Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. media has assumed the role of protecting the American people from alternative viewpoints, which is why Oliver Stone’s long-form interviews with Vladimir Putin are such a concern, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
There was a time when I thought that it was the responsibility of an American journalist to hear all sides of a dispute and then explain the issue as fairly as possible to the American people, so they would be armed with enough facts to make their own judgments and act as the true sovereigns in a democracy.
Oliver Stone interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin in Showtime’s “The Putin Interviews.”
I realize how naïve that must sound today as American journalism has shifted to a new paradigm in which the major news outlets view it as their duty to reinforce whatever the establishment narrative is and to dismiss or discredit any inconvenient facts or alternative analyses.
Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media permit only the narrowest of alternative views to be expressed or they just pile into the latest groupthink whole hog.
So, that is why director Oliver Stone’s four-part series of interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin on “Showtime” will surely draw near-universal outrage and ridicule from the big U.S. media. How dare anyone let Putin explain how he views the challenges facing the world? Can you believe that any right-thinking American would treat the Russian leader with civility and – god forbid – respect?
The new American media paradigm requires either endlessly insulting Putin to his face or aggressively blacking out his explanations, especially if they are based on information that puts the U.S. government in a negative light. The American people must be protected from this “Russian propaganda and disinformation.”
In other words, with the mainstream “guardians of truth” forewarning the American people not to watch Stone’s “The Putin Interviews,” the series will probably draw a relatively small viewership and the demonizing of Putin and Russia will continue unabated.
The American public can thus be spared some disturbing historical revelations and the unsettling vertigo that comes from hearing information that disrupts “what everyone knows to be true.”
In the “director’s cut” or long-form version of the four-part series that I watched, Stone does allow Putin to offer detailed explanations of his thinking on current crises, but also draws from Putin acknowledgements that might be surprising coming from a Russian leader. He also puts Putin in some uncomfortable binds.
–Regarding the Soviet Union’s development of the nuclear bomb in the late 1940s, Putin said Russian and German scientists were working on the project but got help from participants in the U.S. nuclear program:
“Our intelligence also received a lot of information from the United States. Suffice it to remember the Rosenberg spouses who were electrocuted. They didn’t acquire that information, they were just transferring that information. But who acquired it? The scientists themselves – those who developed the atomic bomb.
The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.
“Why did they do that? Because they understood the dangers. They let the genie out of the bottle. And now the genie cannot be put back. And this international team of scientists, I think they were more intelligent than the politicians. They provided this information to the Soviet Union of their own volition to restore the nuclear balance in the world. And what are we doing right now [with the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty]? We’re trying to destroy this balance. And that’s a great mistake.”
–Regarding the origins of modern Islamist terrorism, Putin said: “Al Qaeda is not the result of our activities. It’s the result of the activities of our American friends. It all started during the Soviet war in Afghanistan [in the 1980s] when the American intelligence officers provided support to different forms of Islamic fundamentalism, helping them to fight the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
“So the Americans themselves nurtured both Al Qaeda and [Osama] bin Laden. But it all spun out of control. And it always happens. And our partners in the United States should have known about that. So they’re to blame.”
Stone noted how President Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey sought to exploit Islamic fundamentalism to destabilize Muslim parts of the Soviet Union and to achieve regime change in Moscow.
Putin added: “Those ideas are still alive. And when those problems in Chechnya and the Caucasus emerged [after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991], the Americans, unfortunately, supported those processes. We [Russians] assumed the Cold War was over, that we had transparent relations, with the rest of the world, with Europe and the U.S. And we certainly counted on support, but instead, we witnessed that the American Intelligence services supported terrorists.
“I’m going to say something very important, I believe. We had a very confident opinion back then, that our American partners in words were talking about support to Russia, the need to cooperate, including fighting terrorism, but in reality they were using those terrorists to destabilize the internal political situation in Russia.”
–Regarding NATO expansion into Eastern Europe,” Putin said, “There was a deal not to expand NATO eastward. [But] this deal was not enshrined in paper. It was a mistake made by Mr. Gorbachev [the last president of the Soviet Union]. In politics, everything must be enshrined in paper.
Jets flyover NATO Headquarters, where NATO members gathered for a meeting on May 25, 2017, in Brussels. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
“My impression is that in order to justify its existence, NATO has a need of an external foe, there is a constant search for the foe, or some acts of provocation to name someone as an adversary.”
–Regarding NATO missile bases being installed in Eastern Europe, Putin said: “And what are we supposed to do. In this case we have to take countermeasures. We have to aim our missile systems at facilities that are threatening us. The situation becomes more tense. …
“There are two threats for Russia. The first threat, the placement of these anti-ballistic missiles in the vicinity of our border in the Eastern European countries. The second threat is that the launching pads of these anti-ballistic missiles can be transformed within a few hours into offensive missile launching pads. Look, if these anti-ballistic missiles are placed in Eastern Europe, if those missiles are placed on water, patrolling the Mediterranean and Northern Seas, and in Alaska, almost the whole Russian territory would be encircled by these systems.
“As you can see, that is another great strategic mistake made by our partners [a word that Putin uses to refer to the United States]. Because all these actions are going to be adequately answered by Russia. And this means nothing else but a new cycle of an arms race. …
“When the Soviet Union collapsed, they [American leaders] were under the illusion that the U.S. was capable of anything, and they could [act] with impunity. That’s always a trap, because in this situation the person or the country begins to commit mistakes. There is no need to analyze the situations, or think about the consequences. And the country becomes inefficient. One mistake follows another. And I think that is the trap the U.S. has found itself in.”
–Regarding the prospect of nuclear war, Putin said, “I don’t think anyone would survive such a conflict.” Regarding U.S. plans for creating a missile shield, he said, “There is a threat deriving from the illusion of being protected, and this might lead to more aggressive behavior. That is why it is so important to prevent unilateral actions. That is why we propose to work jointly on the anti-ballistic missile system.”
–Regarding the American neoconservatives who now dominate the U.S. foreign policy establishment and the major news media, Stone described “the neoconservative element as being so hungry to make their point, to win their case that it’s dangerous.” Putin responded, “I fear them too.”
–In an interview on Feb. 16, 2016, Stone asked about the U.S. presidential campaign to which Putin replied, “We are going to be ready to work with whoever gets elected by the people of the United States. I said that on several occasions and that’s the truth. I believe nothing is going to change no matter who gets elected. … The force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. And there are many facts that are not visible to the candidates until they become President. And the moment one gets to real work, he or she feels the burden. …
Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. October 29, 2016. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)
“My colleague, Barack Obama, promised to close Guantanamo. He’s failed to do that. But I’m convinced that he sincerely wanted to do that. … Unlike many partners of ours, we never interfere within the domestic affairs of other countries. That is one of the principles we stick to in our work.”
–In a February 2017 interview, which was added amid the escalation of charges that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, Stone noted that Donald Trump is “your fourth president” and asked, “what changes?”
“Almost nothing,” Putin said with a wry smile. “Life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world.”
Asked about alleged Russian interference to help Trump, Putin responded: “You know, this is a very silly statement. Certainly, we liked President Trump and we still like him because he publicly announced that he was ready to restore American-Russian relations. … Certainly, we’ve got to wait and see how, in reality, in practice, the relations between our two countries are going to develop. …”
Stone: “So why did you bother to hack the election then?”
Putin: “We did not hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any other country – even a country such as Russia would be capable of seriously influencing the electoral campaign or the outcome of an election. … any talk about our influencing the outcome of the U.S. election is all lies. They are doing it for a number of reasons.
“First, they are trying to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, create conditions that must preclude us from normalizing our relations, and they want to create additional instruments to wage an internal political war. And Russia-U.S. relations in this context are just a mere instrument in the internal political fight in the U.S. … We know all their tricks.”
–Regarding cyber-war and the possibility that U.S. intelligence planted malware and back-doors in software sold to Russia, Putin said, “Well, you will probably not believe me, but I’m going to say something strange. Since the early 1990s, we have assumed that the Cold War is over. We thought there was no need to take any additional protective measures because we viewed ourselves as an integral part of the world community.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
“We didn’t have any equipment of our own. Our companies, our state institutions and administrative departments, they were buying everything – hardware and software. And we’ve got much equipment from the U.S., from Europe, and equipment is used by the Intelligence Services and by the Defense Ministry. But recently we certainly have become aware of the threat that all of that poses.
“Only during recent years, have we started to think about how we can ensure technological independence, as well as security. Certainly we give it much thought, and we take appropriate measures. … We had to catch up with others.”
In an aside to Putin’s translator within earshot of Putin, Stone remarked: “He’s acting funny about this story, like he’s guilty a bit.”
–Regarding the dangers to Russia from U.S. cyber-warfare, Putin said: “It is almost impossible to sow fear among the Russian citizens. … And secondly, the economies that are more sophisticated, in technological terms, they are more vulnerable to this type of attack. But in any case, this is a very dangerous trend. A very dangerous avenue for competition to pursue and we need some rules to be guided by.”
When Stone raised the possibility of a treaty, Putin said, “I don’t want to say that, but you are simply drawing this information from me. You make me say that. One and a half years ago, in Autumn 2015, we came up with a proposal that was submitted to our American counterparts. We suggested that we should work these issues through and arrive at a treaty, an agreement on the rules to be guided by in this field. The Americans didn’t respond, they kept silence, they didn’t give us any reply.”
–Regarding allegations of Putin’s wealth, Stone asked, “Is there someway you could make your personal wealth clearer?”
Putin responded indirectly: “I remember when I moved to Moscow from St. Petersburg [in the 1990s], I was astounded and shocked by how many crooks had gathered here in Moscow and their behavior was so astounding, I couldn’t get used to it for a very long time. Those people didn’t have any scruples at all. … My task was to differentiate between power and money.”
Stone: “So there are no bank accounts in Cyprus?”
Putin: “No, and never have been. That’s just nonsense, and if that were the case we would have had to face it a long time ago.”
–Although Putin remained disciplined and controlled during the long sit-downs with Stone, the Russian president appeared most uncomfortable when Stone pressed him about his future plans and the risk of a leader viewing himself as indispensable to a nation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)
Citing the possibility that Putin would have been in power – as either prime minister or president – for 24 years if he were to run for president again and win, Stone asked, “Do you feel that Russia needs you that badly?”
Putin: “The question you have asked whether Russia needs anyone that bad – Russia itself will decide. An alteration in power certainly has to exist. … In the end, let me reiterate – the citizens of Russia are going to make the final decision. Concerning the 2018 elections, I’d like to say there are things, things that should have some intrigue and mystery. So I am not going to answer that part of the question.”
Stone: “I said if…”
Putin: “We shouldn’t speak in the subjunctive mood.”
Stone then suggested more transparency in the next election.
A stern Putin responded: “Do you think our goal is to prove anything to anyone? Our goal is to reinforce our country.”
Stone: “That is a dangerous argument. It works both ways. Those who abuse power always say it’s a question of survival.”
Putin: “We are not talking about survival and we are not trying to justify ourselves. Certainly taking into account all the negative tendencies you’ve been talking about – the Soviet legacy, the Imperialist legacy, it’s something in the past. But we also have to think about the positive legacy. Russia has been built for a thousand years; it has its own traditions. We have our notions of what is just and unjust, we have our own understanding of what defines an efficient government.
“This is not a question of helping someone cling to power or to claim it for myself. This is about ensuring economic growth and sustaining it, improving our defense capabilities, and not just during periods of crisis and difficulties.”
Stone: “Mr. Putin, I don’t doubt for one moment your pride in serving Russia or that you are a son of Russia to me, and you have done very well by her. We all know the price of power. When we’re in power too long no matter what, the people need us but at the same time we’ve changed and we don’t even know it.”
Putin: “Indeed, this is a very dangerous state. If a person in power feels that they have lost it, this bond connecting this person to the country and to the rank-and-file citizens of the country, then it’s time for them to go.”
More to come regarding Putin’s account of the Ukraine crisis. Regarding Stone’s style and strategy in interviewing Putin, click here.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
“The Putin Interviews” with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and filmmaker Oliver Stone deserves not only the Academy Award for Best Documentary 2017, but recognition as the most important documentary film of the 21st century.
One senses Putin and Stone over the two-year period when the segments were recorded engaged in deep spiritual, philosophical and/or metaphysical discussions which resulted in profound friendship between them, likely empowered by a shared understanding of each human being’s inevitable encounter with passage from the material world here on Earth – and the various aspects philosophers have considered since time began about living in the human body.
What is most extraordinary about “The Putin Interviews” is that two people whose actions derive from philosophical foundations sat down and discussed the most urgent issues facing humanity in a calm, measured, self-controlled manner – as philosophers. One might describe the documentary as a template for leaders on how to communicate in such a way that beneficial agreements become unveiled or discovered, acknowledged, then manifested in reality.
It is reasonable to conclude that “The Putin Interviews” provides a template for building a new, peaceful and better world for this and future generations.
This film is a tremendously important artistic, spiritual and historic achievement.
“In other words, with the mainstream “guardians of truth” forewarning the American people not to watch Stone’s “The Putin Interviews,” the series will probably draw a relatively small viewership and the demonizing of Putin and Russia will continue unabated.”
I’m not sure, there could also be a Streisand effect. I think, it’s important that those Americans (and others, I am very diligent here in Germany) who care about the truth or at least balance, share this video among friends and family, on social media etc.
I didn’t see that in the parts quoted in the essay. Not trying to put Putin on any kind of a pedestal here, but the man came across as intelligent, well informed, and sane.
The rich do none of the work and make all of the money, pays no tax. Middle class does all the work, pays all the tax for being productive. The poor are just there to scare the middle to keep the rich rich. That’s the world. Get in on the cyber hyperdemocracy.
“Today we are witnessing the triumph of a hyperdemocracy in which the mass acts directly, outside the law, imposing its aspirations and its desires by means of material pressure.”
José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses
Steal from the rich databases and give to the poor databases.
“For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law.” It’s all for Hope!
What do you mean, Russia always gets caught? Russia always gets blamed, and if you’re from the Brussels UIA affiliated with the UN, your comment makes sense. The one nation that has not been held accountable for its disastrous dirty deeds, it’s the USA. But it will pay, and big time. Enjoy those leeks, with a glass of Chardonnay!
Russia always gets caught. They operate on leaks instead of leeks for life. Hope is not getting caught. She means the world to UIA, a government in exile. It’s not easy being green
And yes, Dave, do wear that T-shirt. I’ve seen it worn a lot, throughout the country. Saw it a lot worn by folks in the western states, and also see it in the northeast, especially around the Boston area, where the native tribes on Cape Cod hold the “Day of Mourning” on Thanksgiving Day.
Following Fred’s ignorant comment about treason here, indicating what nasty, vicious people many Americans have become, and apparently how many of them, like Fred, have no individual thought process other than what the state funnels into their zombie heads through the channels, there isn’t much to add to the intelligent comments to this good article from thinking folks here. I second the observations showing that the vicious American character was created early in the beginning of the country when the native peoples were treated so badly by the white conquerors, and the natives saw through the character of the white bullies completely. But there always were decent folks, and many were fully sympathetic to the plights of the peoples led by Chief Joseph and Sitting Bull, and disturbed by the Wounded Knee massacre, for example. My drawn-out point is that there has been a history in the US of belligerent leadership that has continued down the line with few breaks.
The WaPo this morning published a snide article about Oliver Stone defending Vladimir Putin on Colbert, and their point was that the audience laughed at him. I don’t have TV, didn’t see that, but comments here indicate it’s obviously canned laughter, anyway. Colbert is so pathetically non-funny. What a sick nation this one had turned into!
My reading from RT, Russia Insider, Sputnik, etc. (heavens, that’s treason!) indicate that if Putin remains in office until 2024, his most likely successor will be Sergey Shoigu, Russia’s Minister of Defence since 2012. From what I read, he works closely with Putin and others such as Lavrov, particularly on Russia’s aid to Syria against the jihadists armed by the West. His Wikipedia entry shows how experienced he is, trained originally as a civil engineer, but he is a long-time politician. If he is elected as Putin’s successor, we could expect he’ll get the same vicious treatment from the US (unless economic collapse comes to the house of cards that the USA has become and the USG idiots have to get busy trying to repair the damage).
,
How much are you scumbags being paid for your treason?
Surprised to hear Stone assert the Russia hacking allegation given none of that has been proven and also, its been rebutted by NSA expert William Binney. I think therefore that Putin’s response is true.
Putin recognizes the dangers and costs of nuclear weapons [as did Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kruschev, etc]. No state can afford to use them. He is clearly ready to disarm much further, but he requires America to engage, match and push also.
Russia knows as do nuclear experts here that that only about 10 hiroshima sized bombs would be needed to take down Russia’s grid upon which its infrastructure- water food etc- depend. [we have much larger today, in addition to overkill in conventional weapons ].
I posted these comments an hour ago. the message says ” Your comments is awaiting moderation”. It is happening quite often with my comments. Any answer for this?
Anyhow, I am posting the comments again.
In The interview Putin says ” . . . there was a deal that NATO will not move Eastward. The deal was not enshrined in paper. It was a mistake made by Gorbachev . . .”
Nikita Khrushchev would never have made this mistake. From a peasant family in Donetsk, much maligned the Russian Peasant had been, but Khrushchev born in 1894 before the Revolution, had that peasant’s instincts, and cleverness – would have never been fooled by these ConMen of The West, with whom Gorbachev was dealing. Gorbachev, born in 1931 on a Collective Farm village in Stavropol Krai, educated at Moscow State University, had lost that Russian Peasant’s instincts, and wisdom. And Gorbachev also proved to be indecisive, not a man of action, and prone to flattery by so called Democratic West. Gorbachev and Yeltsin will be the two most despised Leaders in Russian History.
But once again, Russia proved lucky. Vladimir Putin saved whatever was left of now shrunken Russia – strengthened Russia, and put it back on its feet. I think that is reason they have been vilifying Putin as no leader in the recent History has been. Russia is still weak, and vulnerable, and like other Predators, the Western Rulers sense it. It seems to me they want to go for the sudden kill, first strike, regardless of the consequences.
West fighting terrorism! It is a joke. Driving back from Michigan a few years ago. my wife and I stopped in Albuquerque for the night. I bought a T-Shirt in a shop in the Plaza. The inscription on the front of T-Shirt is; On the top it says “Homeland Security”, below it are pictures (from the nineteenth century) of four Indians with guns. on the left side of picture is name of Perico Chihuahua, on the right side of the picture is the name of Chappo Geronimo. And below the picture it is written: “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. It says a lot about our actions now. Not to offend people, I have rarely worn the T-Shirt in the public.
Inflaming sectarian conflicts, divide and rule has been the policy of the Western Imperial Nations for many centuries. The War in Afghanistan, making Afghanistan the premier Opium and Heroin production Center of the World, it is all by design. It is directed at Russia, to destabilize, and destroy Russia from inside. There are other geopolitical aims in continuing this Afghanistan War as well. The heroin being smuggled through Pakistan to India is also devastating North India.
Many thoughts race through the mind: where are all the writers, poets, actors, and other custodians of civilization these days? So many of them have become collaborators in this death and destruction being inflicted on the Weak and vulnerables on the Planet.
And the irony of it all is that with our resources and wealth, we can do so much good on the Earth.
“Not to offend people”? You’ve “rarely worn the T-Shirt in the public”? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Please — wear the “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. t shirt! It says a lot about America, our actions both then and now.
.
Regarding NATO expansion into Eastern Europe,” Putin said, “There was a deal not to expand NATO eastward. [But] this deal was not enshrined in paper. It was a mistake made by Mr. Gorbachev [the last president of the Soviet Union]. In politics, everything must be enshrined in paper.
What difference would a paper document have made? The American government has been reneging on treaties and other agreements since it began making and breaking treaties with the Native Americans. In Vietnam and Iraq and who knows where else the Geneva Convention on Torture has been treated with contempt. Meanwhile, here in the United States oaths of office taken in the White House and Congress are mostly worthless.
Bill I did not see your comment when I made mine, but I also compared Gorbachev and North American Indians. This almost looks like group think of two people – lol. My regards to you.
Please refer to my explanation of how to create a lasting contract.
Film director, producer, cinematographer and screenwriter Sean Stone, the son of Oliver Stone, co-hosts the television show “Watching the Hawks” on RT America.
In his new documentary, “A Century of War”, Sean Stone presents an historical perspective on the shift to a post-industrial society and offering strategies to reinvigorate US infrastructure, starting with a reassessment of America’s relationship to energy. Stone’s documentary links America’s petrodollar economy with its global military predominance, often to secure corporate access to natural resources.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5LqrhNGRyosn3Ju8RGQtWEO-gqSG9ed9
Blogger Yashar Ali, a contributor for New York Magazine and The Daily Beast, Tweeted on June 12: “Oliver Stone has a four part interview w/ Putin on Showtime that many see as propaganda. What’s not revealed, is his son works for RT.”
RT America, based in Washington, D.C. with studios and bureaus in New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, is part of the RT global multilingual television news network. RT is a non-profit organization in part funded by the Russian government.
Annex A of the January 2017 ODNI Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment Statement “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” claimed that “RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties.”
The ODNI Statement further stated that “RT America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian Government.”
Hopefully this controversy increase attention and promote American viewership of RT America programming.
RT America presents alternatives to the fake news disseminated by Google’s “First Draft” propaganda coalition, which includes the New York Times, Washington Post, Elliot Higgins and the Bellingcat blog, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, the BBC and Guardian in the UK, and Kiev-based StopFake disinformation site.
In any event, filmmakers Oliver and Sean Stone both deserve credit for their efforts to challenge the US mainstream media’s firehose of fake news.
Peter J. Kuznick is a Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, DC.
Kuznick and Oliver Stone co-authored The Untold History of the United States, a 10-part documentary film series and 750-page companion bestselling book.
Responding to a January 2017 hatchet job published in the Observer, Kuznick observed:
“To suggest that Oliver’s decision to interview Vladimir Putin for a forthcoming series of interviews came from some desire to lionize the Russian leader is also hogwash. Oliver interviewed Putin long before this current brouhaha over the Russian intervention into the U.S. presidential elections. Oliver saw that tensions between the U.S. and Russia over Syria, Ukraine, and the Baltics were driving our two nations closer toward war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. He had already lived through a war about which American leaders lied shamelessly and one in which neither they nor the American people had any understanding of who our Vietnamese adversaries were and what motivated them. Watching the demonization of Putin in the American media and the simplistic rendering of Russian aggression and future expansionist plans, he didn’t want to see this happen again. And with the U.S. and Russia possessing thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert, a military confrontation between the world’s two military superpowers could have consequences too frightening to contemplate.”
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/166147
In October 2013, Stone and Kuznick, along with historian Eric S. Singer, launched the Untold History Education Project to expand upon the narratives and events discussed in the Untold History documentary series and book.
The project is devoted to fostering critical thinking and debate amongst students and teachers in high schools and universities. With the input of educators and historians, Stone, Kuznick and Singer also designed a curriculum guide for the series and primary source-based lesson plans for each episode.
A similar education project to foster critical thinking and debate concerning the New Cold War, and address the escalating threat of nuclear confrontation, would be a most worthy undertaking.
In The interview Putin says, ” . . . there was a deal that NATO will not move Eastward. The deal was not enshrined in paper. It was a mistake made by Gorbachev. . . .”
Nikita Khrushchev would never have made this mistake. From a peasant family in Donetsk, much maligned the Russian Peasant had been, but Khrushchev born in 1894 before the Revolution, had that peasant’s instincts, and cleverness – would have never been fooled by these ConMen of The West, with whom Gorbachev was dealing. Gorbachev, born in 1931 on a Collective Farm village in Stavropol Krai, educated at Moscow State University, had lost that Russian Peasant’s instincts, and wisdom. And Gorbachev also proved to be indecisive, not a man of action, and prone to flattery by so called Democratic West. Gorbachev and Yeltsin will be the two most despised Leaders in Russian History.
But once again, Russia proved lucky. Vladimir Putin saved whatever was left of now shrunken Russia – strengthened Russia, and put it back on it’s feet. I think that is reason they have been vilifying Putin as no leader in the recent History has been. Russia is still weak, and vulnerable, and like other Predators, the Western Rulers sense it. It seems to me they want to go for the sudden kill, first strike, regardless of the consequences.
West fighting Terrorism ! It is a joke. Driving back from Michigan a few years ago. my wife and I stopped in Albuquerque for the night. I bought a T-Shirt in a shop in the Plaza. The inscription on the front of T-Shirt is; On the top it says “Homeland Security”, below it are pictures (from the nineteenth century) of four Indians with guns. on the left side of picture is name of Perico Chihuahua, on the right side of the picture is the name of Chappo Geronimo. And below the picture it is written: “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. Not to offend people, I have rarely worn the T-Shirt in the public.
Inflaming sectarian conflicts, divide and rule has been the policy of the Western Imperial Nations, for more than two centuries. The War in Afghanistan, making Afghanistan the premier Opium and Heroin production Center of the World, it is all by design. , It is directed at Russia, to destabilize, and destroy Russia from inside. There are other other geopolitical aims in continuing this Afghanistan War as well. The heroin being smuggled through Pakistan to India is also devastating North India.
Many thoughts race through the mind: where are all the writers, poets, actors, and other custodians of civilization these days? So many of them have become collaborators in this death and destruction being inflicted on the Weak and Vulnerables on the Planet.
I don’t know how anyone in the general population of the US is supposed to judge Putin’s intelligence, when intelligence is, in Putin’s case, defined as evil, dishonest, cruel. It makes these interviews — logical, thoughtful, informed — dangerous to whatever Washington agencies are involved in spinning the anti-Putin propaganda. Americans may not like Putin or the way he is running Russia but Americans don’t get to vote in Russia’s elections.
Thats the part that confuses me. Donald Trump got less than half the vote but is just fine as US President. Putin has an 80% approval rating but according to Americans he is unfit to govern Russia. Go figure.
Aside from all of that Americans have enough problems in their own country to sort out , Russia does not need their help.
Putin is only popular because the whole lot of them Russkies are really still communists looking to take over the world [sarcasm, but believed by many Americans].
I totally enjoy how Putin uses the word ‘bureaucracy’ in place of the title ‘Deep State’. Putin also describes a Russia that learns from it’s mistakes, wow if only America could come to that moment of being truthful with itself.
After watching the Colbert audience response while Stephen poked fun at Oliver Stone, I hope the good executives at Showtime don’t fold their cards on future Stone documentaries. To think of it, getting diverse objective news coverage is so rare, that here we are making a big deal about the Oliver Stone Putin documentary, when actually Stone’s piece should be one among many news articles deflecting the official corporate narrative.
Among the people I know I think once I met someone who said they watched part of the Stone series ‘Untold History’. I’m very disappointed at how many of my neighbors, family, and the rest of America, are perfectly fine buying into our MSM propaganda. Sometimes I even hear these people admit to how they know that much of the news is purposely hyped up for maximum effect, and still they believe the corporate propaganda mill media. Although, in a way none of that matters anymore due to the fact we are now living in the age of ‘fake news’.
The general view from afield is that Americans behave like Pavlov´s Dog. Certain words and phrases make them salivate with hate. Communism, Socialism, Russia , China, Putin, Assad, and on and on. Only the word and or phrase need be uttered, and the population goes into a frency of hatred. Now thats what I would cal effective brainwashing.
Sadly I agree.
I could not agree more Joe. Competition is possibly the best way to get to the core truth, but in this situation there is no competition at all, only corporate mass sewage and one film-maker on the opposite side. Therefore, we should not assume that Stone’s word is the final word on this subject, it should be only one view of the subject amongst many. I am glad that, I think Abe, quoted a German documentary on Putin which I did not see before. The more different viewpoints the better we can understand and the closer we get to the truth.
Castro years ago was on the Jack Paar late night talk show. After the U.S. slapped sanctions on Cuba, and a few assassination attempts were made, Castro would never return to the American home tv crowd again, unless he was portrayed in a bad light. Were Americans not acquainted enough with Fidel Castro? Would fair television appearances of Fidel have changed the official American narrative?
I’m hopping Putin gets more coverage, and fair coverage, as so Americans may see and hear for themselves what this man Putin has to say. I just finished watching the first episode of the Stone and Putin interview, and with what I heard Putin is well tempered and rationally focused, and I understood his answers easily…so I’m looking foreword to the next three episodes.
You are right, it is amazing how after all of what has been said and done by us Americans Putin continues to reference us as his ‘partners’. I also noticed how Putin didn’t have anything bad to say about any of the people he and Stone had discussed in the interview, and I thought well of Vlad for that virtue.
Survey says: That’s no different than the Devil quoting scripture to his purpose. The MSM would remind you we are, after all, listening to a demon speak when Putin talks.
Yeah, I got from Mr Parry’s description of the interviews that Putin never says an ugly word about his opponents, something out of the movies about ancient chivalry. This is his standard mode of operation and, if I remember correctly, he only slipped once when he called some EU or Ukrainian ass-licker “to have his tongue permanently stuck on the US ass”. But calling people who want to roast you “partners” is a little over the top.
Let us not forget that all this is to stop a war currently in development!
German political theorist Carl Schmitt defined the content of politics as opposition to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one’s own interests. The “other” or the “stranger” is defined as an “enemy”
For Schmitt, the political is not an autonomous domain equivalent to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the “existential” basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics.
Schmitt defined the enemy as whoever is “in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”
For Schmitt, such an “existential” enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything. Schmitt went on to become an influential figure in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.
In the late 1930s, as Hitler’s Reich was expanding in Europe, Schmitt developed his concept of “Grossraum”, literally “great-space”. The term has a sense of a “sphere” of influence, and “geopolitical space” may be closer to the meaning. Schmitt intended the Grossraum concept to grasp an area or region that goes beyond a single state (that is, a specific territory), to comprehend much larger scale spatial orderings, complexes or arrangements.
After World War II, Schmitt considered the United States to be the only political entity capable of resolving what he regarded as the crisis of global order.
Indirectly influenced by Schmitt’s concept of the political, twenty-first century American Superpower “exceptionalism” has no space in its Grossraum concept for a “Eurasia”.
The very enunciation of a multi-polar “Eurasian” political sphere by Russia and China is regarded by American Superpower as a “terrorist” act. Putin and others associated with such “lunacy” are designated geopolitical “enemies” and “terrorists” to be annihilated by any means possible.
For more on Schmitt see:
Reading Schmitt geopolitically: Nomos, territory and Grossraum
By Stuart Elden
https://progressivegeographies.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/reading-schmitt-geopolitically.pdf
Abe wasn’t Leo Strauss an admirer of Schmidt? If so tell us the connection, if there was one.
Leo Strauss, a follower of political Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, had a position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and summarized Schmitt’s “political theology” thus: “[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against – against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men – the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state”
With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss received a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Strauss left Germany shortly before the Nazis came to power, never to return.
Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933. Within days, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of “un-German” and “anti-German” material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas. Schmitt presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the Führer state with regard to legal philosophy.
Strauss was a critic of Schmitt’s “political theology”, but the two theorists shared an emnity to “liberalism”. One might argue that the neocons embrace Schmitt far more passionately than Strauss.
What a sad situation; the President of Russia makes more sense and is more believable than any US Potus after JFK. Not saying he is not corrupt in internal affairs; and the way he dealt with Chechnya was pretty gruesome- somewhat similar but shorter than the US in Vietnam. However he is a vast improvement over Yeltsin the drunken American patsy. He stopped the privatization and got the oligarchs under control, still overly endowed but under control.
I have to seriously wonder, if the US does eventually succeed in displacing Putin,
just who do they think will take his place ? He has done a remarkable job of keeping
an extremely large and ethnically diverse country together under very difficult circum-
stances. ‘Replacing’ him could easily lead to chaos.
I think the “Empire of Chaos” always counts on that. Besides, they surely don’t wish Russia or the Russian people well by any means. The neocons reckon that they “won” the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was disbanded, and that to the victors belong the spoils. I think they considered, and still do, the resources and industries of the old Soviet Union to be theirs for the taking, if not by direct ownership then by proxy. They definitely do not want to see the riches of the country primarily benefiting the peoples of the Eurasian continent as a consequence of the OBOR “New Silk Road,” Eurasian Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank initiatives in conjunction with China, India, Pakistan, Iran and other Eastern powers. Just as Washington considered it “their” oil under the Middle East sand, so it is American timber, petrol, rare earth elements, gold, diamonds and metal ores to be found on the Russian taiga.
They have no problem with chaos. Do they look like humanitarians, Irina? Did they stop after Libya? What they don’t want is a strong leader
who poses any challenge to US hegemony to “Full Spectrum Dominance.”
sf
Stone mentioned to Putin that this was his “fourth president”, a reference to the fourth consecutive US leader with whom Putin has engaged. There was much talk of “bureaucracy”. Putin noted that it has a momentum of its own. He observed, as I interpreted his remarks, that little had changed on the US side of the table during his tenure. The closing segments of the article touched upon the wisdom of retaining power for too long, an allusion to its corrupting influence and the dangers it promotes.
Odd it is that so many right wing commentators in the US have embraced the “deep state” concept, when twenty years ago they would have dismissed it as delusional “conspiracy theory”. In fact, they go to great lengths to define it. Usually they refer to mid-level bureaucrats, embedded civil servants, political and military careerists at the Department of State or Defense, protectionism among cabinet and congressional staffers and unelected political appointees. The pundits in both mainstream and alternative venues usually proceed to rant about “socialist” influence, the takeover by advocates of “free stuff”, destruction of the work ethic by “takers” who exploit the “makers”, and the creation of a “nanny state” which fosters irresponsibility, lack of initiative and “big government”. Small government, they aver, is the antidote. It is promoted by “privatization” and “choice”. Never mind that it also results in transfer of assets and control to an unaccountable, autonomous minority which may then exploit those resources for personal gain. The Alex Jones and Stephan Molyneaux crowd vote in favor of such initiatives to their detriment. The intricacies of these issues are complex, bewildering and deceptive. There isn’t space here to fully develop a treatise on the pitfalls. Let’s talk instead about the “real” deep state, the one they don’t want you to recognize.
The real “deep state” is the one founded on revolving door positions in government, finance, the defense industry, resource exploitation and banking, political dynasties financed through lobbying and campaign contributions, government contracts, arms deals, tax abatements, double-standard legal decisions, bribery, nepotism and political corruption – all of which flies safely under the radar of public scrutiny. That’s the “deep state” they are anxious to camouflage.
Putin is motivated to remain in office in order to dismantle Russia’s “deep state”. It will require a long tenure, and he appears to be succeeding. Reading between the lines of his comments, he observes that the US counterpart to that system remains firmly entrenched. He notes that it has not changed through four administrations. He thinks our “deep state” has been in office way too long.
I got your swamp, er, deep state… right here:
“the agenda of the 65th meeting of the Bilderberg Group was described as: ‘The Trump Administration: a Progress Report’. Therefore, there’s little room left for doubt about the nature of the Trump administration and its complete subordination to those rich and powerful interests that Trump would describe as a ‘swamp’ during his election campaign. The group must be somewhat worried since it wanted to discuss the performance of the sitting administration after only four months in office, so the Trump team was eager to redeem itself by sending some of its prominent representatives to impress members of the gathering. Among the featured speakers was General Herbert Raymond McMaster, the sitting US National Security Advisor; Nadia Schadlow, a deputy assistant to the president and the NSC staffer in charge of writing the Trump administration’s official national security strategy; John O. Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now the Senior Advisor of Kissinger Associates Inc; David Petraeus, yet another former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a devoted friend to the Saudi royal family, the Chairman of the KKR Global Institute; Wilbur Ross, US Secretary of Commerce; Chris Liddell, the Assistant to the President Trump, and the Director of Strategic Initiatives in the White House.
“The biggest intrigue during the recent meeting of the Bilderberg Group was the discussion of the split that occurred between the US and Britain, breaking the influential Anglo-Saxon club in two. London has been displeased recently by Washington’s practice of taking use of terrorism in the Middle East. Therefore, the first day of work of the Bilderberg Club was devoted to the debate between supporters and opponents of Islamism. The CIA and MI6, therefore, tried to find a compromise in order to preserve NATO’s main goal – the fight against Russia.”
Bilderberg Group is Calling Shots in the Middle East
By Martin Berger
http://journal-neo.org/2017/06/13/bilderberg-group-is-calling-shots-in-the-middle-east/
Interesting article on the Bilderberg Group, especially in predicting “even more chaos” in the Mideast due to its US/UK split: “Washington has renewed its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and … London is pushing for an agreement between Iran, Qatar, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.” One wonders to what extent this club of “the wealthiest clans and their political agents” really “has its agents within the majority of governments” and if so, whether its US/UK split is reflected there, or in CIA/MI6.
It would be interesting to hear their arguments for the two positions.
My question is the Trump/McMaster faction trying to end political Islam, or are they merely choosing sides? I have heard rumors that the next generation of Saudi’s, who are sponsoring the Qatar break are moderate. If the Saudi’s are reforming and Trump puts a stop the the Muslim Brotherhood, it will be a great thing for the world. However, if this is just another neocon battle against Iran and Russia, it could be disastrous.
Not sure why Saudis if moderating would break with Qatar, especially as MB has been variably moderate (as in Egypt) compared with ISIS and AlQaeda, and Qatar has allowed AlJazeera, somewhat moderate for the region, and offers a channel to moderate with Iran. Saudi actions in Yemen and elsewhere sure don’t look moderate.
That’s some good stuff, Abe. Go to Executive Intelligence Review and type into their search box; “Inter-Alpha Group: Nation killers for Imperial Genocide”. The swamp that Trump refers to is a branch off a branch that is connected to the tap root. The swamp that needs draining are the swamp lands around Venice. Read the article and see what I mean. They really think they can destroy the World and survive it to come back on top. THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE teaches them this. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the wealthy and powerful “owners & managers” of this Empire high-tailed it to the Venice area, with its’ swamps making it easily defensible. There they plotted and schemed their return. They under-mined the Eastern Roman Empire, it having “fallen” into rival Greek hands (Byzantines). They undermined Charlemagne’s Empire, finally coming out on top with the Holy Roman Empire. Eventually, after a near-disasterous war with the League of Cambrai, they decided to transfer some of their “base-of-operations” to the Atlantic area, setting up the Dutch and English central banks and the Anglo-Dutch East India Companies which managed the British Empire. Their primary target for destruction is USA. When it falls, Russia and China will follow easily enough. The primary defense against this is National (Public) Banking and strong alliance with Russia and China, exactly what Trump intimated was his interest in pursuing, and exactly what Russia and China are pursuing, via New Silk Road policies, to pull USA aboard this plan, to destroy those forces that Inter-Alpha represents.
Brad, I don’t think Trump had a real swamp in mind when he suggested one needed draining, though I will grant you that the president thinks very concretely so any use of metaphorical language is certainly a cognitive stretch. But even if he was thinking of an actual swamp, I doubt it would be one in Northern Italy. Plenty of marshland in Jersey.
So you are saying these Inter Alpha Ilumanatti types have been hanging around Venice since the fall of Rome, and that their fifteen hundred years of plotting is finally about to pay off in global domination unless Russia, China and USA bjoin forces to stop them.
A nice list of “deep state” mechanisms, indeed “under the radar” until individuals collide with them. Glad that you include “double-standard legal decisions, bribery, nepotism and political corruption” along with corruption of mass media and elections, and the extortion industries (MIC and other favored industries) disguised by free market rhetoric.
My low tolerance of right-wing rhetoric spares me much of their amusing notion of a socialist “deep state” advocating the abhorred general welfare rather than Joe’s “welfare for the generals.”
In any case, under the Russian constitution, Putin cannot remain in office beyond 2024–which will mean tandem elections and fresh faces in both Russia and the U.S. at that time. So why the urgency in the U.S. to force a Russian regime change using the leverage of nuclear war when it is inevitably on the visible horizon? Putin will not be FORCED to step down next year. He MAY (not likely) retire or he may be incinerated in a nuclear blast, but the neocons will not decide the next Russian president in 2018. If they believe so strongly in the efficacy of “hacking” elections, they are welcome to try that and see how far it gets them.
The deep state could have made it appear that Putin interferred with US election. They have the money, the resources and the know how.
. . . . and a dumb-ass population that doesn’t have a clue. Those that do have a clue are marginalized in some way. Trying to create a “matrix” is a lot tougher when a great portion of the population can see through the lies and half-truths. In the long run, communications technology favors the masses, not the elites.
RIght on Hank. Those who do have a clue are also mocked and ridiculed by some friends, certain co-workers and some family members.
Those who do have a clue and also happen to be relatively known commentators are given short shrift in the mass media, or if they do make a rare appearance they’re given 2 minutes to speak in between commercial breaks with a hostile interviewer breathing down their necks and two or three establishment mouthpieces yelling in their face.
Meanwhile, the politically brain dead Pussy Riot gets saturation coverage around the globe. Bottom line: if the Pussy Rioters actually got their wish, a Western connected kleptocratic quisling would be ensconced in the Kremlin faster than you can say ‘the return of 1990s exploitation, pillage and hyper-inflation.’
Drew, reading your comment reminded me how Gorbachev got the same treatment as the North American natives. During negotiations the US fronted Gorbachev with good guys such as ambassador Jack Matlock, as much an idealist as Gorbachev was. The good guys and idealists are used to relax the victim and make him believe in good outcomes which they desire. They utilise the conviction of the good guys and their belief in how things should be (rather than how things are) to get the opposition to lower guard. Then they start shifting the goal-posts, closer and closer to the victim’s heart, leaving the victim less and less living space. It is the old good-cop-bad-cop confidence game but at a more sophisticated level.
Naturally, if communism was not such a sick system then it would have ensured that an idealistic fool like Gorbachev would not be so easily fooled (did Gorbachev fail to read about the sad fate of the US Indians?). Russia is much better off with an idealistic pragmatist such as Putin, although I feel like throwing up whenever he says (jokingly) “our US partners”. Yeah, I feel like saying, some partners who want to fry millions of you with their nuclear weapons.
From what Putin is saying in the interview above, it was not just Gorbachev who got taken for a ride, it was the whole of the Russian Government and the Russian nation (buying software and hardware from the West to be spied upon).
Obviously, Putin is totally wrong that a written agreement with US would have made any difference regarding NATO expansion towards Russia. Since Putin could hardly be called naive, I believe that he was making a point about hard promises versus soft promises rather than the possibility of a different outcome if Gorbachev got a written commitment from Reagan’s negotiators that there would be no NATO expansion towards East “by one inch”.
The ink of agreement signatures would have still been drying when the US would have started shifting the goal posts to achieve a new reality on the ground and prepare for withdrawal from the agreement. One good example is the ABM treaty, a signed agreement that US unilaterally withdrew from when it was deemed not in its interest any more.
In general, there is a major misunderstanding of a signed contract between the West and the East (Russia). The Russians consider an agreement a commitment, like giving your honest word, almost a guarantee, whilst in the West a contract is mainly a reference point in time, a piece of paper documenting the situation on the date that the contract was signed. If a Westerner can change the situation after signing, then the contract can become irrelevant.
To finish off, the Western way of creating a lasting contract is to kill your opponent, then to kill his wife and children, then his uncles and aunts, then his friends and acquaintances and, finally, anyone else who could have a similar interest as your opponent. Now this creates an EVER-LASTING CONTRACT, a guarantee of future behavior – no one left to behave (lol).
Kiza: Excellent. Very informative comments.
Indeed. Death was usually how lines of succession were decided throughout Europe since antiquity. I think the device was popular elsewhere too.
Considering just how many millions of Americans (even those that think of themselves as liberals) are more than willing to accept every accusation without any evidence at all, they apparently needn’t bother.
The two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside:
1.) The Washington market-driven empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. The BRICs incorporating a resurgent Iran into a giant Asian infrastructure financial arrangement concerns our Wall Street connected oligarchs.
2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined) in order to justify the trillion dollar budget and bureaucratic (both public and private) careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear war. The giant house of cards built by Washington’s military empire builders could doom us all.
I should add a third reason for this incessant demonization emanating from every outlet of the Western mass media: in 2013 the Zionist-Saudi Terror Network greatly desired that Washington bomb Damascus to eliminate Assad. When Obama backed down from this bombing campaign — with the help of Putin’s diplomacy — it spelled the start of the ramping up of the Putin-Russia vilification campaign from the mass media in the United States. In an otherwise very mediocre and violent presidency, Obama’s refusal to launch a regime change war on Damascus was arguably the best decision he ever made.
Yes, the tyrants of the oligarchy must create foreign monsters to pose as protectors, accuse their opponents of disloyalty, and collect subsidies for the MIC and bribes from Israel. Russia cannot be very inconvenient economically, beyond energy suppliers to Europe. It is simply the worn-out cold war target pressed into service as the necessary monster, and (as you note) to disrupt the Mideast for Israel.
Fortunately Putin sees that “Russia-U.S. relations … are just a mere instrument in the internal political fight in the U.S” to serve its “bureaucracy… the one that rules the world,” but unfortunate that US encirclement of Russia with nuclear weapons causes him to predict “a new cycle of an arms race.”
All three of your reasons are well thought out.
I would also add for 1.) – Pepe Escobar has frequently narrated the growth of the China/Russia/Bric “Shanghai Cooperation” sometimes called the new “Silk Road” project that does not intend to solely use the US $ currency. Why is that a huge threat for the US? History proves that when an empire is threatened by developing currencies, that said nation has a powerful struggle facing it.
2.) these same Deep State powers may be highly aware of how diseased the US economy/finance actually is. Are these powerful actors wanting to decimate as many opponents in the Middle East NOW before there is a massive collapse in the financial/economic markets. Many honest economists are highly aware of this potentially destructive collapse.
3 The Saudis & Israel are especially troubled by the Silk Road progress. It could prove to initiate The Domino Effect. The US economy collapses and all hell breaks lose with Russia/China/Asia’s project would find much advantage for themselves.
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar accurately identifies the current turmoil in Southwest Asia in general, and the current Saudi Arabia – Qatar standoff in particular, as “blood on the tracks” of the multipolar New Silk Roads, now rebranded as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):
“It’s fair to argue that from now on everything that happens across Southwest Asia will be conditioned by, and interlocked with, BRI’s land-sea superhighway emporium from East Asia and Southeast Asia to southeastern Europe.
“Focused on BRI’s comprehensive drive for multipolarization, “inclusive” globalization 2.0, and the rapid spread of information technology, the last thing Beijing needs is a throwback to the past; a foolish, manufactured standoff as the new front in an existential proxy war between the House of Saud and Iran, and with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Israel pitted against Qatar, Turkey, Iran – and Russia.”
http://www.atimes.com/article/blood-tracks-new-silk-roads/