more soon. 

The Comey "Nothingburger"

From my latest, at RT.com:

To observers of goings-on in Washington over the past year or so, Thursday’s train wreck had every hallmark of a very familiar scenario, in which the media and the Democrats loudly herald something to be the certain downfall of one Donald J. Trump, only to suffer the same fate as Charlie Brown over and over again, as Lucy snatches that football away.

Meanwhile, President Trump is left to savor the big juicy nothingburger, cooked way past well-done and served with a ketchupy mess. Just the way he likes it.

The Comey nothingburger: Why ex-FBI director’s testimony won’t topple Trump (Op-Edge) https://t.co/EjVLje006k

— RT (@RT_com) June 10, 2017

'Drive them out': Trump sends message to Muslims on terrorism

I am far from the only one to make the observation that the mainstream media in the US are in throes of the Trump Derangement Syndrome - a mutation, if you will, of the Putin Derangement Syndrome diagnosed a decade back - and treating everything the 45th POTUS does with alarm and contempt irrespective of what it is, simply because he is the one doing it.

Thus the headlines about his trip to Saudi Arabia are filled with nitpicking about one particular phrase he didn't say, the multi-billion weapons deal with a country the media suddenly discovered was waging a war on Yemen (having not given a damn about said war before January 20, 2017), and obsessing about his daughter and son-in-law yet again.

FULL SPEECH: President Trump delivers speech to Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia https://t.co/62boIRKJsT pic.twitter.com/xY6SABYcsy

— The Hill (@thehill) May 21, 2017

Therefore I was surprised to see The Hill post a full transcript of Trump's speech, and even more surprised to read what was in it:

America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all.

[...]

Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples.

With God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed. At the same time, we pray this special gathering may someday be remembered as the beginning of peace in the Middle East—and maybe, even all over the world.

But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it.

[...]

There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.

Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.

Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.

[...]

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.

This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.

This is a battle between Good and Evil.

[...]

But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures—and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and

DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.

[...]

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.

[...]

Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.

So much for him being 'Islamophobic' or 'bowing down' to terrorism.

And while he accused Iran of being the ultimate sponsor of terrorism - disingenuous in the least, because it's Iran and Hezbollah doing a lion's share of fighting against ISIS, which the previous US government tacitly endorsed as a way to "regime change" in Syria - that makes it doubly hard for the Gulf Arabs to disregard his message, seeing as how they've been harping about "Iranian aggression" for years.

And if they do shrug off his offer (which I suspect they will), that just makes it clear which side they are on. After decades of pretending the problem didn't exist, finally, some clarity.

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.

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.)

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).