War Is Coming

[mick silver]

War Is ComingJuly 29, 2014

Editorial By Paul Craig Roberts

The extraordinary propaganda being conducted against Russia by the US and UK governments and Ministries of Propaganda, a.k.a., the "Western media," have the purpose of driving the world to war that no one can win. European governments need to rouse themselves from insouciance, because Europe will be the first to be vaporized due to the US missile bases that Europe hosts to guarantee its "security."
As reported by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, the Russian response to the extra-legal ruling of a corrupt court in the Netherlands, which had no jurisdiction over the case on which it ruled, awarding $50 billion dollars from the Russian government to shareholders of Yukos, a corrupt entity that was looting Russia and evading taxes, is telling. Asked what Russia would do about the ruling, an advisor to President Putin replied, "There is a war coming in Europe. Do you really think this ruling matters?"
The West has ganged up on Russia, because the West is totally corrupt. The wealth of the elites is based not only on looting weaker countries whose leaders can be purchased (read John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for instruction on how the looting works), but also on looting their own citizens. The American elites excel at looting their fellow citizens and have wiped out most of the US middle class in the new 21st century.



In contrast, Russia has emerged from tyranny and from a government based on lies, while the US and UK submerge into tyranny shielded by lies. Western elites (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/610/) desire to loot Russia, a juicy prize, and there stands Putin in the way. The solution is to get rid of him like they got rid of President Yanukovich in Ukraine.
The looting elites and the neoconservative (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2944/) hegemonists have the same goal: make Russia a vassal state. This goal unites the Western financial imperialists with the political imperialists.
I have recorded for readers the propaganda that is used in order to demonize Putin and Russia. But even I was stunned by the astounding and vicious lies (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608645-vladimir-putins-epic-deceits-have-grave-consequences-his-people-and-outside-world-web?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709) in the UK publication The Economist on July 26. The cover is Putin's face in a spider web, and, you guessed it, the cover story is "A Web of Lies."
You need to read this propaganda both in order to see the gutter level of propaganda in the West and the obvious drive to war with Russia. There is no evidence whatsoever in the story to support The Economist's wild accusations and demand for the end of Western "appeasement" of Russia and the harshest possible action against Putin.
The kind of reckless lies and transparent propaganda that comprises The Economist's story has no other purpose than to drive the world to war.
The Western elites and governments are not merely totally corrupt, they are insane. As I have previously written, don't expect to live much longer. In this video one of Putin's advisors and Russian journalists speak openly of US plans for a first strike on Russia: http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/official-warning-u-s-to-hit-russia-with.html.
This article contributed courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/28/war-coming-paul-craig-roberts/).

- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35518/Paul-Craig-Roberts-War-Is-Coming/#sthash.yCinXsWW.dpuf

[mick silver]

Russia, MH17 and the WestA web of liesVladimir Putin’s epic deceits have grave consequences for his people and the outside world Jul 26th 2014 | From the print edition (http://www.economist.com/printedition/2014-07-26)

http://www.economist.com/sites/all/modules/custom/ec_bookmark/assets/timekeeper-btn.png (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608645-vladimir-putins-epic-deceits-have-grave-consequences-his-people-and-outside-world-web?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709#) Close
Save this article
Click this to add articles to your Timekeeper reading list. Learn more »
http://www.economist.com/sites/all/modules/custom/ec_bookmark/assets/timekeeper-by-rolex-medium.png









http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20140726_LDP001_0.jpg
IN 1991, when Soviet Communism collapsed, it seemed as if the Russian people might at last have the chance to become citizens of a normal Western democracy. Vladimir Putin’s disastrous contribution to Russia’s history has been to set his country on a different path. And yet many around the world, through self-interest or self-deception, have been unwilling to see Mr Putin as he really is.
The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, the killing of 298 innocent people and the desecration of their bodies in the sunflower fields of eastern Ukraine, is above all a tragedy of lives cut short and of those left behind to mourn. But it is also a measure of the harm Mr Putin has done. Under him Russia has again become a place in which truth and falsehood are no longer distinct and facts are put into the service of the government. Mr Putin sets himself up as a patriot, but he is a threat—to international norms, to his neighbours and to the Russians themselves, who are intoxicated by his hysterical brand of anti-Western propaganda.
In this section


A web of lies
Fanfare for the common man (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608750-jokowis-victory-landmark-he-now-has-balance-reconciliation-decisive)
Stop the rockets, but lift the siege (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608752-any-ceasefire-will-be-temporary-unless-israel-starts-negotiating-seriously)
How to stop the inversion perversion (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608751-restricting-companies-moving-abroad-no-substitute-corporate-tax-reform-how-stop)
Relax, your kids will be fine (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608753-middle-class-parents-should-give-their-children-more-freedom-relax-your-kids-will-be-fine)

Reprints (http://www.economist.com/rights)
Related topics


Ukraine (http://www.economist.com/topics/ukraine)
Russia (http://www.economist.com/topics/russia)
Vladimir Putin (http://www.economist.com/topics/vladimir-putin)

The world needs to face the danger Mr Putin poses. If it does not stand up to him today, worse will follow.
Crucifiction and other stories
Mr Putin has blamed the tragedy of MH17 on Ukraine, yet he is the author of its destruction. A high-court’s worth of circumstantial evidence points to the conclusion that pro-Russian separatists fired a surface-to-air missile out of their territory at what they probably thought was a Ukrainian military aircraft. Separatist leaders boasted about it on social media and lamented their error in messages intercepted by Ukrainian intelligence and authenticated by America (see article (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21608785-shooting-down-airliner-shows-how-reckless-vladimir-putins-sponsorship-ukrainian)).
Russia’s president is implicated in their crime twice over. First, it looks as if the missile was supplied by Russia, its crew was trained by Russia, and after the strike the launcher was spirited back to Russia. Second, Mr Putin is implicated in a broader sense because this is his war. The linchpins of the self-styled Donetsk People’s Republic are not Ukrainian separatists but Russian citizens who are, or were, members of the intelligence services. Their former colleague, Mr Putin, has paid for the war and armed them with tanks, personnel carriers, artillery—and batteries of surface-to-air missiles. The separatists pulled the trigger, but Mr Putin pulled the strings.
The enormity of the destruction of flight MH17 should have led Mr Putin to draw back from his policy of fomenting war in eastern Ukraine. Yet he has persevered, for two reasons. First, in the society he has done so much to mould, lying is a first response. The disaster immediately drew forth a torrent of contradictory and implausible theories from his officials and their mouthpieces in the Russian media: Mr Putin’s own plane was the target; Ukrainian missile-launchers were in the vicinity. And the lies got more complex. The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. That such clumsily Soviet efforts are easily laughed off does not defeat their purpose, for their aim is not to persuade but to cast enough doubt to make the truth a matter of opinion. In a world of liars, might not the West be lying, too?
Second, Mr Putin has become entangled in a web of his own lies, which any homespun moralist could have told him was bound to happen. When his hirelings concocted propaganda about fascists running Kiev and their crucifixion of a three-year-old boy, his approval ratings among Russian voters soared by almost 30 percentage points, to over 80%. Having roused his people with falsehoods, the tsar cannot suddenly wriggle free by telling them that, on consideration, Ukraine’s government is not too bad. Nor can he retreat from the idea that the West is a rival bent on Russia’s destruction, ready to resort to lies, bribery and violence just as readily as he does. In that way, his lies at home feed his abuses abroad.
Stop spinning
In Russia such doublespeak recalls the days of the Soviet Union when Pravda claimed to tell the truth. This mendocracy will end in the same way as that one did: the lies will eventually unravel, especially as it becomes obvious how much money Mr Putin and his friends have stolen from the Russian people, and he will fall. The sad novelty is that the West takes a different attitude this time round. In the old days it was usually prepared to stand up to the Soviet Union, and call out its falsehoods. With Mr Putin it looks the other way.
Take Ukraine. The West imposed fairly minor sanctions on Russia after it annexed Crimea, and threatened tougher ones if Mr Putin invaded eastern Ukraine. To all intents and purposes, he did just that: troops paid for by Russia, albeit not in Russian uniforms, control bits of the country. But the West found it convenient to go along with Mr Putin’s lie, and the sanctions eventually imposed were too light and too late. Similarly, when he continued to supply the rebels, under cover of a ceasefire that he claimed to have organised, Western leaders vacillated.
Since the murders of the passengers of MH17 the responses have been almost as limp. The European Union is threatening far-reaching sanctions—but only if Mr Putin fails to co-operate with the investigation or he fails to stop the flow of arms to the separatists. France has said that it will withhold the delivery of a warship to Mr Putin if necessary, but is proceeding with the first of the two vessels on order. The Germans and Italians claim to want to keep diplomatic avenues open, partly because sanctions would undermine their commercial interests. Britain calls for sanctions, but it is reluctant to harm the City of London’s profitable Russian business. America is talking tough but has done nothing new.
Enough. The West should face the uncomfortable truth that Mr Putin’s Russia is fundamentally antagonistic. Bridge-building and resets will not persuade him to behave as a normal leader. The West should impose tough sanctions now, pursue his corrupt friends and throw him out of every international talking shop that relies on telling the truth. Anything else is appeasement—and an insult to the innocents on MH17.

From the print edition: Leaders (http://www.economist.com/printedition/2014-07-26)

[mick silver]

Power EliteThe term "power elite" traces to the writings of C. Wright Mills, including his 1956 book, The Power Elite. The concept posits wealthy and/or well connected families and individuals who seek to expand their wealth by applying and promoting dominant social themes (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/652/). Such themes may eventually develop into widely held archetypes or memes (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/654/).
Often such themes seem to originate with the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization or other international bodies that are receptive to influence by the power elite. The themes then are picked up and rebroadcast by the mainstream media (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1861/). Thus, what may seem to be the work of an independent institutional staff may actually be the brainchild of the power elite.
Concepts such as bird flu, Islamofascism (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/707/) and peak oil (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1880/) are so extensively promoted that much of the public unquestioningly accepts their fearful premises and demand action. Those with the wherewithal to provide solutions – products, services and corporate offerings via public markets – may earn vast profits as a consequence.
There is little contemporary scholarly analysis of the concept of the power elite, but it corresponds roughly to what once was called "the money power (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1863/)."
There are a variety of theories as to the composition and character of the power elite. It sometimes is referred to ominously as the "Illuminati (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1927/)," the "black church" or the "black nobility." It is not necessary to confirm such characterizations to recognize that the action and influence of modern money power are pervasive.
In most conceptions, the core of the power elite coalesces around the European and American banking dynasties and some elite, titled families, or it may be characterized as a "sub-church" within the Roman Catholic, Jewish or other religion. Chief among these dynasties are likely the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.
In some conceptions, the power elite includes members who claim to trace their ancestry to ancient times, even to Babylon and beyond. This accords with the notion that members believe their pedigrees differentiate them from the "common herd."
Signifiers of power elite activity include a disdain of free markets (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1942/) and the persistent and uncritical promotion of a theme or meme to the exclusion of contrary evidence or argument.

[mick silver]

NeoconservativeA political liberal was just a liberal in the 1930s and 1940s, but the reaction to Stalinism prompted a new type of liberal to surface on the political scene, and those liberals supported the Cold War. The term neoconservative was used to describe this group, and many of them were Jewish and emerging intellectuals that lived in New York City. Most of them considered themselves liberal democrats in the 1960s when the New Left or hippie movement in the US became a voice in the movement for American reform.
The first intellectual to embrace neoconservative principles was Irving Kristol, who is considered the godfather of neoconservatives. He wrote about his beliefs in his 1979 book, Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed Neoconservative.
Kristol's son, William, and Robert Kagan founded the Project for the New American Century (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/3472/) in 1997, a think tank based in Washington D.C. which promotes the notion that American leadership is good for the world, and moral, as well. Such leadership, in fact, requires diplomatic energy, military strength and commitment to moral principle.
The other important figure in the early neoconservative movement was Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary Magazine from 1960 to 1965. Podhoretz wrote an article for the New York Times in 1982 titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy." That article left no doubt in anyone's mind; Podhoretz was a staunch member of the neoconservative movement.
In the beginning, neoconservatives were more concerned with domestic policy than foreign policy thus strongly opposed the counterculture movement of the 1960s, which they blatantly called anti-Americanism. The Vietnam War served as the catalyst that separated the Democratic Party into two factions: the anti-war faction and the war-supporting neoconservatives.
Today, neoconservatives advocate the use of American economic and military power to destroy enemies they perceive as threatening to American liberal democracy (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1862/) as well as liberal democracy in other countries. The change of focus initially occurred when the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party took control in 1972 by nominating George McGovern. The neoconservative faction rallied around Senator Henry Jackson and the "second age" of neoconservatism was born from the revolt. The focus was now on the Cold War.
President Lyndon Johnson's New Left policies pushed the Democratic Party to the left, so the intellectuals in the neoconservative faction became disillusioned with his domestic agenda. Ben Wattenberg's 1970 book, The Real Majority brought out the point that the majority in the party actually supported social conservatism (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1905/). The book also warned the party that liberal stances on crime and social issues could be disastrous.
During the 1990s the neoconservative faction opposed the foreign policy decisions made by George H. W. Bush as well as Bill Clinton. Both presidents were criticized for lacking a sense of idealism and reducing military expenditures. Neocons berated both administrations for the lack of moral clarity and the lack of conviction to pursue American strategic interests on the world stage, issuing strategy papers meant to influence these presidents (and others), many of which are posted on the website of the Project for the New American Century.
George W. Bush did not have much support from the neoconservative movement until the September 2001 attacks. Bush awakened a sense of neoconservatism in the entire country when he said the United States should promote liberal democracy around the world. Bush's case for invading Iraq put neoconservatism center stage and it became evident everywhere. Critics called the movement a unified ideology that sanctioned torture, justified military adventurism and stood behind aggressive Zionism.
Neoconservatism can be seen in the modern era as a philosophy that tried to clothe the power elite (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/610/)'s thrust toward global governance in the drapery of philosophy and government ideology. In fact, those who adhere to neoconservatism are merely obscuring the violent tendencies of Money Power (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/679/) and its drive toward global dominance. Neoconservatism is not really a movement. It is a kind of justification for the totalitarian (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1924/) tendencies of the impossibly wealthy Anglosphere (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/956/) families that control central banks (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2958/) and want to extend their domination, formally, around the world.
This movement toward globalism likely will not succeed. Neoconservatism itself may fade away like the bad dream (and ill wind) that it is.

[mick silver]

To all peoples of the WORLD! Please be aware. AMERICA is about to Strike RUSSIA in a FAST strike to begin WW3. This is an OFFICIAL WARNING, it is no joke. ALL HUMANS must prepare. This is a MAJOR BULLETIN! ALL People on this Planet MUST cooperate together immediately or the end of this Earth will be upon us. There is to be only a small space of time. MANKIND MUST come together NOW. Stand together! Whatever Nation. America MUST reach out to Russians and all people. Wake up NOW!

You might also like:


[*=left]Warning: Two Weeks To Prepare For A Possible Cyber Attack On Bank Accounts (http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com/2014/06/warning-two-weeks-to-prepare-for.html)
[*=left]U.S. Planning Operation To Air Strike Iraq And Syria To Take Out Assad (http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com/2014/07/us-planning-operation-to-air-strike.html)
[*=left]ALERT -- The U.S. Preparing A Full Military Strike In Libya? (http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com/2014/06/alert-us-preparing-full-military-strike.html)

http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/official-warning-u-s-to-hit-russia-with.html

[mick silver]

Washington Is Escalating the Orchestrated Ukrainian "Crisis" to WarJuly 25, 2014

Editorial By Paul Craig Roberts

Despite the conclusion by US intelligence that there is no evidence of Russian involvement in the destruction of the Malaysian airliner and all lives onboard, Washington is escalating the crisis and shepherding it toward war.
Twenty-two US senators have introduced into the 113th Congress, Second Session, a bill, S.2277 (https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/s2277/BILLS-113s2277is.pdf%20The%20bill%20is%20before%20the%20 Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Relations.), "To prevent further Russian aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and Eurasia, and for other purposes."
Note that prior to any evidence of any Russian aggression, there are already 22 senators lined up in behalf of preventing further Russian aggression.
Accompanying this preparatory propaganda move to create a framework for war, hot or cold with Russia, NATO commander General Philip Breedlove announced his plan for a deployment of massive military means in Eastern Europe that would permit lightening responses against Russia in order to protect Europe from Russian aggression.
There we have it again: Russian aggression. Repeat it enough and it becomes real.



The existence of "Russian aggression" is assumed, not demonstrated. Neither Breedlove nor the senators make any reference to Russian war plans for an attack on Europe or any other countries. There are no references to Russian position papers and documents setting forth a Russian expansionist ideology or a belief declared by Moscow that Russians are "exceptional, indispensable people" with the right to exercise hegemony (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2452/) over the world. No evidence is presented that Russia has infiltrated the communication systems of the entire world for spy purposes. There is no evidence that Putin has Obama's or Obama's daughters' private cell phone conversations or that Russia downloads US corporate secrets for the benefit of Russian businesses.
Nevertheless, the NATO (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1854/) commander and US senators see an urgent need to create blitzkrieg capability for NATO on Russia's borders.
Senate bill 2277 consists of three titles: "Reinvigorating the Nato Alliance," "Deterring Further Russian Aggression in Europe," and "Hardening Ukraine and other European and Eurasian States Against Russian Aggression." Who do you think wrote this bill? Hint: it wasn't the senators or their staffs.
Title I deals with strengthening US force posture in Europe and Eurasia and strengthening the NATO alliance, with accelerating the construction of ABM (anti-ballistic missile) bases on Russia's borders so as to degrade the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent, and to provide more money for Poland and the Baltic states and strengthen US-German cooperation on global security issues, that is, to make certain that the German military is incorporated as part of the US empire military force.
Title II is about confronting "Russian aggression in Europe" with sanctions and with financial and diplomatic "support for Russian democracy (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1862/) and civil society organizations," which means to pump billions of dollars into NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that can be used to destabilize Russia in the way that Washington used the NGOs it funded in Ukraine to overthrow the elected government. For 20 years Russian government negligence permitted Washington to organize fifth columns inside Russia that pose as human rights organizations, etc.
Title III deals with military and intelligence assistance for Ukraine, putting Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova on a NATO track, expediting US natural gas exports in order to erase European and Eurasian energy dependence on Russia, preventing recognition of Crimea as again a part of Russia, expanding broadcasting (propaganda) into Russian areas, and again "support for democracy and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union," which means to use money to subvert the Russian federation.
However you look at this, it comprises a declaration of war. Moreover, these provocative and expensive moves are presented as necessary to counter Russian aggression for which there is no evidence.
How do we characterize a bill that is not merely thoughtless, unnecessary, and dangerous, but also more Orwellian than Orwell? I am open to suggestions.
Ukraine as it currently exists is an ahistorical state with artificial boundaries. Ukraine presently consists of part of what was once a larger entity plus former Russian provinces added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia permitted Ukraine's independence, under US pressure Russia mistakenly permitted Ukraine to take with it the former Russian provinces.
When Washington executed its coup in Kiev last year, the Russophobes who grabbed power began threatening in word and deed the Russian populations in eastern and southern Ukraine. The Crimeans voted to reunite with Russia and were accepted. This reunification was grossly misrepresented by Western propaganda. When other former Russian provinces voted likewise, the Russian government, kowtowing to Western propaganda, did not grant their requests. Instead, Russian president Putin called for Kiev and the former Russian provinces to work out an agreement that would keep the provinces within Ukraine.
Kiev and its Washington master did not listen. Instead, Kiev launched military attacks on the provinces and was conducting bombing attacks on the provinces at the moment the Malaysian airliner was downed.
Washington and its European vassals have consistently misrepresented the situation in Ukraine and denied their responsibility for the violence, instead placing all blame on Russia. But it is not Russia that is conducting bombing raids and attacking provinces with troops, tanks, and artillery. Just as Israel's current military assault against Palestinian civilians fails to evoke criticism from Washington, European governments, and the Western media (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1861/), Kiev's assault on the former Russian provinces goes unreported and uncriticized. Indeed, it appears that few Americans are even aware that Kiev is attacking civilian areas of the provinces that wish to return to their mother country.
Sanctions should be imposed on Kiev, from which the military violence originates. Instead, Kiev is receiving financial and military support, and sanctions are placed on Russia which is not militarily involved in the situation.
When the outbreak of violence against the former Russian provinces began, the Russian Duma (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/3462/) voted Putin the power to intervene militarily. Instead of using this power, Putin requested that the Duma rescind the power, which the Duma did. Putin preferred to deal with the problem diplomatically in a reasonable and unprovocative manner.
Putin has received neither respect nor appreciation for encouraging a non-violent resolution of the unfortunate Ukrainian situation created by Washington's coup against a democratically elected government that was only months away from a chance to elect a different government.
The sanctions that Washington has applied and that Washington is pressuring its European puppets to join send the wrong information to Kiev. It tells Kiev that the West approves and encourages Kiev's determination to resolve its differences with the former Russian provinces with violence rather than with negotiation.
This means war will continue, and that is clearly Washington's intent. The latest reports are that US military advisors will soon be in Ukraine to aid the conquest of the former Russian provinces that are in revolt.
The presstitute nature of the Western media ensures that the bulk of the American and European populations will remain in the grip of Washington's anti-Russian propaganda.
At some point the Russian government will have to face the fact that it doesn't have "Western partners." Russia has Western enemies who are being organized to isolate Russia, to injure Russia economically and diplomatically, to surround Russia militarily, to destabilize Russia by calling the American-funded NGOs into the streets, and in the absence of a coup that installs an American puppet in Moscow to attack Russia with nuclear weapons.
I respect Putin's reliance on diplomacy and good will in the place of force. The problem with Putin's approach is that Washington has no good will, so there is no reciprocity.
Washington has an agenda. Europe consists of captive nations, and these nations are without leaders capable of breaking free of Washington's agenda.
I hope that I am wrong, but I think Putin has miscalculated. If Putin had accepted the?former Russian provinces requests to reunite with Russia, the conflict in Ukraine would be over. I am certain that Europe would not have joined Washington in any invasion with the purpose of recovering for Ukraine former provinces of Russia herself. When Washington says that Putin is responsible for downing the Malaysian airliner, Washington is correct in a way that Washington doesn't suspect. Had Putin completed the task begun with Crimea and reunited the Russian provinces with Russia, there would have been no war during which an airliner could have been downed, whether by accident or as a plot to demonize Russia. Ukraine has no capability of confronting Russia militarily and had no alternative to accepting the reunification of the Russian territories.
Europe would have witnessed a decisive Russian decision and would have put a great distance between itself and Washington's provocative agenda. This European response would have precluded Washington's ability to gradually escalate the crisis by gradually turning the temperature higher without the European frog jumping out of the pot.
In its dealings with Washington Europe has grown accustomed to the efficacy of bribes, threats, and coercion. Captive nations are inured to diplomacy's impotence. Europeans see diplomacy as the weak card played by the weak party. And, of course, all the Europeans want money, which Washington prints with abandon.
Russia and China are disadvantaged in their conflict with Washington. Russia and China have emerged from tyranny. People in both countries were influenced by American cold war propaganda. Both countries have educated people who think that America has freedom, democracy, justice, civil liberty, economic wellbeing and is a welcoming friend of other countries that want the same thing.
This is a dangerous delusion. Washington has an agenda. Washington has put in place a police state (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/3444/) to suppress its own population, and Washington believes that history has conveyed the right to Washington to exercise hegemony over the world. Last year President Obama declared to the world that he sincerely believes that America is the exceptional nation on whose leadership the world depends.
In other words, all other countries and peoples are unexceptional. Their voices are unimportant. Their aspirations are best served by Washington's leadership. Those who disagree–Russia, China, Iran, and the new entity ISIL–are regarded by Washington as obstacles to history's purpose. Anything, whether an idea or a country, that is in the way of Washington is in the way of History's Purpose and must be run over.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Europe faced the determination of the French Revolution (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1933/) to impose Liberty, Equality, Fraternity upon Europe. Today Washington's ambition is larger. The ambition is to impose Washington's hegemony on the entire world.
Unless Russia and China submit, this means war.

- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35505/Paul-Craig-Roberts-Washington-Is-Escalating-the-Orchestrated-Ukrainian-Crisis-to-War/#sthash.EYAIjTcM.dpuf

[mick silver]

Mainstream MediaWhile mainstream media (as opposed to the Internet and more traditional delivery systems of alternative media, which is usually run by small companies and entrepreneurs) seems quite vibrant and widespread, it is actually consolidated and tightly held. Globally, according to the New Internationalist magazine (and website), large media conglomerates include: Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, General Electric, Vivendi SA, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo and Lagardère Group.
While such lists fluctuate, each of the above own media properties – television, cinema, book publishers, magazines and newspapers – in dozens of companies. It is estimated that just four companies – Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG and Walt Disney – control over 50 percent of all major media properties. Populations in the West (and the rest of the world) can effectively be swayed by the messages that these four media giants are sending, not that these four are alone in their efforts. This provides enormous control as messaging can be sent out on a relatively consistent basis, reaching billions within a very short period of time.
Many of the messages that are provided to the West and the rest of the world tend to reinforce the dominant social themes (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/652/) of the Anglo-American (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/956/) power elite (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/610/). In fact, it has been argued that the Anglosphere itself (a tightly knit group of banking families) controls these giant media enterprises at an arm's length. What is certainly true is that mainstream media tends to promote the fear-based propaganda in which the elites specialize. Such fear-based promotions are intended to push Western middle classes to give up wealth and power, which is then assumed by the elites' internationalist institutions.
It can certainly be speculated that the Anglo-American-controlled mainstream media has been consolidated for purposes of realizing ever-closer global governance and that this is the underlying messaging around which all media, from books to movies to magazines, is built. It is only with the advent of the Internet that this monolithic messaging has gradually been fractured and thus it is no coincidence that much of the messaging provided by mainstream media is now in some trouble.
Additionally, mainstream media has lost considerable credibility as people have read analyses on the Internet and begun to realize that much of what mainstream media provides in terms of information is ultimately internationalist-biased and often consisting of half-truths. As a result, even major "respected" organs of the mainstream, especially in the US, have come on hard times. Newsweek, the New York Times and BusinessWeek, to name just three high-profile media properties, have suffered terribly. Newsweek was sold for a dollar, BusinessWeek for not much more apparently, and the New York Times had to receive an emergency loan to stay afloat.
It is not clear what will salvage the fortunes of mainstream media when it comes to regaining credibility and popularity, but it is certain that the Anglo-American elite will continue to pour vast resources into even the most miserable, high-profile mainstream media entities as controlling share-of-mind is the single most critical advantage that the power elite has in its quest to create a new world order.

[Ponce]

Nothing happen till it happens, meanwhile, is only a lot of noices........if a REAL war breaks out many would join Russia against the US, they are just sitting on the side lines waiting to jump in...... just waiting for a payback.

But, when the lack of water jumps into the equation then a real chance of war is there.

V