“It’s like firemen who start fires to justify their jobs”
Michael Flynn is a “scapegoat,” contends talk radio host Michael Savage in the wake of the outspoken national security adviser’s resignation.
“The old world order wants perennial friction with Russia,” Savage told WND ahead of his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday, “The Savage Nation.”
Flynn resigned late Monday after reports he had given Vice President Mike Pence “incomplete information” about his discussions in late December with the Russian ambassador to the United States regarding sanctions.
Pence, based on information from Flynn, had told media Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak.
Savage noted that President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space” because Obama would have more “flexibility” to work with Russia after his re-election in 2012.
“Was there an outcry by the Lilliputians in the media then?” Savage asked.
“I see the demonization of Putin, Russia and Flynn as part of a campaign by neocons, the intel community and Democrats who want constant antagonism with Russia,” he said.
“It’s like firemen who start fires to justify their jobs.”
Globalist magazine: “Trump may be ousted or even killed”
Russian insiders are fearful that the Washington establishment will attempt to assassinate Donald Trump, according to a magazine with deep ties to the globalist elite.
The revelation is buried deep within a Foreign Policy article about how the Kremlin is confused about how to respond to Trump’s role as a “revolutionary insurgent with a mission to dismantle America’s “old regime.”
From “conversations with Russian policymakers and experts,” the article makes it clear that power players in Moscow are concerned about Trump even being able to see out his first four years in office.
“What the Kremlin fears most today is that Trump may be ousted or even killed. His ouster, Kremlin insiders argue, is bound to unleash a virulent and bipartisan anti-Russian campaign in Washington,” states the piece.
“The Kremlin is perfectly aware that Democrats want to use Russia to discredit and possibly impeach Trump while Republican elites want to use Russia to deflate and discipline Trump. The Russian government fears not only Trump’s downfall, of course, but also the possibility that he could opportunistically switch to a tough anti-Moscow line in order to make peace with hawkish Republican leaders in Congress.”
Foreign Policy is in a position to know the machinations of Washington insiders given that it is owned by The Washington Post Company (now Graham Holdings Company) and headed up by CEO David Rothkopf, a top globalist who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former managing director of Kissinger Associates.
Many of Trump’s Russian admirers also share his dream of “purging the globalist elites,” according to the article, another reason why they fear he will be targeted for assassination.
As we have previously highlighted, fears that Trump would be assassinated because of the threat he poses to the unipolar new world order system have raged in Russia ever since he won the Republican candidacy last year.
Back in September, prominent Russian TV host and journalist Dmitry Kisiliov warned that the elite could assassinate Donald Trump because of his desire to build better relations with Moscow.
“They may just kill him,” said Kisiliov, adding, “The U.S. special (security) services do not need such a president. Those services promote hatred toward Russia in order to justify their existence.”
“The American oligarchs also do not need such a president. For these oligarchs, the existing world order ensures solid and stable business. For them, a Trump who is ready to settle issues with Russia means that the finances will flow in a different direction,” he warned.
President Donald Trump in his first phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads, according to a report.
Trump told Putin that the treaty, known as New START, was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, according to a report by Reuters.
Unnamed sources said that Trump did not know what the treaty was, and had paused to ask his aides in an aside what it was, according to the report. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Thursday that Trump understood the topic, but had wanted an opinion from an aide.
“It wasn’t like he didn’t know what was being said. He wanted an opinion on something,” Spicer said.
The treaty requires Russia and the United States to lower the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 or less by 2018. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles, and nuclear-capable bombers.
In the phone call, Putin suggested extending New START, which is set to expire in 2021, the sources told Reuters.
Trump had criticized the treaty during a 2016 presidential debate, saying Russia had “outsmarted” the U.S. with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Critics view the agreement as one-sided, requiring deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and abandoning missile defense in Europe.
Trump had also tweeted, as president-elect, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
Supporters of the treaty argue that the end of the treaty could lead to a new arms race.
“New START has unquestionably made our country safer, an opinion widely shared by national security experts on both sides of the aisle,” Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH) said in a statement.
A mutual agreement can extend the treaty’s provisions for another five years.
The original agreement, known as START, was renewed in 2010 by then-President Obama, and went into effect in 2011, according to CNN.
It aims to cut the number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia could deploy by about one-third. It would limit a maximum of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and bombers, and a total of 1,500 warheads.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered an urgent inspection of Russia’s aerospace forces in readiness for a potential war with NATO.
Putin’s unannounced inspection on Tuesday comes after Moscow announced that it would be ramping up efforts to counter provocative NATO drills in the Black Sea.
“In accordance with the decision by the Armed Forces Supreme Commander, a snap check of the Aerospace Forces began to evaluate readiness of the control agencies and troops to carry out combat training tasks,” Shoigu said at a meeting, according to Russian news Agency TASS.
The exercise, starting at 9 a.m. Moscow Time (1 a.m. EST), is aimed at evaluating Russia’s combat training readiness, according to Shoigu.
He also added: “Special attention should be paid to combat alert, deployment of air defense systems for a time of war and air groupings’ readiness to repel the aggression.”
The snap check comes days after local media reported that the U.S. tanks and infantry vehicles arrived at Tapa, a town in north Estonia, as a part of the West’s efforts to counter the Russian threat following its actions in Crimea.
“The movement of equipment and troops into and around Europe marks the beginning of a continuous rotation of armored brigade combat teams from the United States as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve,” a U.S. Defense Department statement on the deployment read.
Last year, the NATO embarked upon what its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called the “biggest reinforcement of collective defense since the Cold War.”
The U.S., through Atlantic Resolve, is attempting to showcase its commitment to its allies and toward the maintenance of stability in the region “ in light of the Russian intervention in the Ukraine,” the defense department said. Russia, however, is also taking steps to counter the NATO buildup in Europe as tensions escalate.
The bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace. Upon command, it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base.
In July 2016, Lieutenant Colonel Aleksei Solodovnikov, a rocketry instructor at the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Academy in St. Petersburg, claimed that the Kremlin was developing a hypersonic strategic bomber capable of striking with nuclear warheads from outer space. The trial model of Russia’s nuclear-capable outer space strategic bomber will be developed (with help from Moscow’s Central AeroHydrodynamic Institute or TsAGI) by 2020.
“The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace. Upon command it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base.
“We are cooperating with Russia’s Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute on the design of an airframe and the aircraft’s characteristics. I think that its lift-off mass must be 20-25 metric tons for it to be a strike aircraft. It will be able to accelerate to hypersonic speed (around 3,800 mph) in rocket mode… and reach any point on Earth in under two hours (flying at five times the speed of sound).
“The engine will be Turbofan, meaning it can work in the atmosphere and then switch into space mode to fly without air — everything within one corpus. Two engines — one for the airplane and another for the spaceship — will be combined within the bomber’s engine setting. In plane mode, the engine will use kerosene fuel. For space flight, it will use methane and oxygen.”
Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev, commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, confirmed that the model engine for the bomber had been built and successfully tested at the Serpukhovo branch of the Military Academy. He also confirmed that Russia planned to exhibit the engine at the Army-2016 International Military-Technical Forum in September, in Moscow.
“An engine for a promising space plane has been developed at Strategic Rocket Forces Academy. The unit’s operational ability had been proven. Right now we are reviewing the nuances, which will take approximately one year. Then we will make a blueprint, which could be completely different from the current one.
“Once we agree on the plans, we will start building the engine itself. In the second year of development — 2018 — we will build the hardware. Perhaps I am rushing things — and some issues may arise —but by 2020 we should have a fully-functioning product.”
Called the PAK-DA stealth bomber (which stands for Prospective Aviation Complex for Long-range Aviation), the hypersonic aircraft – which will be invisible to radar — was being developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau, designers of the infamous Tu-95 ‘Bear’ strategic bombers. It was described as a stealthier version of the TU-160 hypersonic bomber, and as a counter to the US Air Force’s in-development B-21 stealth bomber.
The revelation spread like wildfire, and was picked by most mainstream media and science journals. However, Russia’s Defense Ministry denied the reports, saying the media had “misinterpreted the words of a military academy representative about an alleged development of a space bomber.”
“The creation of some ‘space bombers’ in the Serpukhov branch of the Academy of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces is out of the question. Such design and development work is at least not within the competence of the Russian Defense Ministry’s educational establishments. The words of a teacher of that military academy about the hypothetical possibility of using his own theoretical insights in the sphere of defense engine technology were obviously misinterpreted.”
Oddly, in April 2016, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov had himself acknowledged the work on the development of the PAK-DA stealth bomber will not be stopped. However, the project will be delayed, due to Moscow’s plan to resume production of the Tu-160M2. TASS, a Russian news agency, reported:
“It was earlier planned that the PAK-DA bomber would start to be delivered to the Russian army in 2023-2025, and the first tests flights were planned for 2019-2020. It became known later that the creation of Russia’s new strategic bomber would be delayed because of the plans to resume serial production of Tu-160M2 that is planned to be started in 2023.”
Interestingly, in October 2016, the Russian Defense Ministry announced PAK-DA (which may be unveiled to the public by the end of 2018) is set to replace the current fleet of Tu-160, Tu-95MS, and Tu-22M3.
According to a report in RT, the new stealth bomber is expected to cover a range of 6,740 nautical miles and carry around 30-40 tons of weapons, including air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, as well as conventional and smart-guided bombs.
It’s not encouraging based on Nikki Haley’s Thursday UN Security Council remarks – sounding like neocon Samantha Power never left.
Her maiden voyage appearance as US envoy “condemn(ed) Russian actions” in Ukraine – ignoring flagrant Kiev aggression, including shelling of Donetsk civilian areas.
“The United States stands with the people of Ukraine, who have suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military intervention,” Haley ranted.
“Until Russia and the separatists (sic) it supports respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will continue.”
Shocking stuff! Haley speaks for Trump. Her disgraceful misrepresentation of hard facts didn’t go down well in Moscow.
Russia’s lower house State Duma International Affairs Committee chairman Alexey Pushkov blasted her, saying “(i)t looks like the new US representative at the UN came with remarks…written by (Samantha) Power.”
“How can Russia be blamed when (Ukrainian forces) are firing at Donbass?” Moscow’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin condemned Kiev’s escalation, saying its regime “desperately, frantically” needs money so it provoked conflict to “swindle (it from) the European Union, certain European countries and from the United States and from international financial institutions by pretending to be the victims of aggression.”
He accused Kiev of trying to use the armed clashes that it provoked as a pretext for a complete rejection of the February 12, 2015” Minsk II agreement.
He called for deescalation “to prevent disaster and to return the situation to the political track (so) the situation in (Donbass won’t) develop (into a) worse-case scenario.”
Kiev’s UN ambassador Volodymyr Yelchenko turned truth on its head blaming “the Russian army and Russian-backed separatists (sic)” of starting the latest escalation.
Militantly anti-Russia European Council president Donald Tusk issued a statement, saying “we are reminded again of the continued challenge from Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine.”
In her remarks, Haley continued her anti-Russia rant, saying “Eastern Ukraine…is not the only part of the country suffering because of Russia’s aggressive actions.”
“The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.”
Fact: Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, wanting no part of Kiev’s putschist regime. Putin accommodated them. The Republic of Crimea is Russia’s Southern Federal District. That won’t change!
Fact: Haley’s remarks suggest improving Russia/US ties won’t come easily at best, perhaps wishful thinking at worst.
Fact: Donbass freedom fighters decisively smashed Kiev’s earlier aggression, why its forces resort to shelling alone so far this time around.
They can’t win militarily. Aggression was launched for political and economic reasons. The regime wrecked the country. It’s a financial deadbeat, in default on its debt, unable to function without foreign aid.
Conditions are deplorable. Waging war on Donbass distracts attention from state-inflicted misery. How long it can work is uncertain.
In 2004 and 2014, US-instigated color revolutions replaced sitting governments with illegitimate pro-Western puppet regimes.
Will another uprising follow, this time internally generated, replacing US-installed putschists with leadership looking east, not west? It’s unlikely soon, maybe longer-term.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
A new Congress of Vienna could strengthen U.S. leadership by sharing responsibility for global order.
If Trump’s victory is truly the beginning of a new paradigm in domestic and particularly in foreign policy, and a transition from globalism to nationalism, we can expect major changes in U.S. foreign policy. This could open new opportunities for Russian-American relations.
A) If Trump indeed reassesses the U.S. attitude toward NATO, as a residue of the Cold War, and toward Europe overall, it may allow Moscow and Washington to prevent the Baltic states and Poland from continuing to create tensions, spoiling Russian-American relations and drawing the United States into conflict with Moscow under the false pretext of a Russian threat. In this case, politicians in Washington might no longer see Russia as an enemy that must be contained through endless strengthening of NATO and full mobilization of U.S. and European forces.
The relationship between Washington and Moscow could become more pragmatic, similar to Washington‘s relationships with other European countries. This would entail a predominantly bilateral character, in contrast to current relations, which are primarily alliance-based, multilateral and anti-Russian, thanks to the efforts of a number of European countries. In those new circumstances, if needed, Russia could provide guarantees of security and territorial integrity to some countries in eastern Europe, if their protection under Article Five of the NATO Charter is not sufficient. Thus, Russia could clearly show that it is not an enemy of the West, and has no intention of attacking the Baltic states or Poland, where hysterical discussions began after the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s reintegration into Russia. For Moscow to normalize relations with Washington, it needs American recognition that Ukraine is a special case for Russia.
B) Russia did not carry out expansion against Ukraine, though from the West’s perspective this is an indisputable fact that led to the creation of an entire system of sanctions against sectors of Russia’s economy and individual Russian citizens. Under the new paradigm, Trump‘s administration will have to give this up and lift the sanctions over time if it is prepared to normalize relations with Russia. In this case, Trump’s foreign-policy team would have to agree with Russia‘s position that the expansion into Ukraine was not Moscow’s doing, but the West’s, which encouraged a military coup against the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. Russia merely responded to the actions of the West, which was trying to transform Ukraine into an anti-Russian state inside NATO. Russia could not allow this to happen, since Ukraine is an existential problem for Russia.
Moscow could pursue the following program of action with Trump as a compromise. First, remove the issue of Crimea from the agenda and mark it as resolved, meaning Crimea is accepted Russian territory. Next, Ukraine adopts a nonaligned, neutral status in its constitution and the Kiev authorities decentralize power, including implementing the Minsk agreement’s terms on the status of the Donetsk People‘s Republic and Luhansk People‘s Republic. Finally, Moscow and Washington give a written guarantee of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and commence promoting the country’s economic recovery. At the same time, it would be desirable for the Trump administration to somehow make clear that the United States will cease its confrontational policy of expanding NATO by taking new countries of the former Soviet Union into the ranks of this military organization. Such arrangements in Ukraine could contribute to lifting the U.S. and European sanctions against Russia that began with the events in Ukraine.
Typically, proponents of NATO‘s eastward expansion and membership for Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics in this military alliance refer to the fact that these countries are independent and sovereign, and have the right to join any alliance at their discretion. Our common history shows that this argument has a serious flaw. In 1962, Cuba had every legal right to place Soviet nuclear missiles on its territory. However, the Kennedy administration had a different opinion and did not care about Cuba’s rights. The United States brought the world to the brink of nuclear war to force the USSR to remove its missiles. This example demonstrates that Ukraine has the right to join NATO, but also that Russia, seeing such an alliance as an existential threat, has the right to try to prevent it.
C) With respect to the situation in Syria, Iraq and the broader Middle East, events may develop in the following way. If there is a real change in the American foreign-policy paradigm, our countries could abandon the zero-sum game that originated in the Cold War and continues to this day, in which one’s is automatically perceived as the other’s loss. In this case, it could be possible to abandon competition and rivalry, which has been disastrous for Moscow, Washington and the region, and to move toward real and deeper cooperation between the Russian and U.S. militaries and intelligence services in the war against terrorism. Given strengthened Russia-Iran, Russia-Turkey, Russia-Iraq, Russia-Israel and Russia-Egypt relations, we could agree that the United States and Russia, together with their partners and allies, could divide spheres of responsibilities in the fight against the Islamic State and in contributing to the stabilization of the situation in the broader Middle East.
D) Improving relations between Moscow and Washington could have a significant impact on U.S.-Russia-China relations. The policies of three successive U.S. presidents—Clinton, Bush and Obama—pushed Russia into China‘s embrace, which many American experts debated with anxiety. According to these same experts, better relations between Washington and Moscow during the Trump administration will have a positive impact on Russia‘s relations with the West in general and significantly reduce Russia’s dependence on China. Russian-Chinese relations would preserve their closeness and trust, but with the improvement of relations between Moscow and Washington, they would become more balanced. As a result, Russia would have more room to maneuver with both Washington and Beijing.
E) Such a new approach may well turn out to be beneficial for the entire system of international relations in yet another area of foreign policy. Some politicians and analysts in Europe today believe that the United States should continue to play the role of “world police.” Otherwise, they believe, chaos and disorder will grow in the international system. Alas, this view does not correspond to the current realities prevailing in the world. Serving as the sole gendarme that restrains some countries, punishes others and rewards yet others is no longer reasonable for even such a rich and powerful country as the United States. Such a role costs much, but gives little in return. Trump, as a businessman, understands this very well; unlike professional politicians, he knows how to count money. To ensure global peace and stability, we need several—or even more—“policemen” who would not confront each other, but work together, share responsibilities and, if you like, manage spheres of influence to jointly ensure security in the world. The Congress of Vienna and the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences show that the world enters long periods of stability and predictability only when several countries share areas of influence and responsibility.
F) Of course, President Trump would face obstacles in implementing such a policy:
1) Trump’s own and his team’s vision of the United States’ new place in the world and, finally, their definition of Russia’s place in the world, remain unclear.
2) Some among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress might oppose such a policy. In the United States today, neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have formed a political alliance to prevent such shifts in U.S. policy.
3) Likewise, such a change would meet resistance in certain circles in western Europe and especially in Poland and the Baltic states.
Finally, it is difficult to say how far Trump is willing to go in rethinking U.S. policy in accordance with new U.S. capabilities. If he remains firm and consistent, as the election results showed, the American establishment, for the most part, will not support him, but the American people will almost certainly give their support. The latter gives some hope that Trump will be able, to a large extent, to implement his views on foreign and domestic policy. This would mean the actual end of the Cold War with Russia and the rejection of new Cold Wars with China or other emerging powers. It would also establish American leadership, not by suppression, dominion and punishment, but through cooperation with others and the division of responsibilities between major “policemen.”
Andranik Migranyan is a chief policy expert at Moscow State University’s Center for Public and Political Programs and a professor at the Moscow Institute of International Relations.