Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

[Neil]

One reason could be, that these egotistic 'artists' want to be popular, and as radical liberalism has become fashionable (at least in some circles), they support it for gaining popularity. However, thinking about it, it doesn't seem like a strong theory. Where are all the 'alt right' celebrities that could appeal to the working class and Trump supporters? There are some, but they are a clear minority.

I think this is pretty close actually. Kim Kardashian is a somewhat egregious extreme, but she is a pretty good archetype for the entire industry. The more she shakes her ass and teases with semi-nude photos, the more money she makes. Combine that with the ability to whip up a convincing dramtic flair on demand, and that's almost all you need to be sucessful in Hollywood. I think being able to think too deeply about anything is a detriment to being employed in the Hollywood sphere, because people would see the glamor is an illusion and you actually become a slave to maintaing a certain image. The actors are smart enough to know that the only thing of value that they have is their image, and that can easily be taken away if the masters turn the paparazzi media against them. Staying on the bandwagon is the simplest and most hassle-free way to maintain the image. Furthermore, the liberal ideology has been dominant in America's intelligentsia for a long time, and if you're going to be anyone important in a major city, you have to have certain degrees from certain schools and are then interviewed by various "gatekeepers" who have those credentials to make sure you have the correct education. So at the managment level in these institutions, there is a very specific selection criteria that favors pathological liberalism. If you don't fit that mold, the only way you rise to prominence is if you are so wildly sucessful on your own or with certain rogue elements of the establishment that your wealth rises to a level comparable to those who have sold their soul. That's difficult, nearly impossible, but can happen once in awhile.

On the level that Trump operates, I think there are different factions, like a Soros faction, and maybe a Kissinger faction, which are pretty much unified at a higher level with the same objectives, but have different opinions on what society should look like. Trump, used to being the business magnate, thought he could come into the presidency being the boss and impose his vision on the country. The deep state broke him and forced him to viscerally realize what a foolish weak little man he was. Trump has probably never been in such a position of weakness before and realized he needed allies to back him up if he was to have any clout in negotiating his policies. So he sold himself to the not-Soros team and they took advantage of his desperation to coopt him into the broader deep state agenda. The thing is, they don't really like him either and they like to remind him how short his leash really is. The whole thing is somewhat forced, and he does not have the ideological zeal like a Bush or Obama. He is useful to them though because a large cohort of disenfrachised conservatives view him as a sort of quasi-hero. So they will give him a little bit of room to breathe, so he can get his base riled up at his rallies, causing them to expend their aggressive energy toward the government in a mostly harmless direction while keeping them somewhat sedate. In the meantime, they can push through a few national policies that they prefer over the Soros style ones. So Trump's "powerful friends" that he bought are just kind of stringing him along until he is no longer useful.

 

[angelburst29]

November 2, 2018 - Trump backtracks on suggestion US Troops could fire on Migrants
Trump backtracks on suggestion U.S. troops could fire on migrants | Reuters


President Donald Trump on Friday backtracked from his suggestion a day earlier that American troops sent to the U.S. border with Mexico would be free to fire on migrants who throw rocks at them, saying that rock-throwers would only be arrested.

“They won’t have to fire. What I don’t want is I don’t want these people throwing rocks,” Trump told reporters outside the White House. “If they do that with us, they’re going to be arrested for a long time.”

Trump’s rhetoric on shooting migrants drew criticism from human rights groups that said he was stoking fear ahead of next week’s congressional elections. Calling migrants a national security threat “is as absurd as it is cruel,” advocacy group Human Rights First said in a statement.

In his comments, Trump suggested the military could fire on migrants who cross the border illegally if they throw rocks at troops.

“They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. ... I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military police, I say: Consider it a rifle,” Trump said.

The Nigerian army on Friday used Trump’s remarks to justify opening fire at Shi’ite Muslim protesters earlier in the week. Authorities have reported only a few killed but a Shi’ite group said the toll was more than 40.

After Trump’s remarks on Thursday saying stone-throwers should be treated as if they were carrying rifles, the Nigerian Army posted a note on Twitter with a video of Trump’s remarks, adding: “Please Watch and Make your Deductions.”

The U.S. president has hardened his stance on immigration in a bid to rouse his political base ahead of the elections. His Republican party is in an uphill fight to maintain control of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, although it is expected to pick up seats in the Senate.

The Pentagon said on Monday it was deploying more than 5,200 troops to the border at Trump’s direction to confront a caravan of men, women and children traveling through Mexico as they flee violence and poverty in Central America. Trump has characterized it as an “invasion” of migrants.

Mexico has said 2,800 to 3,000 people are in the caravan, which left Honduras in mid-October, although many are expected to drop off before reaching the U.S. border.

Trump also said on Thursday his administration was finalizing a plan to block immigrants who do not come into the United States at a legal port of entry from applying for asylum, although federal law allows any immigrant in the United States to do so.

Still, migrant caravans have pressed on. On Friday, a smaller caravan from El Salvador crossed through a river to enter the Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas.


Nov. 3, 2018 - Migrant Caravan: Pentagon Refuses Trump Order to Deploy US Troops to Border
Migrant Caravan: Pentagon Refuses Trump Order to Deploy US Troops to Border

The Pentagon rejected a request from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy troops that would act as ‘emergency law enforcement’ to the Mexico/US border as a means to stop entry into America of the so-called migrant caravan.

The Trump administration, through the DHS, requested that the Department of Defense (DoD) deploy American soldiers to the nation's southern border, in what the Pentagon considered to be duties that should be handled instead by state or local law enforcement, according to CNN.

The Pentagon refused Trump's request.

The DHS had been tasked by the Trump White House with requesting US Army reserve forces to serve as "crowd and traffic control" for Customs and Border Protection (CMP) personnel at the Mexican border, in the event that a group of asylum-seeking Central American migrants — referred to as a ‘migrant caravan' — approached the US border.

Although the Pentagon rejected the request, the DoD did agree to provide air surveillance and logistical support to the CPB, as well as medical personnel and engineers, according to CNN.

The DHS demand for troops equipped with live-fire weapons was rejected by the DoD, however, as the Pentagon noted that active-duty soldiers did not have the authority to conduct a mission of that nature without first receiving additional stipulations from the president.

"While DHS has discussed the need for potential assistance with force protection of CBP personnel, calling this line of support 'law enforcement activities' would be factually inaccurate," an anonymous DHS official close to the situation said, cited by ABC News affiliate Kitv.com.

US troops on active duty are not allowed to participate in domestic law enforcement, except in times of emergency. Trump has consistently threatened to send soldiers to the Mexico border, declaring that a rapidly-escalating immigration danger exists as lawmakers stump for candidates ahead of the upcoming US 2018 midterm elections, according to CNN.

During a Thursday speech from the White House, the president offered the possibility that soldiers would fire live weapons at migrants if they were seen to throw rocks. Trump asserted that rocks are comparable to guns, while claiming that the migrant caravan — containing some 3000 extremely poor Central Americans — was an "invasion" of America, according to the Washington Post.

Operation Faithful Patriot, the mission to deploy US troops to the border to stop migrants from entering the US, has received deep criticism from military officials.

Retired General Martin Dempsey, the 2011-2015 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Friday that the move would be a "wasteful deployment of over-stretched soldiers and Marines [that] would be made much worse if they use force disproportional to the threat they face," according to Defense News.

The US president appeared to walk back his rocks-to-rifles comparison on Friday, claiming that "if our soldiers are going to be hit in the face with rocks, we're going to arrest those people. That doesn't mean shoot them," cited by NPR.

Trump added that if arrests were made, they would happen "quickly and for a long time."


Nov. 3, 2018 - Watch Migrant Caravan throw rocks at Mexican Border Guard Helicopter
WATCH Migrant Caravan Throw Rocks at Mexican Border Guard Helicopter

A massive migrant caravan has rushed across the Mexican border and is now moving towards the US, despite President Donald Trump vowing to prevent them from entering the country.

A Facebook a user with the handle Chuy Saldana uploaded a video of an incident at the Guatemala-Mexico border that took place on October 28. The video shows a Mexican border guard helicopter flying low over the ground near the caravan of migrants coming from Central America.

At some point, the migrants started throwing rocks at the aircraft, presumably trying to intimidate the border guards. After flying several circles around the caravan, the helicopter decided to leave. It's not clear whether the migrants actually managed to hit it or if the pilots simply decided not to take any chances.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2737674912925021

US President Donald Trump has warned the migrants that if they start throwing rocks at American border guards, they could open fire. He later backtracked on his statement and said that no one would shoot migrants, but added that those attacking US soldiers and Border Patrol agents would be arrested and prosecuted.


Nov. 2, 2018 - Exposed! US Dems Illegally use Campaign Funds to Assist Immigrants - Reports
Exposed! US Dems Illegally Use Campaign Funds to Assist Immigrants – Reports

Hardly had the dust settled after reports on the Spanberger campaign mole settled, when New York investigative journalists dug out news facts about Texas Democrats practically assisting illegal migrants at the US-Mexican border at the taxpayers’ expense. Some of them, namely the use of a “prepaid card”, appear unknown to the campaign management.

Project Veritas, a group known for undercover “sting” videos, has launched footage implicating Jody Casey, a campaign manager for Democrat Rep. Beto O'Rourke in Texas' closely watched Senate race, and her team allegedly used campaign funds for the purposes of undocumented caravan immigrants.

The footage sports Jody reiterating “no comment” multiple times, while one of the campaign staffers, Dominic Chacon, expressed determination to pick some immigrants up at the border as well as provide a supply of “food and blankets,” and give rides to Honduran “aliens,” with another man in the video weighing in saying “there is no rule book” with regard to this. The staffers noted that the money could perhaps be intended for Halloween “block walks” or some other “campaign event.”

In the course of the conversation captured by a hidden camera, one other campaign staffer remarked she had already helped someone from the caravan and would see if she could help more, with “four, three, two hundred more” still coming

However, he afterwards speculated about the staggering $50,000 dollars in fines, saying in the event of being caught red-handed “more than once”, “that’s a lot of f***ing money.”

Another staffer remarked, although rather chaotically, that she “told Jody and her director,” about the assistance, with another later citing Jody’s text message, in which she praised her team’s efforts, expressing her “happiness to see y’all there, still working, still contributing.” Chacon further noted Jody was “good about” them using campaign resources and “getting this stuff done.”

“Well, she doesn’t know that we used the, the prepaid card, but it’s okay. She doesn’t need to know,” he went on to say, adding they managed to get away with packing supermarket carts with “baby wipes” citing the heat outside and even added they could “probably use, get away with using vans.” The later, he implicated, was something Jody was unaware of.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has pledged that the US would turn back the caravan of migrants heading to Texas on the southern border of the US from their home countries in Central America. The Washington Post cited the migrants from the caravan as saying that they merely sought employment in the US, which is insufficient grounds for obtaining refugee status in the US.

Earlier, President Donald Trump, echoed by a number of other Republicans, vowed to cut off US aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala over their failure to stop migrants from leaving their countries to come illegally to the United States. He argued that the Democrats "openly invite" hordes of illegal aliens to the US so that they could easily violate the country's borders and laws.

Earlier this week, a conservative group was accused of infiltrating the campaign of Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat in a tight race with Republican Dave Brat in Virginia’s 7th District. Veritas’ James O-Keefe suggested that the undercover work had borne fruit but was sadly cut short by the ouster of the mole, whom the Spanberger campaign identified as Marisa Jorge. It is noteworthy that in one of the two released videos, Jorge lauds the “diversity” of Spanberger donors, noting that former FBI director James B. Comey and Jonathan Soros, the son of billionaire left-winger George Soros, are among them.


Nov. 4, 2018 - Nutjob: Call for Killings by US Christian Fundamentalist Lawmaker Nets FBI Probe
Nutjob: Call for Killings by US Christian Fundamentalist Lawmaker Nets FBI Probe

A fundamentalist Christian US State Representative has been targeted for investigation by the FBI after the lawmaker’s call for a holy war to kill unbelievers was made public.

The Washington state Republican politician became the subject of FBI scrutiny after a how-to guide he penned on killing people that did not agree with his fundamentalist Christian beliefs was brought to the attention of the law enforcement branch of the US government.

GOP Representative Matt Shea, a five-term Washington state lawmaker, circulated among his devotees a carefully-written manual describing how to conduct a holy war in the US, according to the Seattle Times

Called "Biblical Basis for War," Shea's broadsheet offered a bullet-point list on how to inculcate a Christian theocratic movement as a means to kill off any who oppose a hypothetical holy war in America.

In Shea's flier, his Christian crusaders are first instructed to offer their enemies those demands by which a surrender will be accepted, including: "stop all abortions," "no same-sex marriage," "no idolatry or occultism," "no communism," and that anyone wishing to remain in the country "must obey Biblical law," according to the Seattle Times.

If Shea's terms of surrender are not accepted, his paper then instructs fundamentalist believers to "kill all males," cited by the Seattle Times.

Support for the Republican politician from local white nationalist groups is well documented, according to al Jazeera. Shea has also declared that the science explaining the causes of global warming are a conspiracy to "manipulate the public mind," cited by Talking Points Memo.

The GOP lawmaker's document was given to the FBI by Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, who reportedly took one look at it and picked up the phone.

"I gave it straight to the FBI," noted Knezovich, cited by Thinkprogress.com.


Nov. 3, 2018 - Report Claims Iran Busted CIA's Secret Communication System using Google Search
Report Claims Iran Busted CIA's Secret Communication System Using Google Search

A new exposé by Yahoo News about one of the biggest intelligence failures in history is based on conversations with eleven former US intelligence and government officials familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Yahoo News has reported, citing several unnamed intelligence and government sources that the internet-based communications system used by the CIA to communicate with its operatives around the world was exposed by Iranians using Google search.

However, according to the same report, the vulnerabilities of the network had been detected years before the aforementioned developments.

In 2008, John Reidy, a defense contractor, whose job was to identify, contact and manage human sources for the CIA in Iran, reportedly sounded the alarm about a “massive intelligence failure” related to “communications” with sources.

The CIA could have prevented the fiasco had it heeded his warning, but a year after the “nightmare scenario” he had mentioned came true, he was sacked because of what his superiors said were conflicts of interest, while he believed the genuine reason behind his dismissal was retaliation.

“This is one of the most catastrophic failures since Sept. 11. And the CIA punished the person who brought the problem to light,” Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst with the nonprofit Government Accountability project, told Yahoo News.

The exposé claims that the Iranians managed to overcome the US intelligence system, which wasn’t designed to withstand elaborate counterintelligence efforts, without any trouble.

“It was never meant to be used long term for people to talk to sources. The issue was that it was working well for too long, with too many people. But it was an elementary system,” an unnamed former official told Yahoo.

In fact, the report claims that the communication network was previously compromised in China, so the risks posed by the system seemed to have been overlooked because it was easy to use, the insiders alleged.

By 2010, Tehran had made progress in exposing and identifying CIA agents, and a year later, the country’s authorities announced they had dismantled a CIA spy network, seven ex-intelligence officers added.

The authors of the report then wrote that in 2011 an Iranian TV broadcast suggested that US agents had developed websites for fake companies to recruit agents in Iran by promising them lots of perks, including jobs, visas and education abroad, but in fact they ended up meeting with CIA officers, who sought to hire them as operatives.

Another former official told the outlet that there was “shock and awe” at the CIA about the simplicity of Iran’s approach.

Even though it remains unclear how exactly Iranians infiltrated the network, two former US intelligence officers told Yahoo that they had cultivated a double agent who ultimately led them to the covert CIA communications system.

Then Iranian intelligence managed to trace those who were visiting these websites and, eventually, uncover the CIA network, the report says.

US intelligence is unsure whether Iran and China cooperated with each other or managed to unravel the networks separately, but the systems used in both countries were similar, one official said.

Yahoo wrote that the CIA refused to comment on the matter, while the Iranian Mission to the UN did not reply to requests for information.

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1058305545491214336

https://twitter.com/x/status/1059536616945999873

 

[Gawan]

It looks like if the democrats won over the House of Representatives and can make Trumps live much harder now. But according to one article it wasn't a "blue wave":

Democrats may have won control of the House of Representatives, but the promised ‘blue wave’ to wash away President Donald Trump hasn’t quite arrived.

Democrats have already surpassed the 23 seats they need to win control of the House of Representatives, flipping 26 seats to the Republicans’ two as the day came to a close with votes still being tallied. They didn’t fare as well in the Senate, failing to flip a single seat while Republicans gained four and held onto their majority.

Some of the most closely-watched races also left Democrats disappointed. Despite raising a record amount of campaign cash – $38 million – Beto O’Rourke failed to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Republican Rick DeSantis narrowly edged out Andrew Gillum, the black mayor of Tallahassee championed by many progressives, to replace Rick Scott as governor of Florida.

Taking over one house of Congress gives Democrats some of the leverage they have been seeking against President Trump, though it remains to be seen whether they'll actually attempt the impeachment they've been blustering about since before Trump was inaugurated.

[...]

Blue wave? Democrats win House, but it looks more like a trickle

 

[Ca.]

US political system to become less predictable after midterm elections — Russian senator
MOSCOW, November 7. /TASS/. The US political system will become even more misbalanced and unpredictable after the latest midterm elections, a senior Russian senator told reporters on Wednesday.

"There was no sensation. The outcome of the elections is in line with the main forecasts. Naturally, both [parties] will try to present the outcome as their victory. But I’m afraid that the US political system will be among losers, becoming even more misbalanced and unpredictable, up to attempts to launch the impeachment procedure," Konstantin Kosachev, the chair of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said.

He also said that "the part of the world, which depends on domestic US political wrangling whether it wishes it or not" will also be among the losers.

The midterm elections in the US took place on November 6. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 out of the 100 seats in the Senate were up for grabs. In addition, 36 states and three territories held gubernatorial elections. Besides, 6,073 state and local officials were also elected.

According to US media forecasts, the Democratic Party is likely to get the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Republican Party will keep its majority in the Senate.

US President Donald Trump broke the eight-hour silence in his Twitter to describe the elections as "tremendous success.".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1059979083856203777

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060029244661817345

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060012679312629760

 

[angelburst29]

Nov. 7, 2018 - How a Democratic US House could alter Foreign Policy (Alter? More like a "seek & destroy" mission!)
How a Democratic U.S. House could alter foreign policy | Reuters


A rainbow forms over the U.S. Capitol as evening sets on midterm Election Day in Washington, U.S. November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Democrats will use their new majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to reverse what they see as a hands-off approach by Republicans toward President Donald Trump's foreign policy, and push for tougher dealings with Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Representative Eliot Engel, the Democrat in line to head the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said they may also seek congressional authorization for the use of military force in places like Iraq and Syria. But on some hot-button areas, like China and Iran, he acknowledged there was little they could do to change the status quo.

As the majority party, Democrats will decide what legislation is considered in the House and have a bigger role in setting spending policy and writing legislation.

“I don’t think we should challenge something just because it’s put forth by the administration, but I do think we have an obligation to review policies and do oversight,” Engel told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Since they must still work with a Republican-controlled Senate to pass any bills, the Democratic majority’s greatest influence will be oversight, the ability to call hearings and, if necessary, subpoena witnesses, as they lead committees like Foreign Affairs as well as Armed Services and Intelligence.

HOW DO THE DEMOCRATS SEE RUSSIA?
Democrats plan Russia-related investigations, such as a probe of possible business ties and conflicts of interest between Trump and Russia.

From a policy perspective, a Democratic-led House will push to punish Russia for interference in U.S. elections and activities including its aggression in Ukraine and involvement in the Syrian civil war.

The House could push for more sanctions, including measures targeting new Russian sovereign debt. It could also try to pressure Trump to enact all of the sanctions in a sweeping bill he reluctantly signed into law in August 2017.

Members of Congress have also vowed to push harder, using subpoenas if necessary, to obtain information about Trump’s summit last summer with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The White House has released few details about the meeting.

“It’s ludicrous that there could be such a high-level meeting between the two leaders and Congress should be in the dark about it,” Engel said.

He said the issue of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election “hasn’t been at all resolved.”

WILL KHASHOGGI’S KILLING INFLUENCE SAUDI TIES?
The furor over the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul has added to lawmakers’ frustration with Saudi Arabia over the war in Yemen and human rights.

A Democratic-led House could vote on legislation to block arms deals with Riyadh, make it difficult to win congressional approval of a nuclear energy deal and consider a measure to stop U.S. aircraft refueling and other support for the campaign in Yemen

While Engel still views Saudi Arabia as a counterweight to Iran’s influence in the Middle East, he said Washington must demand more. “If the Saudis want our support, then they have to address some of the things that concern us,” he said.

DON’T DEMOCRATS WANT PEACE WITH NORTH KOREA?
Democrats say they are determined to obtain more information about meetings by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, worried that Trump is so eager to make a “great deal” that he will give Kim too much.

Engel plans to call administration officials to testify about the status of talks. But Democrats also will walk a fine line, because they do not want to be seen as interfering with diplomacy and efforts to prevent a nuclear war.

“I think it’s good to have some kind of a dialogue with them. But we shouldn’t be deluded in thinking that they’re going to have any major changes,” Engel said.

CAN DEMOCRATS CHANGE CHINA POLICY?
Democratic House control is not expected to yield significant changes in China policy. Democrats will hold more hearings and demand more briefings, but criticism of Beijing has so far crossed party lines and that is not expected to change.

Prominent Democrats, such as Representative Adam Schiff, who is in line to chair the House Intelligence Committee, have joined Republicans backing measures to clamp down on China, like legislation treating ZTE Corp and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL] technology and phones as major cyber security threats.

But Engel and others acknowledged the need for China as a partner, particularly in dealing with North Korea. “I think we need to be careful not to lash out,” Engel said.

WILL DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE TRUMP TRADE POLICY?
Like Republicans, Democrats are divided on Trump’s trade war with China. Some party members see free trade as a generator of jobs, while others back tariffs to protect workers in industries such as steel and manufacturing.

While the president has considerable latitude on trade policy, Democrats have said they want more accountability on Trump’s actions, including sharp tariff hikes on China that have affected farm and manufacturing states, particularly in the Midwest. Even if they do not come down hard on Trump on trade, Democrats will ask him to ensure that any trade deal sets labor and environmental standards.

CAN DEMOCRATS REVIVE THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL?
Democrats were infuriated by Trump’s withdrawal from the international nuclear deal with Iran that Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration reached in 2015. But there is little they can do to change the policy as long as Republicans occupy the White House.

Lawmakers also are wary of seeming too friendly to Iran, especially given hostility to Tehran by the government of Israel. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has worked increasingly closely with U.S. Republicans, strong ties to Israel remain a top priority for both parties.

Engel was among Democrats who opposed the Iran deal, but he said Trump should work with important allies, like the members of the European Union, on that and other issues. “I think what we should do is try to repair the damage with our alliances that has been done,” he said.


November 7, 2018 - With Trump shackled at Home, Europeans fear more disruption abroad
How a Democratic U.S. House could alter foreign policy | Reuters

Stymied at home by Democrats determined to subvert his domestic agenda, President Donald Trump could double down on his disruptive foreign policy in the years ahead, with conflicts over trade a particular concern, politicians, diplomats and analysts in Europe said.

Democrats wrested control of the U.S. House of Representatives from Trump’s Republicans in midterm elections seen as a referendum on his two-year-old presidency and closely watched around the world.

The outcome gives the opposition party new powers to block Trump’s domestic agenda and step up inquiries into the former real estate mogul’s business dealings and suspected links between his presidential campaign and Russia.

But on foreign policy Trump’s ability to set the agenda remains largely intact. And while House Democrats could push for a tougher approach towards Saudi Arabia and Russia, they are unlikely to move the dial on his biggest agenda items: the trade conflict with China and hardline course with Iran.

“The formidable executive powers of the president, notably in foreign policy, remain untouched,” Norbert Roettgen, head of the foreign affairs committee in the German Bundestag, told Deutschlandfunk radio.

“We need to prepare for the possibility that Trump’s defeat (in the House) fires him up, that he intensifies the polarization, the aggression we saw during the campaign.”

Peter Trubowitz, director of the United States Center at the London School of Economics, said: “I would look for him to double down on China, on Iran, on the Mexican border.”

“I think that the incentive structure now has changed for him and he will invest even more time on the foreign policy front as we move forward to 2020,” he added.

NO REBUKE
Trump’s first two years in office deeply unsettled traditional U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

He pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, lambasted allies like Germany for running trade surpluses and not spending more on defense, and cosied up to authoritarian leaders in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Although few European politicians said so openly, the hope in Berlin, Paris and Brussels was that U.S. voters would deliver a clear rebuke to Trump’s Republicans in the midterms, forcing a change of tack and bolstering hopes of regime change in 2020.

Some European politicians hailed Democratic gains in the House as proof of a shift. Frans Timmermans, first vice president of the European Commission, said Americans had chosen “hope over fear, civility over rudeness, inclusion over racism”.

But the outcome fell short of the “blue wave” some had hoped for. Republicans were able to strengthen their majority in the Senate, the chamber that has traditionally played the biggest role on foreign policy.

And in several high-profile House, Senate and governor races - in states such as Iowa, Florida, Georgia and Texas - Republicans closely allied with Trump emerged victorious.

Roettgen said he saw the outcome as a “normalization” of Trump and confirmation that his “hostile takeover” of the Republican Party has been successful.

One area where Democrats could rein in Trump is on Saudi Arabia, whose killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last month has fueled a backlash in Congress and threats to block arms sales.

A more intense focus on Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election will limit Trump’s ability to work with President Vladimir Putin. Democrats in the House could also push for more sanctions against Moscow, including measures that would punish European firms involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

We can say with a large amount of confidence that of course no bright prospects for normalizing Russian-American relations can be seen on the horizon,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

TRADE RISK
Trade is one area where presidents can act without congressional approval. And several European diplomats and analysts said they expected Trump to keep the conflict with China alive, or even intensify it, as his domestic agenda stalls.

Troubles at home also increase the likelihood that Trump follows through on his threats to confront Europe on trade, including punishing Germany with tariffs on car imports.

A visit to the White House in June by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker brought a ceasefire. But last month, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross accused the EU of holding up progress on trade and said Trump’s patience was “not unlimited”.

“Trump deeply believes that the EU and especially the Germans are taking U.S. to the cleaners,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official who is research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“I fully expect that if he is encountering political problems at home he will look for new confrontations.”


And right on cue - send in the Clowns ...

November 7, 2018 - Joe Biden leads potential 2020 Democratic field - Reuters/Ipsos poll
Joe Biden leads potential 2020 Democratic field - Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters


Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden campaigns with Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Representatives Abby Finkenauer and Democratic candidate for Iowa governor Fred Hubbell in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S., October 30, 2018. REUTERS/KC McGinnis

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is the early leader for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination, a Reuters/Ipsos Election Day opinion poll found, in a field likely to quickly take shape as candidates seek to challenge Republican President Donald Trump.

Biden received 29 percent of the support.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who made an unsuccessful run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, finished second in the hypothetical field with 22 percent. The rest of the poll was tied between Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California.

All of the Democrats fared well in a popular vote hypothetical matchup against Trump.

Before a single dollar has been spent on election ads or campaign rallies, the poll found Biden scored best in a hypothetical matchup, beating Trump 51 percent to 39 percent in the popular vote.

The poll found Sanders, Booker and Harris would also defeat Trump nationally if the election were held today.

Trump did the best against Booker, losing by only 4 percentage points in the hypothetical popular vote.

In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots but lost the presidential election to Trump, who won the state-by-state Electoral College vote.

Opinion polls at this early a stage tend to be largely dominated by those with the most widespread name recognition.

Several polls after the 2014 congressional midterm elections found Jeb Bush, who ultimately lost his bid for the Republican nomination, to be the front-runner. Few polls even included Trump.

On the Republican side, 65 percent of Tuesday’s midterm voters said they would re-nominate Trump to represent their party.
Another 11 percent said they would prefer Vice President Mike Pence and 12 percent said they did not know who should be the nominee.

The poll was conducted online on Tuesday and based on responses from 38,196 people who voted in 37 states. The poll is ongoing and will be updated as the vote is tallied.

 

[Ca.]

Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America -- Sott.net
Joe Quinn Sott.net Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:00 UTC

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060316206081630208

Day 33.1 Did Brennan Leak Vault7 Then Blame The Whistleblower?

Nov 6, 2018

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060432690317529089

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060584755656380416

Economic guru Peter Schiff is known for making bold proclamations when it comes to the stock market, and he was back at it on a podcast recently, saying “the truth is we don’t have a booming economy.”

Considering October was the worst month for the stock market since September of 2011, he could be on to something.

In fact, the rally over the final two days of the month was the lone bright spot. Global equities also took a hit, losing 7.5 percent of their value for the worst month since May 2012. Including the rally, it was the largest monthly decline for the Nasdaq since 2008 in the throes of the Great Recession.

As Schiff notes in a recent podcast called “Bulls Ain’t Afraid of No Bear Market,” the bulls were out in force for All Hallows’ Eve.

“All of the bulls were out in force on the financial networks claiming that the correction is over. Everybody was confident that the lows are in, that the big back-to-back rally is proof and you better buy now, otherwise you’re going to miss the rally, and this is the typical correction and now it has run its course,” Schiff said.​

​

“And you know what? If this really was the end of the correction, most likely there wouldn’t be so many people that were so confident that it’s over. You’d have a lot more fear, especially on Halloween. The fact that there is no fear, to me, shows that it’s more likely that this is not the end of the correction, but the beginning of the bear market and that this rally is a correction.”​

Schiff asks what is more likely, if the end of the record bull market is here, or if it’s just a correction before noting that not only did stocks get hammered in October, but junk bonds also took a hit for their worst month since 2008. This is all happening because the economy isn’t booming the way we think it is, Schiff said.​

“If the economy is booming, why would people think that the risk of a company defaulting is going up?” he said. “Because when the economy is really good, that’s when companies don’t default. It’s when the economy is bad, that’s when companies might default.​

​

“All the bulls who are just so confident that this is a correction that’s already over are ignoring all the signs that the economy is not nearly as strong as everybody wants to pretend it is.”​

To Schiff, a big indicator that we don’t have a booming economy is rising interest rates and the ballooning federal deficit. Normally, you borrow in bad times and pay back in the good. Yet the U.S. Treasury plans to borrow another $425 billion in Q4 2018, pushing the year’s total borrowing to $1.34 trillion, which is unheard of in a booming economy.

“The truth of the matter is, we don’t have a booming economy. We have a bubble. And when you have a bubble economy, debts go up,” he said. “Budget deficits go up. Trade deficits go up because you’re not productive. You’re just going into debt to consume.​

​

“What (the bulls) don’t understand is nothing has changed, which is exactly why they should be worrying, because the economy was a bubble back then and it’s still a bubble. The only difference is the bubble may have pricked. See, the fundamentals have not changed; that’s true. They were lousy before October and they were lousy in October. That’s what they don’t get. The market never should have been going up.”​

Click here to listen to Schiff’s podcasts. (36:09)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060388590532857856

 

[Ca.]

Trump vs the Military Industrial Complex.

Published on Nov 9, 2018 / 33:55

Конструктор объяснил превосходство «ПАК ФА» над F-35 и F-22
The designer explained superiority "PAK PHA" over F-35 and F-22
10 ноября 2018

103 (Read available in four language translations) Video

 

[angelburst29]

To understand our place in the World today, we need to study "the true History" of historic World events, their causes/affects and the changes that were altered after their implementation. The date, November 11th, figures prominently in one of these historical events.

In the last two thousand years, by it's very definition, War - has never settled a dispute between two or more opposing sides. It has only created - death, misery and destruction in it's paths.

The World is slowly waking up to the fact, opposing views and disagreements can only be properly handled through bringing the opposing sides together, in a mutual neutral setting, for open dialog. Even to "agree to disagree" can be used as a starting point towards a more robust dialog and eventual mutual understandings. Peace can only be achieved through mutual dialog and corresponding Treaties on collaborated understandings. In World affairs and on a personal level, to not consider "Peace" - we will eventual face death - from our own ignorance, just like the Generations before us. In John Lennon's own words, "Give Peace - a chance"! The choice is up to us.

2018-11-10 - With The Last First World War Veterans Dead – The 11th of November Has Become a Macabre Militant Rite
With The Last First World War Veterans Dead - The 11th of November Has Become a Macabre Militant Rite - Eurasia Future

Of all the modern wars that have claimed millions of lives, the First World War was the most tragic as its origins were in futility, its outcomes were universally negative and its veterans experienced a perfect storm of modern weaponry combined with comparatively primitive medical care. Thus, those who died often experienced painful deaths while those who lived often lived with deep physical and psychological wounds for the rest of their lives – the likes of which those who are not veterans could scarcely imagine.

The new political maps of Europe, western Eurasia and the Arab that were carelessly drawn during and after the First World War were not only the proximate cause of the Second World War but remain the underlying cause of multiple contemporary conflicts including those in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Israel-Palestine conflict and even the war in Yemen. As the root causes of all of these conflicts were the artificial divides of the Arab world among the imperialists of Britain and France, the victory of the Anglo-French Entente is hardly a cause for celebration – certainly no more than the rise of Hitler or the present bloodbaths on Russia’s historic western frontier which equally were and remain a direct result of how the First World War was ended.

And yet speaking personally, when First World War veterans from any side of the War were still alive, the end of the First World War was a cause for reflection and an incredibly somber and important occasion. The 11th of November was once a day to pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of futility, having done so without being offered a say in the matter. The fault of the First World War lies not among the soldiers but among poor leadership on all sides that sent a generation to an early grave while haunting those who survived.

After the war, Turkish Republican founding father Atatürk captured the spirit of circumspection that ought to have been universal after the war. Speaking about the British Empire’s failed Gallipoli campaign, the Turkish Republican leader said,

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives … You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours … You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well”.​

Today, the veterans of the First World War are all dead. Not a single one lived to witness the centenary of the war that was supposed to end all wars. Because of this, a solemn tribute to the memory of veterans who died as early as 1914 and as late as 2012 should have permeated the spirit of November 2018. Instead, the progeny of both the winners and losers from 2018 are gathering in Paris to slap one another on the back in what has thus far been a kind of pseudo-G20 style summit maliciously masquerading as a memorial event.​

Furthermore, because the last surviving veterans are no longer with us, the indefatigable anti-war spirit of many of these brave men has regrettably been lost to history. Instead, individuals with no sense of history beyond their own lives like Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May are glorifying militarism at a time when peace ought to have been the only rational conclusion to be discovered by anyone who knows anything about any aspect of the First World War.

During the protests against the war in Vietnam held over a number of years in the United States, a common refrain was “we are not against the soldiers – we are against the war”. Long after the guns of the First World War fell silent, this statement remains as apposite regarding the events which transpired between 1914 and 1918 as they do in respect of more recent wars.

Instead, the war is considered a victory for some and an historical footnote of some interest to others while the meaning of the war and the lessons derived from this meaning seem to have been buried along with the bodies of the veterans. In his play Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare penned the following as part of Marc Antony’s eulogy to Julius Caesar:

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones”.

And so it is with the veterans whose great spirit lives after them while in life, the ruling classes of the victorious nations of the First World War act as assassins far less noble than Brutus ever did when he plunged a dagger into a man he once thought of as a comrade.

In his script for Lawrence of Arabia, the greatest film ever made about any aspect of the First World War Robert Bolt wrote the following:

“Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men – courage and hope for the future. Then the old men make the peace and the vices of peace are the vices of old men – mistrust and caution”.​

How tragic that these words are as true in 2018 as they were about the events of 1918!

May the veterans rest in eternal peace.


Note: In this next article, notice the reference to "multi-polarity or multilateralism" and where Russia fits in and "why the need" for close ties between the United States and Russia. The Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki was "historical" in this sense.

Although this article gives reference to Turkey's Ataturk, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi followed a similar template to bring peace and prosperity to his Country (before NATO waltzed in and bombed it to ashes!)

2018-11-10 - Remembering Atatürk 80 Years Later
Remembering Atatürk 80 Years Later - Eurasia Future

Today marks the 80th year since the death of Atatürk, the founding father of The Republic of Turkey. But while Atatürk’s most specific legacy was insuring the survival, revival and uplifting of the Turkish nation, the lessons his legacy provides for the rest of the world continue to be as relevant as they were during his lifetime. After literally fighting against the criminal clauses of the Treaty of Sèvres which threatened the integrity of the Turkish nation, Atatürk released that the real battle had only begun. Yet
Atatürk’s longest and most important battle would be fought not with guns and bullets but with law, politics and social revitalization.

Crucially, Atatürk understood that in order to modernize the nation, it would take more than simply replacing an outdated monarchy with a modern republican system. Atatürk realized that this republican system must be one whose social and economic reforms each compliment one another in terms of elevating the condition of the people. In many ways though, Atatürk’s most lasting legacy was authoring a form of geopolitical relations that in the 21st century is generally referred to as multi-polarity or multilateralism.

Looking at Atatürk’s foreign policy, it was not a western nation that first established relations with the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey but the young Soviet Union which like Turkey was still in the midst of its own civil crisis when Lenin and Atatürk signed an historic Friendship Treaty in Moscow which put to rest centuries of Russo-Turkish antagonism. Indeed, so friendly was Atatürk’s relationship with the USSR that when former World War era triumvir Enver Pasha attempted to lead a Turkic revolt against the USSR in central Asia, the so-called Basmachi movement, Atatürk continued to renounce Enver Pasha and maintained good ties with Moscow.

The 1921 Treaty of Moscow saw the two sides work amicably to settle territorial disputes arising from the aftermath of the First World War while Atatürk also refused to allow Britain and France to do what they did to his Ottoman predecessors and exploit Turkey in order to barricade Russian ships in the Black Sea as the west did after the signing of the anti-Russian London Straits Convention of 1841 – a treaty which prohibited Russian ships from free navigation in the Turkish Straits in wartime.

Instead, Atatürk convinced the major powers of Europe and western Eurasia to agree to the 1936 Montreux convention which rejected the stance of the victors of the First World War’s to internationalize the Turkish Straits. Instead, Turkey assumed full control of the Straits while granting all nations with Black Sea fleets full navigation rights in both peace and war time.

But it was not just the eastern Soviet power that Atatürk was quick to engage in fruitful relations with. Shortly before his death, Atatürk signed the Treaty of Saadabad with Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq – an inviolable non-aggression pact which sought to ease historic tensions between the great powers of south-western Eurasia as a bulwark against European imperialism.

Atatürk clearly knew that the future of healthy Turkish geopolitical relations was in having as few enemies and as many partners as possible, all the while avoiding the entangling alliances which were the proximate cause for the ballooning of the crises which led to the First World War.

Furthermore, Atatürk knew that only a strong relationship with fellow Eurasian powers including the USSR, Iran and Afghanistan could prevent imperial Europe from exploiting ancient hostilities in the region. He also knew that creating harmony where there once was discord both in the Balkans and in central and western Europe was the key to a more harmonious development for a Turkish state let down by decades of poor leadership.

Yet Atatürk was not one to suffer fools gladly. In 1923 he said,

“Today the Soviet Union is a friend and an ally. We need this friendship. However, no one can know what will happen tomorrow. Just like the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires it may tear itself apart or shrink in size. Those peoples that it holds so tightly in its grip may one day slip away. The world may see a new balance of power. It is then that Turkey must know what to do. Ally Soviets have under their control our brothers with whom we share language, beliefs and roots. We must be prepared to embrace them. Being ready does not mean that we will sit quietly and wait. We must get ready. How does a people get prepared for such an endeavor? By strengthening the natural bridges that exist between us. Language is a bridge… Religion is a bridge… History is a bridge… We must delve into our roots and reconstruct what history has divided. We can’t wait for them to approach us. We must reach out to them”.​

Here one sees that Atatürk realized that geopolitical partnerships have a fluid element to them and that relations must be compartmentalized in terms of disagreement, made the most of in areas where there is harmony and overall foreign relations must be viewed with scientific scepticism rather than fanatical devotion. Atatürk’s foreign policy helped to pacify long standing rivalries both to the east, north and west of Turkey that threatened to make lingering conflicts sources of consternation for the Turkish Republic. It is this attitude of being friends with all whenever possible and enemies only with those who threaten Turkey that continues to be the guiding force behind Turkey’s geopolitical revival in the 21st century.

In 1965 when Lee Kuan Yew assumed his position as the political leader of an independent Singapore whose birth was in many ways as remarkable as that of the Republic of Turkey, Lee understood that like Atatürk, his country needed economic and sociological modernization in equal measures and that by courting the respect of all foreign powers, in so doing he would also court the friendship of many if not most of them. It was within this spirit that Atatürk said,

“Our object now is to strengthen the ties that bind us to other nations. There may be a great many countries in the world, but there is only one civilization, and if a nation is to achieve progress, she must be a part of this civilization. The Ottoman Empire began to decline the day when, proud of her success against the West, she cut the ties that bound her to the European nations”.​

Geopolitical multilateralism is just one example of how Atatürk’s political theory has in many ways become the road-map for modernization in both the 20th and 21st century.

Atatürk was the soldier who became a leader of a republican movement to revive the nation and in so doing, he became not only a master of political theory and statecraft but a man whose name is globally synonymous with pragmatic economic thinking, rational policy making and patriotic wisdom.

Yet Atatürk was ultimately a man who had the quality of humility that remains lost on many of the more bombastic and outwardly hostile leaders of the contemporary era. When Atatürk said “As they have come, so they will go“, this statement applies to all men who do not realise that while an iron fist can guarantee temporary power, it is only the golden idea that can sustain a nation long after the iron fist has grown limp.

Atatürk’s legacy is a profound one but it is as profoundly meaningful in respect of the major issues of 2018 as it is in terms of its historical value to Turkey and other nations that have learned from his example.


2018-11-06 - Macron Wants European Army to “Defend” Against USA, China and Russia When Europe Needs Trade With All Three
Macron Wants European Army to "Defend" Against USA, China and Russia When Europe Needs Trade With All Three - Eurasia Future

While Europe faces major threats ranging from international terrorism to mass migration and domestic political extremist groups, uniquely in European history, the continent is today safer from the threat of sate-on-state military aggression than at any time in modern European history.

And yet while Europe ought to focus on multilateral security initiatives in respect of tackling security threats from non-state actors, French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that the world’s three superpowers should be defended against by a pan-European army. In a radio interview with Europe 1, the French President stated,

​

“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America”.​

​

While long serving French President and anti-fascist leader Charles de Gaulle advocated for an independent post-1945 European security and economic system that was implicitly different from that of the United States, to hear a French President in the 21st century say that a European army needs to “protect” Europeans from the United States is not only bizarre but ludicrous. As for China, while major EU officials continue to drag their feet on a meaningful Chinese trade deal, China is nevertheless a major trading partner of the European Union that no serious individual has ever associated with attempts to wage war in Europe. While the Cold War style Russophobia that has characterized domestic American politics over the last several years has predictably stimulated Cold War style phobias in some parts of Europe, the idea that Russia would militarily invade any EU member state remains as far fetched as a Chinese or American war upon Europe.

While a major European leader calling for closer military cooperation among EU members is certainly nothing novel, the way in which Macron phrased his call denotes either a very poorly conceived statement or a total detachment from reality. If anything, when it comes to combating non-state security threats, Europe could frankly draw on the experience of all three nuclear superpowers while Europe’s neighbor Turkey could also assist in this respect.

But it terms of what Europe requires for long term sustainable development, trade rather than military build-ups holds the key. In the third quarter of 2018, the European Union’s total economic growth estimate was a mere 1.9% above the third quarter of 2017 while compared with the second quarter of 2018, the EU economy grew by 0.3%. By contrast, China’s economy grew 6.5% in the third quarter of 2018 when compared with the same time last year while growth between quarter 2 and quarter 3 of this year saw the Chinese economy growing at a rate of 1.6% in spite of the Trump trade war.

Likewise, the United States also showed a higher growth rate in the third quarter of 2018 than the EU with America experiencing a growth rate of 3.5% in quarter 3 of 2018 when compared with the previous year. At the same time, Turkey’s economy surged to a 5.2% growth rate in the second quarter of 2018 compared with last year while staunchly pro-growth policies continue to be prioritized by the Turkish government.

Taken in totality, it is clear that when compared with both the US and China, the European Union economy is facing a period where marginal growth rates are lagging behind other major economic powers. Because of this, any time spent on frivolous projects like a highly costly pan-EU army is little more than a distraction from more pressing issues of economic diversification.

The European Union could at minimum set aside its economically weaker regions as special free trading zones where goods from China and other major Asian powers could freely flow into Europe, thus paving the way for a wider China-EU free trading agreement and an equally crucial ASEAN-EU free trading agreement.

The EU economy remains vital to the wider world but without opening up to trade with the rapidly growing economies of Asia or else also reaching an understanding with the protectionist United States whose market is a major destination for European exports, the EU will find that its modest growth numbers may in fact diminish even further.

At a time when China is opening up to historic new levels of trade and is currently holding a substantial International Import Expo in Shanghai, if the EU remains committed to internal market freedoms without pursuing freer trade with the wider world, stagnation could well become the order of the day sooner rather than later.

With most of the EU already being part of the NATO alliance, the idea of spending billions of Euros to duplicate a parallel force with largely the same security outlook not only makes zero economic sense but it also makes no practical sense.

The days of Napoleon have long since passed and the French President would be wise to understand that the demands of Europe’s citizens are focused on economic growth, access to new import and export markets as well as collective security mechanisms to fight non-state terror threats that ought to see the EU work with rather than against China, the US and Russia.

It is difficult to imagine what might have been in President Macron’s head when he made his announcement to Europe 1 radio, but whatever he was thinking, he ought to think twice and put trade above militarism for the benefit of all Europeans.

 

[angelburst29]

Nov. 9, 2018 - Trump, arriving in Paris, lashes out at Macron over defense remarks
Trump, arriving in Paris, lashes out at Macron over defense remarks | Reuters


U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump exit Air Force One as they arrive at Orly Airport near Paris to attend commemoration ceremonies for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War, France, November 9, 2018. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann

U.S. President Donald Trump lashed out at French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, saying it was "very insulting" for him to suggest Europe should create its own army to protect itself from potential adversaries.

Arriving in Paris for a World War One Armistice Day centenary celebration, Trump fired off a note on Twitter saying Macron had just “suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia.”

“Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly,” Trump added, returning to his repeated demand that European nations do more to help fund the Western alliance.

Macron said on French radio on Tuesday that Europe needed a real army to reduce reliance on the United States for defense in the face of a resurgent Russia.

“We won’t protect Europeans if we don’t decide to have a real European army,” Macron said.

“Faced with Russia, which is near our borders and has shown it could be threatening - I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country - but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States,” he added.

The European Commission executive later echoed Macron’s call for a European military capability. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is a long-time supporter of the idea the European Union should have more common defense capability.

The Commission’s chief spokesman, Margaritis Schinas, said the EU was working to collaborate on defense procurement and research as well as developing EU military peacekeeping capabilities.

“I don’t think that this defense identity will start with an EU army,” Schinas said on Tuesday.

“At some point in time, probably down at the end of this process, we may see something that people already describe as an EU army or an EU pooling of resources to make this EU defense identity more visible and more meaningful,” Schinas said.


Nov. 10, 2018 - Macron says Europe should take on more of defense burden
Macron says Europe should take on more of defense burden | Reuters


U.S. President Donald Trump meets French President Emmanuel Macron at Elysee presidential palace, as part of the commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War, in Paris, France, November 10, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Saturday Europe had to take greater responsibility for its own defense, saying he agreed with U.S. President Donald Trump on the need for greater "burden sharing" by Europe in NATO.

“I am obviously going to share with President Trump the proposals made on Europe’s strategic defense capabilities and the need for a Europe that is able to take on more of the common burden at the heart of NATO,” Macron said ahead of talks with Trump at the Elysee Palace.

Trump is in France for two days of commemorations around the 100th anniversary of the end of World War one.


November 10, 2018 - World Leaders in Paris mark 100th Anniversary of WW1 Armistice
World leaders in Paris mark 100th anniversary of WW1 Armistice | Reuters


French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel meet with veterans at the Clairiere of Rethondes, during a commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War, in Compiegne, France, November 10, 2018. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer/Pool

French President Emmanuel Macron will be joined by some 70 world leaders on Sunday to commemorate the centenary of the Armistice that brought World War One to an end, and to honor the millions of soldiers who died in the conflict.

It was at 11.00 a.m. on Nov. 11, 1918, that the guns fell silent across the western front, heralding the end of a four-year conflict that claimed the lives of 10 million combatants and millions of civilians.

One hundred years later, Macron will pay tribute to those soldiers and their families in an address delivered at the foot of the Arc de Triomphe, built by Emperor Napoleon in 1806, where an unknown soldier killed in the Great War is buried.

U.S. President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian leader Vladimir Putin are among the dozens of monarchs, heads of state and government due to attend the ceremony, before lunch with Macron at the Elysee Palace.

In a rare public display of emotion by the leaders of two world powers, Macron and Merkel held hands on Saturday during a poignant ceremony in the Compiegne Forest, north of Paris, where French and German delegations signed the Armistice that ended the war.

Testimonies written by soldiers on Nov. 11, 1918, as the ceasefire took hold, will be read at Sunday’s event by high school students in French, English and German.

The conflict was one of the bloodiest in history, reshaping Europe’s politics and demographics. Peace, however, was short-lived and two decades later Nazi Germany invaded its neighbors.

On Sunday afternoon, Macron will host the inaugural Paris Peace Forum, which seeks to promote a multilateral approach to security and governance and ultimately avoid the errors that led to the outbreak of World War One.

Merkel said in a statement the forum showed that “today there is a will, and I say this on behalf of Germany with full conviction, to do everything to bring a more peaceful order to the world, even though we know we still have much work to do.”

Trump, who champions a nationalist ‘America first’ policy, will not attend the forum.

The U.S. leader has said he will also not hold a bilateral meeting with Putin in Paris. Trump and Putin are expected to have formal talks later this month when both attend a G-20 summit in Buenos Aires.

Should the two leaders chat briefly during Sunday’s events, their body language will be closely scrutinized.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is probing alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and any possible collusion with Trump’s campaign.


November 10, 2018 - Leaders of France and Germany in poignant show of unity 100 years after WW1
Leaders of France and Germany in poignant show of unity 100 years after WW1 | Reuters



One hundred years after the guns of World War One fell silent, the leaders of France and Germany held hands and rested their heads against one another in a poignant ceremony to mark the signing of the Armistice peace agreement.

President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel inspected troops from a joint Franco-German Brigade before unveiling a plaque paying tribute to the reconciliation and renewed friendship between the foes of two world wars.

More than 3 million French and German troops were among an estimated 10 million soldiers who died in the Great War of 1914-1918. Much of the heaviest fighting was in trenches in northern France and Belgium.

A German delegation signed the Armistice before sunrise on Nov 11, 1918, in a private train belonging to the commander of French forces, Ferdinand Foch, parked on rail track running through the Compiegne Forest. Hours later, at 11.00 a.m., the war ended.

“Europe has been at peace for 73 years. It is at peace because we want it to be, because Germany and France want peace,” Macron told several youngsters, with Merkel at his side, referring to the peace since the end of World War Two in 1945.

“And so the message, if we want to live up to the sacrifice of those soldiers who said ‘Never again!’, is to never yield to our weakest instincts, nor to efforts to divide us.”

Merkel said she was moved by the ceremony and described Macron’s invitation as a “very symbolic gesture.”

In a powerful show of unity, Macron and Merkel sat inside the reconstructed teak-lined rail wagon in which the peace charter was signed and looked through a book of remembrance. After each signed the book, they held hands a second time.

CLOSER EUROPE
The last time French and German delegations had sat in the same place was when Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler forced the surrender of French authorities after invading in 1940.

Since World War Two, France and Germany have driven tighter European cooperation and the European Union has become the world’s largest trading bloc.

Macron, 40, an ardent defender of a closer Europe, has turned to Merkel to help him forge deeper economic integration within the EU’s single currency bloc, as well as more collaboration on matters such as defense and immigration.

For years, Merkel, 64, had waited for a French leader with Macron’s zest for Europe. But the fragility of her governing coalition and her own weakened leadership, as well as misgivings over aspects of Macron’s vision for renewal, have meant she has not moved as quickly as Macron would have liked.

This past week, the French leader has toured sites that once lay along the western front, from the battlefields of Verdun in the east to the imposing Thiepval memorial overlooking the Somme valley. There, he and British Prime Minister Theresa May together laid a wreath on Friday.

Along the way, he has warned of the rising threat to Europe posed by a resurgence in nationalism.

“Nationalism is rising across Europe, the nationalism that demands the closing of frontiers, which preaches rejection of the other,” he said in a radio interview on Tuesday. “It is playing on fears, everywhere. Europe is increasingly fractured.”

Slideshow (14 Images)
Leaders of France and Germany in poignant show of unity 100 years after WW1 | Reuters


Nov. 10, 2018 - Trump cancels WW1 Memorial at US Cemetery in France due to rain
Trump cancels WW1 memorial at U.S. cemetery in France due to rain | Reuters


The American flag flies at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery dedicated to the U.S. soldiers killed in the Belleau Wood battle during World War One at Belleau, France, November 10, 2018. REUTERS/Charles Platiau

President Donald Trump could not attend a commemoration in France for U.S. soldiers and marines killed during World War One on Saturday because rain made it impossible to arrange transport, the White House said.

The last minute cancellation prompted widespread criticism on social media and from some officials in Britain and the United States that Trump had “dishonored” U.S. servicemen.

The president was scheduled to pay tribute at a ceremony at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Belleau, about 85 km (50 miles) east of Paris, with his wife Melania. But light steady rain and a low cloud ceiling prevented his helicopter from traveling to the site.

“(Their attendance) has been canceled due to scheduling and logistical difficulties caused by the weather,” the White House said in a statement, adding that a delegation lead by Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired general, went instead.

The decision prompted a rash of criticism on Twitter, with Nicholas Soames, a British member of parliament who is a grandson of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, saying that Trump was dishonoring U.S. servicemen.

“They died with their face to the foe and that pathetic inadequate @realDonaldTrump couldn’t even defy the weather to pay his respects to the Fallen”, Soames wrote on Twitter.

White House officials said the decision was taken due to the weather and cited security concerns in hastily arranging a motorcade. Similar concerns prevented Trump from reaching the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea a year ago when foggy weather prevented his helicopter from landing.

Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security adviser for strategic communications under President Barack Obama, said the excuse about the inclement weather did not stand up.

“I helped plan all of President Obama’s trips for 8 years,” he wrote on Twitter. “There is always a rain option. Always.”

Despite the light rain, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel held a moving ceremony in Compiegne, northeast of Paris, to mark the 100th anniversary of the signing of the World War One armistice.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attended his own ceremony to pay tribute to Canadian troops killed at Vimy Ridge, on the battlefields of northeastern France.

Around 70 leaders, including Trump, are scheduled to gather at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Sunday morning to mark the commemoration of the centenary of the end of the war, when some 10 million soldiers were killed during four years of grinding conflict.

It was not clear what Trump decided to do instead of attending the cemetery. The White House said he was at the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Paris. During that time he sent a tweet wishing a “Happy 243rd Birthday” to the U.S. Marine Corps.

The president is scheduled to take part in a ceremony at the Suresnes American Cemetery to the west of Paris on Sunday afternoon, when he is expected to make formal remarks.

 

[SummerLite]

Well, this is Crazy ,
Ben and Jerry's have come out with a new ice cream flavor called, Pecan Resist.
Check out the label. Introducing Pecan Resist Limited Batch! Ben and Jerry's was bought out by a corporation several years ago, not sure which one.

Together, Pecan Resist!

Alongside all those nutty chunks, this pint packs a powerful message under its lid: together, we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump administration’s regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports their values. Get to know them, then find Pecan Resist here!



Get To Know The Partners

Color of Change

Color of Change designs campaigns powerful enough to end practices that unfairly hold Black people back, and champions solutions that move everyone forward.

Honor the Earth

Honor the Earth works on issues of climate change, renewable energy, and environmental justice with Indigenous communities.

Neta

Neta is one of the fastest-growing independent media platforms led by people of color along the Texas-Mexico border.

Women’s March

Women’s March is committed to harnessing the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change.

 

[Ca.]

Well, this is Crazy ,
Ben and Jerry's have come out with a new ice cream flavor called, Pecan Resist.
Check out the label. Introducing Pecan Resist Limited Batch! Ben and Jerry's was bought out by a corporation several years ago, not sure which one.

Wow, weaponizing the sweet tooth!



Edit add: Unilever
Unilever is a British-Dutch transnational consumer goods company co-headquartered in London, United Kingdom and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Its products include food and beverages (about 40 percent of its revenue), cleaning agents and personal care products. It is the world's largest consumer goods company measured by 2012 revenue.[5] It is Europe’s seventh most valuable company.[6] Unilever is one of the oldest multinational companies; its products are available in around 190 countries.[7]

Unilever owns over 400 brands, with a turnover in 2016 of 52.7 billion euros, and in 2017 of 53.7 billion euros [8]and thirteen brands with sales of over one billion euros:[9] Axe/Lynx, Dove, Omo, Heartbrand ice creams, Hellmann's, Knorr, Lipton, Lux, Magnum, Rexona/Degree, Sunsilk and Surf.[7] It is a dual-listed company consisting of Unilever plc, based in London, and Unilever N.V., based in Rotterdam. The two companies operate as a single business, with a common board of directors. Unilever is organised into four main divisions – Foods, Refreshment (beverages and ice cream), Home Care, and Personal Care. It has research and development facilities in the United Kingdom (two), the Netherlands, China, India and the United States.[10]

Unilever was founded in September 2nd, 1929, by the merger of the Dutch margarine producer Margarine Unie and the British soapmaker Lever Brothers. During the second half of the 20th century the company increasingly diversified from being a maker of products made of oils and fats, and expanded its operations worldwide. It has made numerous corporate acquisitions, including Lipton (1971), Brooke Bond (1984), Chesebrough-Ponds (1987), Best Foods (2000), Ben & Jerry's (2000), Alberto-Culver (2010), Dollar Shave Club (2016) and Pukka Herbs (2017). Unilever divested its speciality chemicals businesses to ICI in 1997. In 2015, under leadership of Paul Polman, the company started gradually shifted its focus towards health and beauty brands and away from food brands showing slow growth.[11]

Unilever plc has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. Unilever N.V. has a primary listing on Euronext Amsterdam and is a constituent of the AEX index. The company is also a lux of the Euro Stoxx 50 stock market index.[12]

 

[Ursus Minor]

US President Donald Trump put on a very friendly display with Vladimir Putin as the pair attended an Armistice Day service in Paris on Sunday.

The world leaders were pictured standing side by side in the rain at the Arc de Triomphe to pay tribute to those who died in the First World War, 100 years to the day since the guns fell silent.

Putin and Trump were filmed shaking hands and exchanging pats on the back as they took their place for the memorial. The Russian President, who was the last to arrive, was also spotted giving Trump a thumbs up.

Read the whole article at dailymail.co.uk

Watch Putin give Trump a thumbs up at 2:35

 

[angelburst29]

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump as he arrives to attend a commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War at the Arc de Triomphe, in Paris, France, November 11, 2018. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS


November 10, 2018 - In solemn Paris ceremony, Macron leads Global WW1 Armistice Commemorations
In solemn Paris ceremony, Macron leads global WW1 Armistice commemorations | Reuters


Russian President Vladimir Putin, Brigitte Macron, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump (hidden), and Morocco's King Mohammed VI attend a commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France, November 11, 2018. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/Pool

President Emmanuel Macron led tributes to the millions of soldiers killed during World War One on Sunday, holding an emotional ceremony in Paris attended by dozens of world leaders to commemorate the centenary of the Armistice.

Slideshow (15 Images)
In solemn Paris ceremony, Macron leads global WW1 Armistice commemorations | Reuters


November 10, 2018 - Britain's Royals, German President mark Remembrance Day
Britain's royals, German president mark remembrance day | Reuters


Britain's Queen Elizabeth, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, stand in silence during a National Service of Remembrance at The Cenotaph in Westminster, London, Britain, November 11, 2018. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

Britain's royal family was joined by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Sunday to remember those killed and wounded in conflict, with millions falling silent for two minutes to mark 100 years since the end of World War One.

Prince Charles led the nation in the day of remembrance, laying a wreath for his mother, Queen Elizabeth, who watched the ceremony at the cenotaph memorial in London from the balcony of Britain’s foreign ministry. Prince Philip was absent from the service.

Events to mark the end of the Great War have been taking place across Britain and around the world, with President Emmanuel Macron leading tributes in France alongside U.S. President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and dozens of monarchs, princes, presidents and prime ministers.

For the first time, Steinmeier followed Prince Charles in laying a wreath in what the government said was an historic act of reconciliation.

Princes William and Harry, Prime Minister Theresa May and leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, who was criticized by some on social media for wearing a raincoat, also lay wreaths.


November 10, 2018 - Queen Elizabeth launches British Commemorations 100 years after WW1
Queen Elizabeth launches British commemorations 100 years after WW1 | Reuters


Britain's Queen Elizabeth II with Princess Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales attend the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance to commemorate all those who have lost their lives in conflicts and mark 100 years since the end of the First World War, at the Royal Albert Hall, London, Britain November 10, 2018. Chris Jackson/Pool via REUTERS

Britain's Queen Elizabeth and senior members of the royal family attended a Festival of Remembrance on Saturday to commemorate all those who lost their lives in conflict, on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One.

The 92-year-old Queen joined her son and heir to the throne Charles, grandsons William and Harry and their wives Kate and Meghan at the Royal Albert Hall in central London at an event organized to pay tribute to all those who have died.

The royal family and Prime Minister Theresa May were due to watch leading actors, authors, singers and military bands lead the tributes at an event organized by the armed forces charity the Royal British Legion.

Events to mark the end of the Great War have been taking place around the world, with leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and May in France earlier on Saturday.


On Sunday morning the Queen, the royal family and senior members of the political and military establishment will be joined at the Cenotaph in Whitehall by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier to mark the centenary of the end of the war.

The government said Steinmeier would become the first German leader to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph ceremony before attending a service at Westminster Abbey, in what it said marked a historic act of reconciliation.


November 10, 2018 - Natural that Europe should want an Army, says Russia's Putin
Natural that Europe should want an army, says Russia's Putin | Reuters


Russian President Vladimir Putin looks on during a commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of World War One at the Arc de Triomphe, in Paris, France, November 11, 2018. Sputnik/Mikhail Metzel/Kremlin via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday it made sense for a powerful economic bloc like the European Union to want to defend itself militarily.

The comments came after U.S. President Donald Trump fired off a tweet as he arrived in Paris on Friday in which he described a call by French President Emmanuel Macron for a European army as “very insulting”.

“Europe is a powerful economic entity, a powerful economic union and it is quite natural that it wants to be independent, self-sufficient and sovereign in matters of defense and security,” Putin told RT television.

Trump had taken a dim view of comments Macron made in a Europe 1 radio interview this week in which he appeared to cast the United States as a threat.

Discussing the growing danger from cyber-hacking, outside meddling in electoral processes and the U.S. decision to withdraw from a missile treaty, Macron said Europe needed to protect against China, Russia “and even the United States”.

Later in the same interview he spoke of the need for a European army, saying: “Faced by Russia, which is on our borders and which has shown that it can be threatening... we need to have a Europe that can better defend itself by itself, without depending solely on the United States.”

After they met on Saturday, Trump and Macron sought to paper over any differences, saying they agreed on the need for Europe to spend more on defense.

An official in Macron’s office said Trump’s rebuke was founded on a misunderstanding.

 

[angelburst29]

Back-dated April 4, 2018 - Newly revealed Docs shed light on UK's Intervention in Russia during WW1
Newly Revealed Docs Shed Light on UK's Intervention in Russia During WWI

Nikolai Gorshkov - British military intervention in Russia in 1918-1919 was unlawful and indefensible, British government papers held by the National Archives reveal. It has turned Russian public attitudes towards Britain from friendly to hostile.

In March 1918 the Bolshevik government signed a peace treaty with Germany, as they had promised to the nation exhausted by four years of the devastating and senseless WWI. The Russian Revolution was triggered by the overwhelming public desire for peace. The war-weary Russian army simply could not carry on fighting. Britain and France immediately accused Russia of betraying the Allied cause and sent in their troops. In a show of "solidarity" reminiscent of today, a dozen Anglo-French allies took part in the armed intervention in Russia. The official excuse was to keep the Eastern front against Germany and protect the Russian war materiel from falling into German hands.

The map of foreign military intervention in Russia 1918 - 1919.
http://www.cadtm.org/local/cache-vignettes/L640xH630/russian_civil_war-6d87d.jpg

In reality, the British, the French, the Americans, the Japanese and many others fought the locals, engaging in "frolics" and "high handed behavior," according to British government papers.

The legality of their action under international law was not considered until 1972 when the British government, locked in a dispute with Moscow over mutual debts, sought advice from a Foreign Office legal counselor, Eileen Denza. The advice was damning of London's actions and was kept under wraps for a long time.

"In my own view there is no legal justification for any of the major incidents of intervention by British forces," Ms. Denza wrote in her paper. "Nor have I formed an impression from … research from such original sources as Foreign Office archives and Cabinet documents that any consideration whatsoever was given at the time to the legal aspects of the matter by those in London, or by the army commanders while they were actually in Russia." (Copy of Doc. - FCO Legal Councellor paper on legality of British intervention in Russia)

Ms. Denza had explored possible avenues for defending the British intervention but failed to find any convincing arguments.

Argument 1. Certain incidents of intervention took place at the invitation of a Russian government which Britain then recognized as a de facto government.

This, Ms. Denza said, would cover the intervention in Estonia [which Britain helped break away from Russia — NG] but not any of the other occasions on which British troops landed in Russia. Britain did recognize the Russian Provisional government after the overthrow of the Tsar in March 1917, but after it was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in November Britain gave no indication that she continued to recognize it. Indeed, when its premier Kerensky visited Britain later he was treated as a refugee, and not as a prime minister of a government in exile or of a government which London continued to recognize de jure.

We did business with the Bolsheviks," Ms. Denza reminded the British government. "We kept consular relations until well after intervention had begun, and the Prime Minister's envoy, Bruce Lockhart, was … accorded diplomatic privileges and immunities [which he abused — NG]".

Initially Lockhart devoted a great deal of effort to securing a Bolshevik invitation to the Allies to intervene, but when he failed in this he advised the British government to intervene anyway. He started plotting for the overthrow of the Bolsheviks, and channeled his energy into persuading the reluctant US President Woodrow Wilson to support the British and Japanese intervention in the North and Far East of Russia.

Argument 2. The intervention was intended to protect British lives and property.

There was no British community in Russia to speak of.

"The question of defense of British property was never raised or put forward at any stage," wrote the FCO legal counselor, "and it had always been clearly understood that it was intervention which led the Bolsheviks (who began by being friendly to Britain) to take much more extremist measures against property generally and to adopt the position that no compensation would ever be paid to the Allies in respect of their expropriated property, since it was the necessity caused by external pressures and Allied intervention which had made it necessary to seize foreign property on such a scale."

Argument 3. The intervention was justifiable as an act of military necessity, or self-defense, in order to protect the Allied military position in the east after Russia's withdrawal from the war following the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed with Germany in March 1918.

Britain at the time made a great deal in public that the motive for intervention was related entirely to the conduct of the war, and that there was no intention to intervene in the domestic affairs of Russia. However, once they arrived in Russia, the British and other Allied forces "did not limit their actions to cutting off supplies to the Germans," wrote Ms. Denza. "They did not confine themselves to supporting factions which had clearly stated that once in power they would bring Russia back into the war."

• 
  
  Excerpt from a British Dvina (North Russia) Force battle instructions issued on 5 August 1919
  © Photo : Crown copyright National Archives UK
• 
  
  Report on British military operations in North Russia on September 7/8 1919
  © Photo : Crown copyright National Archives UK

• © Photo : Crown copyright National Archives UK

Excerpt from a British Dvina (North Russia) Force battle instructions issued on 5 August 1919

When large-scale intervention began in the summer of 1918 Britain withdrew its embryonic diplomatic and consular mission from Russia [thereby implying it was an invasion rather than intervention — NG].

Most important of all, Ms. Denza wrote, the intervention did not cease with the surrender of Germany in November 1918. Indeed the military justification for intervention, which could have existed during the many months when plans for intervention were being made and discussed "virtually ceased to exist very soon after our troops first went in [Russia — NG] in substantial numbers [shortly before Armistice — NG]."

Overall, the FCO legal counselor said, the British and Allied intervention in Russia painted "such a damning picture."

The immediate effect of the intervention was to prolong a bloody civil war," wrote American historian James W Loewen, "thereby costing thousands of additional lives and wreaking enormous destruction on an already battered society."

During the Anglo-Soviet debt negotiations in 1972-1973 this destruction was estimated to be between two and four billion pounds.

British government papers of the time record a flurry of Whitehall discussions on how to avoid admitting any liability for the damages caused by the unlawful intervention. As one note put it:

"I think it inevitable the Russians will raise the intervention claim in reaction to whatever HMG decides to do" [e.g., expropriate Russian gold held by Britain in payment for Russian debt — NG].

In this eventuality our aims should be:

(a) To avoid admitting the unlawfulness of the intervention (this would be unacceptable)

(b) To avoid discussing the lawfulness and morality of our part in the intervention (Mrs. Denza in her minute of 28 July has shown we could not win on this score); and hence

(c) To minimize unfavorable press coverage.

FCO claims department note on avoiding liability for military intervention in Russia

Whatever the press coverage, the intervention did create very unfavorable attitudes towards Britain in Soviet Russia.

In 1921 a British Parliamentary Committee produced a report which included the following perceptive passage:

"There is evidence to show that, up to the time of military intervention the majority of the Russian intellectuals were well disposed towards the Allies, and more especially to Great Britain, but that later the attitude of the Russian people towards the Allies became characterised by indifference, distrust and antipathy." [Report (Political and Economic) of the Committee to Collect Information on Russia; (Russia (No.1), 1921, Cmd. 1240]

American Historian William Henry Chamberlin, who was the Moscow correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor in the 1920-30s, wrote that the consequences of the intervention "were to poison East-West relations forever after, to contribute significantly to the origins of World War II and the later Cold War, and to fix patterns of suspicion and hatred on both sides which even today threaten worse catastrophes in time to come."

God forbid his prophecy comes true…


Note: Fast-forward to 2018 ... U.K. still playing games with Russia ...

November 11, 2018 - PM May says Britain open to 'different relationship' with Russia
PM May says Britain open to 'different relationship' with Russia | Reuters


Prime Minister Theresa May will say on Monday Britain is "open to a different relationship" with Russia if Moscow takes a new path and stops "attacks" that undermine international treaties and security.


And still ... very much - "out of touch" with reality and the real World around them ...

November 8, 2018 - Britain's Prince Charles says: I won't meddle when I am King
Britain's Prince Charles says: I won't meddle when I am king | Reuters


FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, are driven by carriage from Buckingham Palace to the Houses of Parliament for the State Opening of Parliament in central London, Britain, May 18, 2016. REUTERS/Paul Hackett/File Photo

Britain's Prince Charles said he will stop meddling in issues he feels strongly about when he eventually becomes king, saying he is "not that stupid".

The heir to the British throne has long been outspoken on issues ranging from climate change and architecture to alternative medicine, and critics have warned that if he continued as sovereign he would put the monarchy at risk.

Speaking ahead of his 70th birthday next week, the eldest son of 92-year-old Queen Elizabeth said the role of monarch was completely different from his position as Prince of Wales.

“The idea, somehow, that I’m going to go on in exactly the same way, if I have to succeed, is complete nonsense because the two - the two situations - are completely different,” he told the BBC.

Asked whether his public campaigning would continue, he said: “No, it won’t. I’m not that stupid.”

Under Britain’s unwritten constitution, the monarch is obliged to remain neutral on political issues despite in practice wielding no practical power. During her 66 years on the throne, the longest reign in British history, Elizabeth has never made public her private views.

Charles, on the other hand, has made no secret of his opinions, acknowledging that challenging some orthodox standpoints had made him unpopular in some quarters.

“As a teenager, I remember feeling deeply about this appallingly excessive demolition job being done on every aspect of life,” Charles said in a written response to Vanity Fair magazine for an interview published this month.

“In putting my head above the parapet on all these issues ... I found myself in conflict with the conventional outlook which, as I discovered, is not exactly the most pleasant situation to find yourself.”

In 2013, it was revealed he had held 36 meetings with government ministers over three years, while two years later, Britain’s top court ruled that dozens of his letters to ministers - dubbed the ‘black spider memos’ because of his scrawled handwriting - could be released.

Topics included rural housing, the war in Iraq, food in hospitals and the fate of the Patagonian Toothfish.