The Saker blog now also in Russian!

ДОРОГИЕ РУССКОЯЗЫЧНЫЕ ДРУЗЬЯ!
Читайте блог Балобана по-русски щелкнув на эту ссылку:


http://www.vineyardsaker.ru/

The Saker Blog now also in French!

AMIS FRANCOPHONES!
Vous pouvez maintenant lire le blog du Saker en Français en cliquant sur ce lien:


http://www.vineyardsaker.fr/

The Saker Blog now also in German!

ALLE UNSERE DEUTSCHEN FREUNDE!
koennen jetzt den blog des Sakers auf Deutsch lesen - bitte hier anklicken:


http://www.vineyardsaker.de/

The Saker Blog now in Oceania

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN OCEANIA!
you can now also visit the Oceania Vineyardsaker Blog by clicking on this link:


http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Saker note: will be gone all day - open thread

Dear friend,

Monday I will be on the road all day.  God willing, I will be back in the evening.  In the meantime - enjoy an open thread.  Cheers,


The Saker

Monday, September 1, 2014

Novorussia: independent, associated or (con)federated?

An important disclaimer, caveat and clarification

First, I will begin by a clear disclaimer which I ask you all to please carefully read and then keep in mind: I personally am not advocating any option for the final status of Novorussia.  That is for the people of Novorussia to decide and any option that they will chose I will support.  Furthermore, at this point in time I am not even personally sure what option I would recommend if asked to do so simply because the devil is in the details, not the big words.  What I propose to do below is to look at a number of issues related to this question but that analysis should not be interpreted as a personal endorsement of any solution.

Second, I have carefully parsed the news out of Minsk, Novorussia and Russia and I am left with the strong feeling that nothing has really been decided, hence the apparent zig-zags and changing interpretations over the terms offered by the Novorussian delegation.


Third, I urge everybody to be extremely cautious with Russian news sources including Russian TV channels and RT.  Why?  Because Russia has a major stake in this fight and that I am absolutely certain that the Russian elites are split on what the best solution would be for Russia.  There are also informal, shall we say, "groups of like-minded people" inside the Russian media who are trying to promote the interest of their patrons and supporters.  And while it is would be an oversimplification to say that, for example, NTV stands for "position A" while RT stands for "position B", I know for a fact that inside RT, NTV, Rossia, REN-TV and the rest of various groups have various agendas: one editorial board might have a very different position than another one, even inside the same media outlet.

Fourth, Russian interests should not be automatically conflated with the interests of Novorussia, just as the interests of the Russian and Novorussian elites should not be conflated with the interests of the Russian and Novorussian people.  Seems obvious, but I feel that this should be clearly stated again because any agreement on the final status of Novorussia will be the resulting vector of the goals many very different interests groups and almost certainly end up being a compromise from which nobody will walk away with everything they want.

Having said that, now let's look at how this all began.

How did we get here?

Six months ago all the eastern Ukrainians wanted were a) guarantees for the Russian language and b) fiscal autonomy.  That's it.  Nothing else.  As for Russia, her position was equally clear: a united and neutral Ukraine respectful of the civil rights of all its citizens. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?

As for the Ukrainian opposition, it officially wanted to remove an oligarch-controlled government and sign an Association with the EU.  Again, pretty straightforward.

Now, think of it, a compromise solution was rather obvious: the election of a new, non-oligarch controlled government which would sign an Association agreement with the EU and commit itself to the civil rights of all Ukrainians, including the cultural and linguistic rights of the eastern Ukrainians.  Yanukovich even went as far as to offer Iatseniuk the post of Prime Minister.  So why did it not happen?

Because the protest movement was completely co-opted, hijacked, manipulated, controlled, financed, organized and run by the USA who used EU political elites and a group of bona fide Nazis to achieve regime change and draw the Ukraine into the AngloZionist sphere of influence.  What they wanted was a Ukraine economically exploited by the EU and militarily owned by the US via NATO.  This plan centered on not only severing away the Ukraine from Russia and its economic union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others, but to also on severing the economic ties between Russia and Europe (an old US goal dating from the Cold War when the US did everything it could to prevent the USSR from selling gas to western Europe).

You can think of the Nazi freaks as the Ukie equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS: rabid hateful murderous lunatics who literally cannot contain their hatred and desire to oppress and murder.  Of course, under US pressure, they tried very hard to act like sane and civilized people, but time and again they failed, hence the references to Russian speakers as sub-humans/non-humans, Timoshenko's desire to use nukes to exterminate the "accursed Moskals", the apparently crazy insistence that only Ukrainian be an official language or the equally imbecile categorical refusal of any form of federation.  Needless to say, as soon as these crazies got to power, they immediately passed a series of fantastically stupid and provocative laws such as the re-authorization of Nazi propaganda or the repeal of the official status of the Russian language.  Unsurprisingly, the folks in the east freaked out and correctly concluded that "the Nazis are back".

As a result, a double dynamic was created: the crazies in the USA (the Neocons) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of Russia while the crazies in Kiev (the Nazis) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine.  In doing so they left the Donbass and Russia no other option than to react and directly respond to that danger.

This is important because what has been done cannot be simply wished away and undone.  Both Russia and Novorussia are now in a "survival mode" in which nothing short of a full elimination of these vital/existential threats will do.  In other words, the US Empire's AngloZionist project AND the Ukie Nazi experiment must absolutely and definitely be defeated and conditions must be created which will forever prevent it's reemergence.

Where do we stand now?

First, I would argue that the Junta repression force (JRF) has been defeated.  Not strategically (if only because it enjoys an immense strategic depth and still huge human and material resources), but operationally.  All the signs are that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) are careful not to over-play their hand or push too far to the west, so things look very good for Novorussia right now.  Second, the Junta has also been defeated politically: if in the past the Ukrainian people had an oligarch-controlled government, now they have a government of oligarchs.  And they know it.  Furthermore, the Nazis have shown their true face (Odessa, Mariupol, MH17, MLRS and ballistic missiles used on civilians with white phosphor and cluster munitions, etc.).  Third, predictably, the Ukie economy is in free fall and for all practical purposes the Ukie industry is dead.  I would call that a full-spectrum failure for the Junta.

Uncle Sam is not doing much better: Crimea is lost forever, the Donbass is also lost for all practical purpose, Putin is more popular than ever, the EU tensions with the US are up (the Czech and Slovak republics have both announced that they will veto any further sanctions against Russia), and the US puppet-junta in Kiev has completely lost control of the situation.


art by Josetxo Ezcurra
As for the EU, it truly screwed-up badly.  The recent election of Donald Tusk and Federica Mogherini to the positions of President of the EU Council and EU Foreign Policy Chief is definitely good news, but it is also too little too late.  The mess left behind by Catherine Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will take years of painful efforts to clear.  Besides, that other crazy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is still there, every bit as crazy and pathetic as always.  But for all the hot air blowing out of Rasmussen and a few more EU politicians, the EU has no stomach for more sanctions, much less so an ugly sanctions war with Russia.  The Russians know that, and so all they have to do now is wait for the fruit to become ripe (or rotten, really) and fall down on their lap.

There will be a NATO summit next week in Wales were Obama and his Neocon coterie of foreign policy advisors will most definitely push for a series of anti-Russian measure backed by very loud and macho statement about how Russia must be stopped, Europe protected and the NATO recognized as absolutely indispensable.  More men, more guns, more threats and, last but not least, more dollars for the US military-industrial complex.  Russia, however, will remain unimpressed for a very simple reason: the US and the EU have already been at the maximal anti-Russian policies for many years already.  In fact, the only anti-Russian policies which the AngloZionist Empire has not adopted yet are those which would hurt it more than they would hurt Russia.  Put differently, from now on any anti-Russian sanctions adopted will, by definition, hurt the AngloZionists more than they will hurt Russia (which they still will, of course).  The conclusion is obvious: the West simply cannot afford a sustained sanctions war against Russia.

There is still a real danger out there

The problem with the AngloZionists is that they are arrogant and stupid enough to stumble into a variant of the Israeli "Samson Option": to strike out at their enemy even if that means bringing down the entire building on themselves.  Contrary to many analysts, I don't think that the Americans are actually dumb enough to deliberately start a war against Russia, much less so a nuclear one, but they are arrogant enough to paint themselves into a corner in which the only way to save face is to use military force.  They are also capable of creating an extremely dangerous military situation in which even a firecracker can set off a shooting war (remember the insane USN posturing in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Taiwan Strait?).  The Russians must absolutely remain aware of this danger and thus never assume that the Americans are rational or prudent.  History proves that they are reckless and happy to create a situation resulting in war (US policies towards Japan before WWII are a perfect example).

Now let's look at the options for Novorussia

As I have mentioned already, the devil is in the details, but there are basically to main options for Novorussia  1) full (de facto and de jure) independence 2) practical (de facto but not de jure) independence. I honestly believe that any other option which would fall short of de facto independence is simply impossible to achieve.  The Novorussians will not live under Kiev's police or military, they will not pay Kiev more than purely symbolic taxes and they will most definitely not accept any limitation of their cultural, linguistic and economic rights, including the right to do business directly with Russia.  I consider that option as so unlikely, short of a massive and sustain bloodbath, that I won't even consider it any further.  So let's look at the two remaining options.

a) Full (de facto and de jure) independence: Novorussia

Advantages: Security: possibility to either join Russia or sign a mutual assistance treaty which could include the basing of Russian forces in Novorussia.  This would provide the ideal and maximal protection from any future attacks from the Ukies.  Economy: no taxes paid to Kiev, association with Russia, full access to the huge Eurasian market, work for the Russian industry, social rights paid for by Russia (as part of an aid package).  The joy of having fully won and to not have to deal with the crazies in the western Ukraine.  Full and total de-Nazification.

Disadvantages: maximalist position which leave no face saving way out for the crazies in Kiev and Washington, major difficulties in being internationally recognized.  This option also leaves all the rest of the ex-Ukraine in the hands of the AngloZionists and Nazis who will constantly sabotage, subvert and disrupt the life of Novorussia.  There is a real chance that this might mean leaving cities and regions like Odessa, Dniepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Chernigov, Nikolaev and many other historically Russian part of the ex-Ukraine to whatever regime is in power in Kiev.  Constant military danger: the current Ukie Minister of Defense promised a victory parade for the Ukie forces in Sevastopol, I kid you not.  You can imagine what folks like him will have to say to an independent Novorussia.  Key problem: this maximalist position leave no incentive whatsoever for Kiev to negotiate.

b) Practical (de facto but not de jure) independence: "Ukraine v2"

Advantages: Novorussia already gets much more than what it wanted six months ago (see above).  By preserving the fiction of a unitary Ukraine this solution leaves everybody a face saving way out and the major outside actors (Russia, US, EU, UN, OSCE) can all sign the deal and be declared guarantors.  Also, if Novorussia is nominally part of the "Ukraine v2" then it gives the people of the eastern Ukraine (who are the richest, best educated majority of the Ukrainian population) a chance to counter-act and challenge the rule of Nazis in Kiev and maybe serve as a basis to bring down the current "Banderastan" and replace it instead with a "Ukraine v2".  Furthermore, a united Ukraine would be in a much better position to receive desperately needed international aid and money to rebuild.  Considering that at least initially the Nazi freaks would remain in power in Kiev we can be pretty sure that they will further destroy even the little left of "Banderastan" and that, sooner or later, some regime change will occur.  If the new regime in power is more or less sane, the eastern Ukraine could demand that those responsible for the mess be brought to trial and that a "truth and reconciliation" type commission be formed. 

Disadvantages: There is a real risk that the Poroshenko regime will fall and be replaced by a Iarosh dictatorship.  Alternatively, southern Banderastan might break away from Kiev and for a "Kolomoiskistan".  Either way, the collapse of the Poroshenko regime risks sucking in the Donbass into a 2nd phase of the civil war with no option for overt Russian aid (covert aid would, of course, be provided).  Even the notion of being represented by Nazi freaks in Kiev or to put up with a Ukie flag would be sickening for all those who died in defense of Novorussia.  Furthermore, if the deal does not look solid or stable, far from coming back home from Russia, even more Novorussians would "vote with their feet" and emigrate to Russia.  Nowadays, even the people of Crimea are still nervous and Russian politicians, including Putin, have had to constantly tell them "no, this time it's forever, we will never abandon you, this is not something which will ever be overturned".  If the folks in Crimea are worried about their future even though they are now legally part of Russia, you can imagine how frightened and unsure the people of Novorussia would be in any kind of "association" with Kiev, even a purely formal one.

These are only a few examples, there are many more which could be listed as advantages and disadvantages for both the independent Novorussia and the "Ukraine v2" option.

My very highly speculative and personal guess

Russia's preferred option

I think that Russia would prefer a Ukraine v2 version.  From the point of view of Russia, it has a lot of advantages (like forcing the "Ukraine v2" to adopt a completely neutral, non-aligned, status).  As I have always said, Russia does not want or need the Ukraine.  What it wants is a stable, neutral and prosperous Ukraine, and not because Putin and the rest of the folks in the Kremlin are saints or Ukrainophiles, but because that is for the objective best interest for Russia.  The only thing Russia needed it already got: Crimea.

To those of you who might be appalled at the notion of a less-than-fully-independent Novorussia or a "Ukraine v2" I will say that I very much doubt that Russia can impose such an outcome on the people of Novorussia.  Sure, I am not naive, Zakharchenko and current Novorussian leaders got their power in a Moscow-backed change of leadership, so their ties to Moscow are very close, but the real power of Zakharchenko & Co. is that they have the support and consensus of the vast majority of the people of Novorussia, especially those fighting in the NAF.  I never believed in a "sellout" of Novorussia (even though I always feared it), and I am confident that should such a "sellout" occur the only real force in Novorussia - the NAF - will never let it happen.  Likewise any such "sellout" would trigger a severe political crisis for Putin.

All this is to say that while I do believe that, given the choice and option, Putin and his advisors would prefer a de-facto but not fully de-jure semi-independent Novorussia inside a very loose "Ukraine v2" I do not believe that a "sellout" is either what they want or even something they could do: the ultimate guarantor of the de-facto independence of Novorussia is not Putin or Russia, but the armed men of the NAF.

Novorussia's preferred option

What would the people of Novorussia and, especially, the NAF prefer?

I honestly don't know but I suppose that full independence is their preferred goal.  Still, the situation is complex and there are very solid argument speaking against such an option and for a "Ukraine v2" (as there very are solid arguments speaking in favor of a fully independent Novorussia and against a "Ukraine v2").

One could also make a case that right now is not the correct time to make this choice.  For one thing, nobody knows who will be in power in Kiev in just a few months.  The winter is coming and the gas negotiations are becoming huge. Depending on what NATO does or does not decide, one of the other option might become a clearly better choice (just imagine NATO forces in Kiev!).

We have to give time to time (French expression)

The examples of Korea, Cyprus, Kosovo, Transnistria and many others show that sometimes the only solution is not solution at all.  The examples of Ireland or Chechnia show that some solutions are not at all the ones initially considered.  Furthermore, I would want to add here that the real end-goal of Russia in the Ukraine is not getting Crimea or saving the Donbass, but to achieve real regime change in Kiev.  Only that option would be an outcome which would really please Moscow and, if we keep that in mind, it is not at all clear to me that full independence for Novorussia is the best way to get there.  And let us also ponder this question: what is better for the people of Novorussia, full independence from the Ukraine or real, lasting, regime change in Kiev?

Just as in chess, time and timing are crucial pieces on the board.  Those who over the past few months were hysterically accusing Putin of being a traitor who will backstab the Novorussians simply failed to appreciate the importance of time and timing in strategy.  I am sorry to say that, no offense intended, but many people in the West have been raised, educated and trained in a culture of instant action-reaction, of immediate, almost kneejerk, responses.  They are used to consider only short-term rapidly achievable options.  Russia, and even more so China, are very different in this prospect.  These two nations build their immense countries by slow and steady progress, not by short pushes.  And though the Russian in the street might also prefer a fast solution to the Ukrainian problem, the folks in the Kremlin, especially former intelligence officers like Putin, fully realize that the "Ukrainian problem" is 400 to 800 years old, depending on how you define it (please read this and this if you are interested) and that it will not be solved in a few months.  This is especially true considering that in the current situation the real cause and force behind the current Ukrainian crisis is the AngloZionist Empire.

The real, "real", goal of Putin (and Xi Jinping!)

As I have mentioned it here many, many times, the real "real" end-goal of Russia is not even regime change in Kiev: it is regime change on the planet.  There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Russia and China want to create a New World Order, but one very different one from the one envisioned by Bush, Fukuyama, Obama and the rest of the AngloZionist 1%ers.  Russia and China want a complete deconstruction of the AngloZionist Empire, they want to de-dollarize the world economy, the want an multi-polar international world order in which the rule of law is respected because it is understood that it is the most advantageous way to deal with problems.  Russia see its future in her North and in Siberia, China wants its economy to go global, including the Far-East Asia and the Pacific region, Africa and Latin America.  Russia also wants to role of Latin America and Central Asia to become more important because without these continents and regions there can be no truly multi-polar world.  I would also argue that both Russia and China are rejecting the western civilizational model and it's key dogmas (I won't list them here lest I offend or infuriate new readers, but my longtime readers know exactly what I mean) and that they are both seeking to create not only a different world order but a different civilization.  All this is much, much bigger than the Donbass or even the entire Ukraine.  Yes, at this moment in time, the frontline of the global civilizational war is going straight across the Ukraine, but this is only one battle in a much bigger and wider war.

Judging by some very telling statements of Zakharchenko in his recent press conference, I am confident that he understands that very well.  I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin does.

Conclusion

The main conclusion I hope that you all will draw from the above is that we should not jump to conclusions and avoid making big sweeping judgments.  If I have convinced you that this is a very tricky, complex and multi-dimensional issue then I am satisfied.  If I get another deluge of one sentence slogans in favor of either option, then I failed.  As I said, I am not sure that anybody really knows were this is all taking us.  For one thing, the Ukies and their western patrons have reneged on every single agreement they have signed since last Fall and there is really no rational reason to expect them to stick to anything they might sign this time.  Or maybe these negotiations will lead nowhere and the chaos and "somalization" of the ex-Ukraine will continue.  The other day Putin said this: "no matter where the US gets involved they always achieve the same result: Libya".  That is quite true and maybe a libyalization of Banderastan needs to happen before everybody comes to his/her senses.  Or maybe, this is terrible to say, is the situation more similar to the one in Chechnia in 1999 when a lot of people had to be simply physically eliminated, killed, before any solution could be found (sadly, but Nazis and Wahabis have that in common that the only way to deal with most of them is to kill them).  I honestly don't know.

So let us keep an eye on this incredibly fluid, complex and dangerous situation and not pretend like it is simple and the solution obvious.

Stay tuned, as always, I will do my best to keep you posted.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker 


PS: this is yet another one of my "written in one shot between several other committments" posts, so please forgive the bad grammar, spelling, syntax and style.  I simply physically do not have the time to correct this. Sorry, gotta run :-)  The Saker

Top Novorussian leaders deny reports that either LPR or DPR were prepared to accept continued political unity with the Ukraine

Both Purgin (vice PM) and Zakharchenko (PM) of DPR issued statements flatly denying the mass media reports that either LPR or DPR were prepared to accept continued political unity with Ukraine.


Zakharchenkohttp://www.rusnovosti.ru/news/338737 (in Russian)

(thanks to Gleb Bazov for these links!)

More about this later.

The Saker

Major news out of the Ukraine

This morning there are three huge developments to report.

First, RT reports that:

At talks in the Belarusian capital, the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics have urged Kiev to acknowledge their autonomy within Ukraine, but said they wish to remain an integral part of the country.  LNR and DNR representatives urged the Ukrainian government to end their military operation in the country’s east so that parliamentary and local elections can take place freely.   “The president, government and [parliament] Verkhovna Rada should accept… decrees granting immediate recovery from the humanitarian catastrophe, acknowledging the special status of the territories under the control of the People’s Republics, creating conditions - first of all stopping the ‘anti-terror’ operations - for free elections of local authorities and MPs,” the document with the republics' position reads.  The document also calls on Kiev to guarantee “the right to use the Russian language at an official level on the territories of the People’s Republics.” 


I will write an analysis of this position later today

Second, the Ukie forces near Lugansk have abandoned the airport which is now in total control of the NAF.  This info is confirmed by video footage taken today.

Third, there are very intense battles around the Donetsk airport which is now considered "contested" and neither side is in full control of it.  This indicates that the airport will most likely fall under full NAF control in the next 24 hours max.

Elsewhere, the NAF have shot down a Ukrainian Su-27.  This is significant because the Su-27 is a heavy long range high speed high altitude interceptor and not at all suited for slow speed low altitude close air support missions.  The fact that it was shot down indicates that the Ukies have practically lost their entire close air support aviation.  Two helicopters have also been shot down today.

Stay tuned, I will keep you posted.

The Saker

Glory to the Ukraine!

(The voice of screen screams "Glory to the Ukraine!")

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Ukie doubleplusgooddoublethink

Oh this is too good, I have to show this to you!  Remember how I predicted that the Ukies would claim that in attack on Novoazovsk came from Russia?  I wrote: 
"After having completely denied that an successful Novorussian operation was taking place, the Ukies had to finally admit that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) had reached Novoazovsk. But remember that the successful operation which got them there in the first place never happened. So they end up publishing a map with an almost completely surrounded Novorussia and a tiny isolated speck around Novoazovsk.  This begs the question: how did the NAF even get there? By air? Unlikely. By flying carpet or teleporters? Maybe not. And then the answer is obvious: through Russia of course! That is the politically correct interpretation"
One of the slimiest creeps in the Ukraine is a guy called "Savik Shuster" (real name: Ševelis Šusteris) who has a show called "Shuster Live" on Ukie TV.  If you understand Russian/Ukrainian I HIGHLY recommend that show (no, I did not say that I *like* it!) as it will give you a fantastic insight into the kind of delusional insanity the junta and the nationalist freaks live in.  Anyway, I was just watching the latest edition of Shuster Live (I was curious as to how these guys would present the events of the week to their public) and, sure enough, Shuster put up this map:


Ain't this *perfect*?!  Exactly as predicted: the entire week-long NAF counter-attack simply never happened.  It just a short trek from across the border and that is were the *Russian attack* (to use Shuster's words) came from.

But then, at the same time, the junta in Kiev is also simultaneously denying that Russia attacked, as they cannot get IMF money if they are at war (they will, of course).

So, the the Ukrainian people - Russia has attacked
To the Western politicians - Russia has attacked
but to the IMF - Russia has not attacked

Talk about doubleplusgooddoublethink!  Orwell would be proud.

In closing, please go over to Club Orlov and read his excellent piece "How can you tell whether Russia has invaded Ukraine?".  Great stuff from a great guy.

Cheers everybody,

The Saker

Small note: please read what is actually says

Guys,

I had a very good Sunday, finally (!) some time to relax, so I will only post this small request:


Please - read what I actually wrote, not what you think I have written or what you assume I have implied.

Seriously, I never personally took position on the Ferguson topic. I never said that I liked the policies of Helmut Schmidt, Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand or Francisco Franco or that consider them as great statesmen.  As for Iarosh, I even wrote that I was willing to slit his throat, yet I was accused of being somehow favorably disposed to him (is my "throat slitting" comment invisible or something?!).


So, please, read what it actually says, if needed read it twice, but stop with this stream of outraged comments about something I never wrote :-)

Or maybe it is a cultural thing.  Folks in the West like to don't talk to their enemies.  Russians do.  Then we kill them, no problem.  I would *love* to talk to Kolomoiski, a guy like that is certainly interesting.  Saying that does not imply any form of endorsement on my part. I would also love to shoot him.  Personally.  First the kneecaps, then the rest, leaving the vital organs for last.  And I *still* would enjoy talking to him in the process.

Maybe it is a cultural thing.  Anyway, if in the future I say that I like something in a person, please do not assume that I like that person.  These are two big differences (as they say in Odessa).

Kind regards and to those off for the US Labor Day - enjoy the R&R!

Cheers,

The Saker

The EU's ugly kindergarten of intellectually challenged clowns

In my previous post, I mentioned that western leaders are going through a clear phase of self-delusion and panic.  I want to add a short comment about the self-delusion part.

I am amazed, absolutely amazed, at the fact that EU politicians, and the MSM which serves them, are still seriously discussing the adoption of even more sanctions against Russia when it is absolutely, totally and undeniably obvious that:

a) there is no proof of a Russian intervention, nevermind invasion, of the Ukraine.
b) that there is exactly zero chance that EU sanction will even marginally impact the Kremlin's decision making.
c) that the EU simply cannot afford the inevitable counter-sanctions which Russia will retaliate with.

It is generally accepted that "politics is the art of the possible" and yet the EU leaders are clearly engaged in the art of the absolutely impossible.  The fact that they are all pretending like this is going to have some useful impact is truly a sign of how much the EU leadership has degenerated over the years.  Can you imagine Helmut Schmidt, Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand or Francisco Franco engaging in that kind of infantile nonsense?  All these leaders had their bad aspects, but at least none of them were clowns, whereas when I look at the current EU leadership, especially Van Rumpey, Adners Fogh Rasmussen or José Manuel Barroso I get the feeling that I am looking at some ugly kindergarten of intellectually challenged clowns and, frankly, I can understand Mrs Nuland's feelings.

Truly the EU has degenerated to a point of no return.  Hollande can play Mitterrand, but he is no better at that than Quayle was at playing Kennedy.  Why in the world the folks in east-central Europe would want to join such a terminally pathetic community is truly beyond me.

I often wonder - has everybody just gone blind?

Why doesn't everybody see that which is so obvious?

Don't they realize that the men in the Kremlin are real, tough and principled men who will only feel disgust and amusement when challenged by such non-entities whom the Mayor of London so aptly referred to as the "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies".

There is a saying in Russian: "to try to scare a hedgehog with a naked butt".  This is what the EU is doing now.  They are trying to scare Russia with sanctions which will painfully end up hurting the EU.

There is another saying in Russian:"to love the courageous/brave man in the Tatar".  It means that you can love/admire courage/bravery even in your mortal enemy.  To the Russian people the *culture of empty threats* coming out of the EU is simply not worthy of respect.  And the fact that the one cause the Europeans love to get most vocal and indignant about is the one "gay" "rights" most certainly does not help.

In the past, the western enemies of Russia - the Papacy, the Masons, the Empires and even the Nazis - all were formidable in their own way.  Maybe the Russians did not fear them, but they often sincerely admired them (the French) or, at least, admired their courage (the Germans).  These were worthy enemies.

But now Russia looks at the EU with a total sense of disgust and I would even argue that the Russians have far more respect for the USA than for the EU.  For example, Russian commentators often make the point that the western sanctions against Russian only hurt Europe, not the USA.  And while they like to make fun of individual US politicians, they also admit that the US has superbly manipulated the EU and the Ukrainian elites.  And NATO can now threaten to create a rapid deployment force of 10'000 men, but you can be sure that the priority of the GRU will be to keep an eye on US forces, not on the EU clowns in combat fatigues.

I have left Europe 12 years ago so I really don't know, but I often wonder: do the Europeans realize how utterly pathetic their leaders are?  Do they see that they are lead by non-entities, "office plankton in suits", pathetic intellectually challenged clowns?

On another note, I often speak of the Ukie "freaks".  But there is one guy which I personally find very likable on a personal, human level.  I might shock you, but regardless of his crazy ideas, as a person Dmitri Iarosh seems to be a very nice guy.  I have recently watched an hour long interview of him (here, but it is in Ukrainian) and I could not help finding him very likable.  He has a very charming and a little bit shy smile and he is not pretentious at all.  He does not even seem to be hateful in the way that, say, Tymoshenko or Poroshenko are.  I certainly would welcome the opportunity to talk to him, even if after our conversation I end up slitting his throat.  But when I see Van Rumpey or Rasmussen I think of yet another Russian expression: "this face begs for a brick".  To them I have nothing to say at all.

Anyway, I just felt like sharing these most subjective musings with you.

Good night and have a wonderful Sunday!

The Saker

Saturday, August 30, 2014

August 30th 21:43 UTC/Zulu Ukraine SITREP

Self-delusion and panic in the West

It is actually quite amusing to observe the reaction of Ukrainian and European leaders these days.  After feeding us fairy tales about how the Ukrainians were "winning" the civil war, they suddenly made a 180 degree turn and are now in the full panic mode.  I might shock many of you, but I sincerely believe that, at least in part, the following is happening.

The western elites have declared that the Ukie junta are the "good guys" and that the Novorussians are rebels, insurgents, separatists, Russian agents, Spetsnaz forces, paratroopers, Russian occupants or even FSB/GRU officers.  In other words, lying bastards.  Having accepted this premise, it makes perfectly good sense to get your information from the "good guys" and not from the "lying bastards".  Well, the "good guys" were actively feeding all sorts of utter nonsense to their western counterparts who, by and large, bought it out of sheer incompetence, ignorance, laziness and arrogant stupidity.  Here is a fantastic and absolutely hilarious example of what this produces.  Check out this BBC map and notice its source: the "Ukrainian National Security & Defence Council".

After having completely denied that an successful Novorussian operation was taking place, the Ukies had to finally admit that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) had reached Novoazovsk.  But remember that the successful operation which got them there in the first place never happened.  So they end up publishing a map with an almost completely surrounded Novorussia and a tiny isolated speck around Novoazovsk.

This begs the question: how did the NAF even get there?  By air?  Unlikely.  By flying carpet or teleporters?  Maybe not.  And then the answer is obvious: through Russia of course!  That is the politically correct interpretation.  Nevermind that in reality the entire border between Novorussia and Russia is firmly in Novorussian hands, nevermind that the entire strech of land north of Novoazovsk is also in Novorussian hands, and nevermind that even Mariupol is already fully surrounded (since this morning), the Ukies and the BBC will show "hallucinogenic maps" like the one shown here.

There is a good US expression: when your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air.  This is exactly what happened now to Ukie and EU elites.  They got suddenly painfully bitten in their exposed butt by the news of a comprehensive collapse of the Junta repression forces (JRF) and they are now in a panic mode, just like a sleepwalker who is suddenly shaken awake.

art by Josetxo Ezcurra
The Ukies speak of a Russian invasion, so does NATO, so does the EU and US. Then they stop as no IMF money can go to a country at war.  Now we suddenly hear of "point of no return", of even more sanctions against Russia (can you hear the giggles in the Kremlin when that sentence is spoken), Obama courageously promises to defend Poland and the Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite says Russia is "practically in a war against Europe".  These hysterics are a surefire sign that in reality nobody has any idea as to what to do - do in reality, in actions - to prevent a complete collapse of the Nazi experiment in the Ukraine. 

The Secretary of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, menacingly puff up his tiny chest and promises to scare Russia with the creation of a 10'000 men strong rapid reaction force destined to counter any Russia attack.  I am sure the Russian generals are shaking in abject terror when they hear that.  Good thing Obama officially declared that there is no military option to rescue the junta.  Besides, it is unclear who the main threat is to Poroshenko's rule: the NAF or the "Kolomoiskistan" in the south, or the Right Sector crazies everywhere.  NATO clearly has no stomach to get involved here.  Good.

Yet another brilliant chess move in the East

It all began with Ukrainian women demanding that their man be saved from the cauldrons in which 7'000+ of them are surrounded.  These woman have organized protests in front of the Ukie Presidency and General Staff and, of course, they were ignored.  Except for Putin who apparently heard them and who officially requested that the Novorussians provide the Ukies with humanitarian corridors to leave.  The only Novorussian demand was that they leave behind their heavy weapons and ammo, but they were allowed to keep their unit banners (to avoid humiliating them).  The junta first disagreed, but some local Ukie commanders took up the offer and apparently certain units have already left this way.  Now think of the irony: the Ukrainian woman protest and demand that their men be spared and its the Russian President to hears their plea and makes it happen!

This way to combine the morally right and tactically ingenious is one of the key characteristics of Putin's method: he wins, but never by doing the ugly thing, instead he wins by doing the right thing.  Brilliant!

A very fluid and unstable situation on the battlefield

Here I urge caution: yes, the NAF has achieved some very real tactical and, to my great surprise, even operational successes.  This is remarkable and is a legitimate reason for cautious optimism.  But when I see the length of the NAF offensive as far to the west as Osipenko, just north of  Berdiansk, with the size of the Ukie force apparently barricaded in Mariupol, I get nervous.  True, the NAF seems to be aware of the risks and they did slow down to secure their positions north of Mariupol.

But make no mistake, the further west the NAF goes, the harder it will be.  For one thing, there appears to be two distinct forces forming to counter the NAF - those under Poroshenko in Kiev and those under Kolomoiski in Odessa. If  Poroshenko is clearly an evil and completely unprincipled person, in comparison with Kolomoiski he looks almost decent.  Kolomoiski is truly the scum of the earth, a Jewish Nazi of the absolutely worst kind, somebody just intelligent and cunning enough to successfully commit just about any evil deed, but also arrogant enough to eventually fail and try to bring down the entire planet with him.  If the case can be made for an assassination - Kolomoiski is my candidate.  As long as that son of Satan is alive anything could happen.  What makes things even more dangerous is that Odessa is truly the last strategically important city for the AngloZionists and their Nazi allies in Kiev.  If they lose Odessa, then then really lost it all.

Many commentators here have mentioned the increasing risk of a false flag and I completely share these concerns.  One such concern is that Kolomoiski's death squads might decide to blow up the Dniepr Hydroelectric Power Station.  Again, I would not put anything past this creature.  I am confident that somebody will kill Kolomoiski sooner or later, but until this happens we need to be aware that literally anything can still happen.

Mixed news about Strelkov

Strelkov and El-Miurid
The good news is that he is alive, in good health and free.  This has been confirmed by the blogger El-Miurid who met with him (see photo).  The bad news according to El-Miurid is that some unnamed individuals/forces in Russia had made the delivery of aid to the NAF contingent on his departure.  I don't like that kind of methods, and I like Strelkov.  I do have to admit that his successor, Zakharchenko, is doing an absolutely superb job.  So while we still don't know the true story of what happened I reserve judgment.  I have to admit here that for a while I did suspect that he had been wounded and that the Novorussians did not want to admit this, but when the entire leadership was changed, I figured out that something much bigger had happened.  Was this a good or bad move?  If we use Christ's method of judging a tree by its fruits, then it was an undeniably good move.  Things *did* get better after the change.  So what was the problem with Strelkov?  I really don't know.  Not competence, for sure.  The guy is a brilliant commander.  Not politics either - his staff included people from all sorts of different political backgrounds from the Far Left to the Far Right (even though these categories make no sense in Russia).  One possibility is that Strelkov really wants to go all the way to Kiev and that the Russians (the Kremlin or the General Staff) oppose this objective.  Let's not speculate and wait for Strelkov to speak for himself when he decides that the moment is right.

So what is the problem with the airports?

Many commentators are wondering why the NAF has not kicked out the JRF out of the Donetsk and Lugansk airports.  The answer is pretty simple:

First, these airports provide a perfect place to barricade yourself: they have big supplies, an advanced infrastructure, lots of underground passages, strong buildings, etc.  You cannot just bomb them into dust (unless you use very powerful munitions) and you have to conquer them the hard way.

Second, the Ukie artillery all around is perfectly placed and ready to strike at any NAF unit trying to breach the Ukie defensive perimeter.  So the Ukie artillery needs to be moved back, out of range, up to 40km or more.

Third, both airports are near residential areas and the NAF don't want to use massive artillery strikes of Fuel-Air Explosives (FAEs).

Fourth, most of the NAF resources are badly needed elsewhere.  This might sound cruel, but all the Ukies do with their artillery in the airports is shoot at residential areas - they are in no way a real threat to the NAF.  There are other, much more dangerous Ukie units which need to be eliminated before the problem of these airports can be addressed.  For example, there is a city just north of Lugansk called Metalist where some really nasty hardcore Nazi units are dug in and who are mercilessly bombing Lugansk every day and night.  They have been completely surrounded and yet they refused to surrender or stop massacring civilians.  For the first time today the latest maps appear to show the city of Metalist in NAF hands.  If so, this is extremely good news for Lugansk.  Not so for the folks who for weeks have been murdering civilians.  There will be no Ukie prisoners from Metalist. You can count on that.

Bottom line is this: everybody in the NAF agrees that these airports are really a major problem, but that only limited resources can be allocated to that problem in the current situation.  I am confident that these airports will be taken in the not too distant future.  But for the time being, we have to wait.

На Киев?  (To Kiev?)


To Kiev!
Frankly, I doubt it.  I don't believe that NAF have the resources for such a strategic assault, and I am not at all sure that the NAF command even has any desire for such a move.  I am quite sure that the Russian primary strategic objective in this war is regime change in Kiev followed by a de-Nazification of the Ukraine, but I don't believe that the Kremlin wants to do that by force.  Rather, it wants to create the situation in which the Ukrainians themselves overthrow the junta and all other forms of Nazi rule in Banderastan.  Fundamentally, and paradoxically, the AngloZionist Empire has succeeded in forcing a civilizational choice on the people of the Ukraine, but not one between the EU (or the "West") and Russia, but one between Nazism and their true, historical, national identity.  The fact that the Ukraine has always been an artificial construct of western imperialists does not mean that the nationalities living in the Ukraine are artificial at all.  The so-called "Ukraine" is an extremely diverse territory in which many different ethnic and cultural groups live and these groups will all pay a terrible price for the AngloZionist attempt to use the Ukraine against Russia, but there will be a "day after" in which the people have to emerge from the rubble and slowly begin to rebuild their land.  But the first and necessary condition for that to happen is to throw out the freaks, the Banderistas, the Nazis, the militant Uniats, the Wahabis, Zionists, Georgian subversives, the CIA "advisors" and Acadadmi "private military company" and all the rest of the international scum which currently occupies the Ukraine.

Finally, Russia also have a strategic mission, a message, she must convey in deeds rather than in words to all the people of the Ukraine: we are not your enemy.  In fact, history shows that we are your only friend and protector.  But if you let yourself be manipulated to try to exterminate us, we will stop you.  For centuries the people of the Ukraine have been propagandized, manipulated, lied to, deceived, zombified and used by western agents: the Papacy, the Masons, the imperialists, the Nazis and now the AngloZionists.  This has to stop one day and the only way to stop it is for Russia to prove by actions that the people of the Ukraine have been lied to.  For a short time, from January to August of 2014, the centuries old "western dream" has become true and a US-controlled russophobic "Banderastan" came into existence.  This is a horrible tragedy, but not so much for Russia as for the Ukrainian people themselves who have paid a terrible price for this abomination and who will pay that price for the foreseeable future.  As with any catastrophe, the Ukrainian people need to do a lot of soul-searching and ask themselves why and how this happened.  Just blaming it all on the hordes of "Asian Moskals" is just not going to be enough. Hard questions will have to be asked.

Russian tanks standing in the streets of Kiev are just not the right setting for that kind of soul-searching.  From 1991 onward the general Russian approach to the Ukraine has been "we don't buy your idiotic historiography, but if you want your independence - take it".  And while most Russians today still don't buy the notion that the Ukrainians are a different nation, they do believe that the Ukrainians should have their own country if they want to.  Just not a Nazi one.  It is very characteristic that while the Ukie blogosphere (and media) is chock-full of rabid anti-Russian racism, the RuNet (Russian Internet) is completely empty of such hate.  Quite to the contrary, the prevailing feeling on the RuNet is a mix of dismay at the horrors in the Ukraine and compassion for the Ukrainian people.  But if the NAF pushes too far, many more people will die, more resentment will be built and the inevitable byproduct of any wars - hate - will become even more widespread than today.  So I personally believe that Russia does need to take it all the way to Kiev, but not with tanks, but with a different civilizational choice, one based on spirituality and freedom and not violence, hate and profit.

So, if the current successes of the NAF are not overturned by events, I believe that there will come a point were the NAF will stop, far short of Kiev.  The Russians cannot and should not de-Nazify the Ukraine for the Ukrainians.  The Ukrainians need to do it themselves.  It is not enough to defeat the AngloZionists physically.  They must be defeated spiritually.

The Saker

What Happened in Ferguson

Foreword: I am so busy with the events in the Ukraine that I barely had the time to follow the events in Ferguson so I will readily admit that I have no opinion about it.  I do have quite a few opinions about race-relations in the USA, including some rather politically incorrect ones (I don't consider US Blacks either as either Africans or Americans, for example).  While I lived in Washington DC (from 1986-1991) at the time of Marion Barry and I often found myself on the receiving end of Black racism and yet I consider Malcolm X the greatest "American" (in quotation because he never considered himself "American" and neither do I) in the history of the USA and one of my personal heroes.  I now  live in the South (though one could argue that Florida is culturally north of the Carolinas) where I have African and local Black friends tell me very interesting stories about how it feels to be Black and have your car pulled over by a cop.  I find the issue of race relations in the USA absolutely fascinating if tragic, but right now is not the time for me to deal with this issue.  But one day, if somebody is interested, I might.  Right now, the Russian Team has requested articles about the events in Ferguson and one of the best ones was written up by Nora.  Now, full disclosure and warning: I consider Nora as a personal friend and a wise and kind lady, don't you even think of posting something ugly if you disagree with her.  You are more than welcome to criticize and disagree, but make darn sure it is substantive and respectful towards Nora. Second, while race is most definitely an issue in the USA, any racist post will immediately go to the trash.  Criticize Blacks or Whites as a social group if you want, or White or Black organizations, but do not use any argument which implies that a member of race X has his/her free will restricted by his ethnicity or which lumps all the individual people into one. Deal?

The Saker
-------

What Happened in Ferguson

Setting The Stage

To set the stage for what happened in Ferguson, it would probably be helpful to understand a bit about how the deck has been stacked against people of color in the United States.  Although slavery officially ended in 1863, it was ultimately replaced in the South by not only the state-sponsored terrorism of Jim Crow but unofficial re-enslavement via both the sharecropping system and arrest on trumped-up charges leading to unpaid labor on prison chain gangs. The Civil Rights Era brought an end to the worst of this but the War on Drugs ensured that African Americans continue to be arrested and imprisoned at more than twice the rate of whites for similar offenses even though drug usage is about the same for both groups.  And outrageously underpaid prison labor in for-profit private prisons is now replacing what little remains of American manufacturing.

Richard Nixon augmented white resentment in the way he "resolved" the implementation of Brown vs. The Board, the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision on school desegregation, because he shrewdly realized that working-class white Democrats, North and South, would happily become Republicans if the Republican Party "took their side" on the issue.  The end result of that was that re-segregation occurred and black schools are now once again under-funded, with poorer facilities, out-of-date and sometimes even *no* books (!), and generally much worse teachers.  I.e., not much has really changed at all in terms of education either.

Worse yet, although blacks once lived in all areas of this country, beginning in the third quarter of the 19th century, they were herded into the cities and literally forbidden to be in many towns after dark.  And the parts of the cities they live in generally have far worse services -- less frequent garbage pick-up or snow-removal, streets and street lights not well-maintained -- but still very high rents, especially considering the quality of the housing.  Ostensibly these problems were to have ended with the passage of various Civil Rights laws but again, not really.  Redlining is an ongoing process by which blacks are prevented from buying homes in certain areas by making it far more difficult to obtain mortgages and setting higher interest rates for them than whites with similar qualifications.  Given that home ownership is generally the primary source of wealth for most American families, this arena too has been closed off to most African Americans.  And finally, jobs: given two candidates equally qualified for a position, the African American is significantly less likely to be hired.

White attitudes meanwhile have not shown much improvement either.  This is in part due to Nixon's Southern Strategy for re-empowering the Republican Party, and in part due to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's deliberate race-baiting (and vote-getting) strategies, including deliberately trumping up white fears of black violence and lying about the extent of welfare fraud by blacks.  But the Democrats, frightened at their loss of white voters, weren't much better:  Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform hurt a lot of innocent people, white and black, because he too wanted to look tough on black crime -- which had actually been declining -- while ignoring the serious and far more expensive crimes of wealthy whites.  Another factor here is due to the relative isolation of whites from blacks:  it's far easier to remain afraid of people you never get to know, especially if the media commentators you trust keep filling you with stereotypes instead of telling the truth.  And make no mistake about it:  the most prejudiced whites are also the most frightened whites.  Sadly, it is not only to the benefit of the Republican Party to keep them that way but, because few blacks vote Republican, the Democratic Party really doesn't have to work very hard to get the black vote  -- so they don't much bother either.  So it's a truly lose-lose situation there too. 

Now for the police.  Racial profiling and police brutality have always been a fact of life for people of color in this country.  This stems in part from the fact that traditionally the people recruited to be policemen have been quite likely to view blacks as inherently inferior, dangerous and more likely to be criminal.  Gun use is deeply ingrained in American culture, and those who hold such racist views are particularly likely to see their guns as essential for personal safety and the only real way to maintain public order.  It should also be noted that fears of a black insurrection as well as the desire to conserve one's human property led quite early to the formation of armed paramilitary slave patrols throughout the South, a primary reason for both the inclusion and peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery The growth of the American gun lobby over the past 25 years has both fed upon and reinforced these views but in point of fact, parents in the black community have traditionally had to sit their pre-teen children down for the rite of passage known as "The Talk", in which they're given very specific instructions on how to behave with sufficient meekness and submission to, hopefully, remain alive.  

However, the over-militarization of local police -- up to and including official instructions to consider and respond to non-violent protesters as terrorists -- is a disturbing new trend. The Department of Homeland Security has been a huge profit-making venture for the Military Industrial Complex, both in terms of providing taxpayer-funded grants to local police and fire departments ostensibly to protect us from terror attacks but in fact to ensure that items no longer needed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could be sold somewhere.  So now the tiniest rural fire departments have armoured vehicles they can hardly afford to fuel, and local police have the latest in military equipment and Mossad training inculcating in them a genuine terror of the population -- i.e., us -- they are paid with our tax dollars to protect.

A commenter on the English version of this blog who lives in a Washington DC suburb recently called her local police department about a possible fraud case which ordinarily would have required simple fact-finding by a single detective.  Instead, a fully-armed five-man SWAT team arrived at the wrong address, ready to fire.  These events are increasingly common across the board, with innocent people of every age and color and sometimes even their pets being brutalized and/or murdered at traffic stops, in clearly non-violent situations in their own homes when simple medical or other assistance had been requested or again the police burst into the wrong home, and/or the simply because the policeman did not feel his (often quite arbitrary and illegal) orders were being sufficiently obeyed. There is also considerable  evidence to suggest poor screening for excess violence or poor behavioral controls, previous job infractions of this sort and/or drug and alcohol abuse among applicants for police work.

Add in a "normal" quantity of southern racism (also quite present in the North, of course, reinvigorated by Sarah Palin and deliberately amplified by various rightwing media in efforts to get Republicans out to vote), a large group of African Americans recently moved from the inner city to one of the few areas they were begrudgingly allowed to enter, and a town whose second-largest source of operating revenues comes from the fines and fees paid by African Americans disproportionately targeted for traffic stops and other low level offenses  http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/27/is_ferguson_feeding_on_the_poor  and yes, Ferguson was a recipe for disaster.  The event itself though, while hardly atypical, is in some ways less interesting than its aftermath, which provides almost a Rohrschach test for America's people, media and governance at this point in time.

The Event

The evidence on which all parties agree is that Michael Brown was an unarmed 18-year-old highly regarded by his teachers who wanted to start his own business and had no criminal record.  He was shot and killed by Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson while walking with a friend to visit his grandmother at approximately noon on Sunday, August 9, 2014, just two days before he was due to start college.  There is no police video of the shooting although an audiotape of several shots appears legitimate and many eyewitness tweets and a later video of Brown's body are also on record; nevertheless, many details of the incident remain unclear. What can be stated without dispute is that Wilson stopped the two teens and ordered them with rather questionable legality to get off the street and onto the sidewalk; accounts differ as to how hostile this confrontation was or whether Brown remained on the street, was pulled by Wilson towards or into the car or was at some point actually in the car assaulting Wilson as later claimed by the police. It is fairly well established, however, that Wilson was seated in his car when he first shot at Brown and his friend through the open car window but missed as they fled.  He then got out of his car, fired again at Brown and continued to shoot multiple rounds after the teen turned around with his hands up, ultimately killing him with a shot in the head as he fell. What happened next is like plate tectonics or watching a Greek tragedy unfold.

The Aftermath

Not trusting the hostile and overwhelmingly white power structure in Ferguson, Brown's family requested a private autopsy by a former NYC forensic pathologist; his results showed nine gunshot wounds (four on the right arm, three on the head and two on the chest) suggesting he had been shot at least six times though not from very close range since there was no gunshot residue on the body.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0   However, the full findings from the official autopsy by the St. Louis County medical examiner's office have not been made public, so the presence of any residue on Brown's clothing or in Wilson's car remains uncertain. The Justice Department was also asked to conduct an autopsy, though it is highly doubtful that additional information can be obtained. 

Michael Brown's body lay in the street for four hours afterwards at police insistence, Wilson's name was not revealed for another week and although the Ferguson Police Department filed an incident report on 8/15 alleging that Brown and his friend had committed a robbery just before he was killed, it took the department another full week to file even a highly-abbreviated report of his murder. It was acknowledged, however, that Wilson had no knowledge of the robbery at the time he ordered Brown off the street.  

Meanwhile, when the police finally allowed people to access the site of his death, Brown's family and other residents placed flowers and candles over the bloodstains on the street.  At that point, in gestures of contempt quite familiar to people who had lived through Jim Crow, one policeman let his dog urinate on the memorial and others re-blocked the street from cars and then deliberately drove their cars over the candles and flowers, scattering the petals, ruining the memorial and deeply horrifying the already shocked, grieving people.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

Over the next few nights the unarmed mourners and protesters grew increasingly restless and perhaps a dozen of them began looting and vandalizing and set one business on fire. Accustomed to enforced deference but at this point genuinely afraid they might have a riot on their hands, the police refused to acknowledge any culpability, attempted with questionable veracity to place the entire blame on Brown, and responded to the protesters according to the Mossad training provided their chief.  This included riot gear, SWAT team tactics and helicopters the first night, followed by tear gas, wooden pellets, rubber bullets, smoke bombs, and flash grenades. The results were about as predicted, the governor intervened, steps were taken to calm things down, more people protested, the situation gained national attention, the media took their accustomed positions along predetermined political fault lines, the police over-reacted again, the intensity ebbed and flowed, the National Guard were called in, many people were roughed up, threatened and arrested, including several journalists, and statements by the Obama administration appeared more interested in the violence perpetrated by the protesters than against Michael Brown.  Things finally began to calm down after his funeral.  

The Fault Lines

Every single part of this tragedy, up to and including the poor training, judgment and violent behavior by some of the police, was utterly predictable; so too was the sensationalized and highly-slanted media coverage, the location, content and intensity of the public outcry on both sides of the Left-Right political divide with the typical uncaring indifference in the middle, and the far greater amount of money collected on behalf of Darren Wilson than Michael Brown.  http://www.ksdk.com/story/homepage/2014/08/23/cash-raised-for-mo-cop-surpasses-brown-donations/14506401/  The intensity of the protesters' response is likewise hardly surprising given the destruction of a simple memorial to a murdered teenager whose body was not yet cold, performed deliberately by members of the same organization as the man who had killed him under highly questionable circumstances.

It is equally important to recognize that what happened in Ferguson was hardly an anomaly:  not a single thing happened there that hasn't happened in many places in this country many times before.  In fact, taking a longer view, the biggest question is why the media chose to give it so much coverage.  And the answer to that most likely has more to do with their own increasingly precarious finances and the current state of our foreign rather than domestic affairs and their resulting assessment once again that the public really needs a strong diversion and the inculcation of yet more fear. 

Nevertheless, just as people all over the world are becoming increasingly aware of the Anglo-Zionist Empire's true role in taking over and/or destroying so many other countries, the ugly difference between myth and reality in American life -- essentially unchanged since our very beginning -- has been revealed for everyone to see.  The sad truth, however, is that the vast majority of Americans remain locked in to their own propaganda-induced preconceptions, and while efforts continue to be made to address the underlying issues of police militarization, brutality and unequal treatment before the law, the likelihood of genuine improvement in any of these areas is extremely low.

A Word About Sources

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions.  For more information on any of this, I will be happy to provide all sorts of URLS but for a deep and nuanced view of the African American experience I cannot more highly recommend a writer and blogger named Ta-Nehisi Coates.  He sees things clearly, thinks things through exquisitely well, and is a genuinely superb writer.  http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/  Another good resource on this issue and others affecting African Americans is Professor Gerald Horne, interviewed here in a six-part series with transcripts:  http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12258   Alexander Reid Ross also provides an interesting and informative view of other developments in Ferguson that have an impact on this case, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/28/notes-on-ferguson/  And finally, The Color Of Change, http://colorofchange.org/ and Black Is Back Coalition  http://www.blackisbackcoalition.org/2014/08/27/national-march-on-ferguson-saturday-aug-30th/ are both good resources for anyone interested in the determinedly measured response by the African American community and its supporters to resolving these issues.