I have just been watching the news and, frankly, I ended up laughing.
First, I saw the Eurobureaucrats adding another 12 or so names to a list of 20 or so (sorry, I was not paying attention) names which are going to be on the sanctions list. The US did something similar yesterday. Looking at that circus, I was wondering: does these imbeciles really believe that these puny sanctions of 30-40 individuals will make Russia suddenly change course, apologize and leave Crimea? Have they forgotten that during WWII Leningrad was blockaded by German forces for nine hundred (900! Not 33 like Hezbollah or 78 like the Serbs - 900) days and that it was pounded by the German Air Force and artillery during each one of these 900 days, that most men died and that the city at the end was defended by mostly women, that hunger was so bad that people were making "soup" from glue used to put up posters, that medicine had run out and that the winter colds were brutal and yet that the Russian people did not surrender?! Don't they understand that for Russians Crimea is at least as important as Stalingrad was? Do they seriously think that their stupid little sanctions will affect a country which was - and still is - willing to go to war over Crimea?
Amazing. Just amazing...
Then, I saw that western credit rating agencies were about to lower the credit rating of Russia (which up to now had been BBB, iirr). Russia with a debt of 12% would be lowered, while the USA with a debt over 100% maintained a AAA. Who is going to take that seriously. But even better, the net result of that will be that it is going to be more expensive for Russians to get financing from western banks. Again, I wonder in total awe. Do these western financiers really not know that the issues of the high interest rates inside Russia (in comparison to the interest rates enjoyed by Russian companies with their corporate headquarters in the EU and US) was a major political issues which constantly opposed the "Eurasian sovereignists" to the "Atlantic integrationists"? (for an explanation of these terms see here, here and here). Think of it - what does Putin want? He was a) a bigger share of investment in Russia coming from Russian banks, b) more companies incorporated in Russia c) a way to prevent Russian officials from having any assets abroad.
Frankly, Russia and Putin owe the western financiers and bureaucrats a big "thank you!!" for helping the Eurasian sovereignists in their struggle against the Atlantic integrationists...
Then, I saw the EU singing the political part of the Association Agreement with the Ukraine. Amazing!! Here are all these pompous "democrats" signing a document with representatives of an armed revolutionary regime which has exactly zero legitimacy. They could have waited until May when "elections" organized under the "auspices" of the Right Sector and the Freedom Party would clearly yield the "correct" result and thereby give a micron-thin layer of legitimacy to the revolutionary regime. But no! They must be so afraid that even Nazi-run elections might not yield the "correct" result that they sign these documents now. Which is stupid for two reasons: first, it shows that these western plutocrats don't care at all about "democracy" or "democratic legitimacy", but that they are apparently unaware that any document signed by this revolutionary regime is very easy to overturn on the grounds the folks signing it had no right to do so.
What in the world are these folks in the EU smoking?! Bath salts?!
And then, to really make me laugh, I saw a hilarious interview of Putin. He was asked by an already laughing reporter why, in his opinions, did the folks which ended up on the sanctions list deserve such a distinction - were they his personal friends (mostly no) or did they have anything to do with Crimea (mostly no). Putin replied with laughter in his eyes, but with an otherwise serious face "I have to be honest and make the following confession (he bows his head): yes, these guys were the "polite armed men in green" that were seen in Crimea! And their last names are kinda weird - Kovalchuk, Rotenberg, Timchenko - typical Moskals!". Putin can be very funny when he wants and this topic clearly makes him laugh.
To be serious, I really am amazed by what is going on. Western politicians seem to be stuck in total "lala land" or "bizarro world" (pick your expression). There is such an absolute disconnect between what is actually happening in Banderastan (north and west), the rump-Ukraine (east and south), Crimea and Russia on one hand, and the mental representation which people in the West seem to have about it that I often wonder, yet again, whether the world has not gone completely mad. I almost feel sorry for western politicians when I hear them speak. They sound like a flat-earth society meeting and yet they try so hard to look dignified and important it's almost sad. I say almost, because I realize that these want-to-look-dignified politicians are also the prime culprits for the hell which the (now ex-) Ukraine is going through.
Lastly, I am amazed to see that the White House does not realize a basic dilemma it is facing: either the sanctions against Russia are ridiculously ineffective or, in theory, they could really hurt Russia (booting Russia out of the SWIFT system, revoking overflight and landing rights for Russian airlines, etc.). Then what would happen? Does the White House not know that Russia holds US$164 billion in US Treasury Securities? That Russia could simply shut down the northern evacuation route for US forces in Afghanistan? The millions of dollars in US and EU investment in Russia ( US$300,1 billion) could also be seized? That Russia can shut down the "northern route" to US ships or stop cooperating on security and terrorism issues? Fundamentally - does it do any good for the US to really hurt Russia (assuming that it could)?
The US and EU remind me of a toddler playing with a hand grenade: either it is a very boring toy and nothing happens, or it works, but then you are dead.
Western international diplomacy as a dead baby joke - how pathetic....
The Saker
Showing posts with label stupidity and ignorance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupidity and ignorance. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
The BBC and Russian aircraft - a small but telling example.
Since nothing dramatic is going on (thanks God for that!), I can mention little things which want to share with you. This time, yet again, its the BBC which triggered my disgust. This is the BBC article about the airplane crash which took place in Algeria today:
And yet, there is something very obnoxious here. The article says "Hercules C-130". It does not say "US-built Hercules C-130". So what? Why should the BBC specify that the C-130 is build in the USA? I don't see a reason for that too.
But my question is this: why is it that when a Russian-built aircraft crashes the BBC always, always, absolutely *always* writes "Russian-built Tupolev" or "Russian-built Antonov". If you do not believe me, look in the BBC archives for yourself. Western-built aircraft are always designated by model only, but if the aircraft is Russian, then it is always referred to as "Russian-built". Why?
To associate Russian aircraft with crashes, of course. Nevermind that in fact Russian aircraft are mostly more reliable than their western equivalents, that they are easier to maintain, and that they can take infinitely more abuse. And nevermind that the Russian air transport industry has a safety record pretty much on par with the West. If it crashes, its because it is Russian-built.
Think I am paranoid - check for yourself.
I even wrote to the BBC a few years ago. Never got a reply.
Does that mean that the BBC has some kind of minder which sits there and makes sure that every time a Russian-built aircraft crashes its country of origin is mentioned? Of course not. It's much worse than that. This has become a cultural automatism. Reporters do that automatically, without even thinking about it.
It's a little thing, of course, but it is typical of an imperial, of not racist, mindset.
Next time an aircraft crashes, see for yourself is this "Saker law of BBC coverage" holds or not.
Cheers,
The Saker
An Algerian military transport plane has crashed in the north-east of the country, killing all but one of the 78 people on board. The Hercules C-130 crashed into a mountain in Oum al-Bouaghi province, en route to Constantine, in bad weather conditions. One survivor is being treated for head injuries, reports said. The government and military say 78 people were on board - not 103 as reported by officials and local media. Most of those on board were military personnel and their family members. "I saw the military plane crashing, and it was cut into two pieces," a firefighter, Mohamed, told Reuters news agency at Ouled Gacem, near the crash site. Women and children were among the 77 bodies recovered from the crash site. Dozens of rescue workers reached the scene, despite the mountainous terrain and wintry weather conditions (...)Nothing special, right? True.
And yet, there is something very obnoxious here. The article says "Hercules C-130". It does not say "US-built Hercules C-130". So what? Why should the BBC specify that the C-130 is build in the USA? I don't see a reason for that too.
But my question is this: why is it that when a Russian-built aircraft crashes the BBC always, always, absolutely *always* writes "Russian-built Tupolev" or "Russian-built Antonov". If you do not believe me, look in the BBC archives for yourself. Western-built aircraft are always designated by model only, but if the aircraft is Russian, then it is always referred to as "Russian-built". Why?
To associate Russian aircraft with crashes, of course. Nevermind that in fact Russian aircraft are mostly more reliable than their western equivalents, that they are easier to maintain, and that they can take infinitely more abuse. And nevermind that the Russian air transport industry has a safety record pretty much on par with the West. If it crashes, its because it is Russian-built.
Think I am paranoid - check for yourself.
I even wrote to the BBC a few years ago. Never got a reply.
Does that mean that the BBC has some kind of minder which sits there and makes sure that every time a Russian-built aircraft crashes its country of origin is mentioned? Of course not. It's much worse than that. This has become a cultural automatism. Reporters do that automatically, without even thinking about it.
It's a little thing, of course, but it is typical of an imperial, of not racist, mindset.
Next time an aircraft crashes, see for yourself is this "Saker law of BBC coverage" holds or not.
Cheers,
The Saker
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Imperial hubris and plain stupidity
I have to say that I am both amazed and amused at the fantastically stupid manner in which US politicians have reacted to the Snowden affair. Without pausing for a single second to think of the possible reaction to their attitude, they began to demand, threaten and otherwise bully not only China and Russia, but even any other country which in the future might render some assistance to Snowden. Apparently, US politicians fail to realize a few very simple things:
a) By openly bullying and threatening China and Russia they are making it impossible for Chinese or Russian politicians to cave in to their demands and render Snowden back to the USA.
b) The White House is threatening Russia and China with unspecified "consequences" as if for the past several decades the USA did not use very dirty trick in the book to threaten, subvert, confront, antagonize, blackmail and otherwise piss off not only the Kremlin but the entire Russian population. Seriously - what else could the USA possibly do to Russia? As for China, Snowden just made public that the US had been engaged in a massive spying program against China, something which the Chinese authorities definitely knew, but which the Chinese general public did not know for a fact. And now they want to make demands on the Chinese about the person who revealed that?
c) The USA and the UK are chock full with Chechen terrorists, Jewish oligarchs and even Russian bankers who have all run away from Russian justice and who have all received political asylum (yes, even bankers on the run!). And, of course, there are plenty of real Russian defectors there too. How can they seriously think that they can ignore any and all demands from the Russian justice system and then have Snowden rendered just because they now are banging their fists on the table?!
d) In legal terms Russia has no extradition treaty with the USA and therefore no obligation at all to render Snowden. But then, the Brits actually had the arrogance to demand that Russia extradite a Russian citizen (Andrei Lugovoi) even while they were refusing to extradite Boris Berezovsky.
What amazes me, and diplomats all over the planet, is that, simply put, this is not how "things are done". Normally, a request for extradition is made rather quietly, in as low profile as possible, and usually after behind closed doors political consultations. In the case of defections from intelligence/security organizations there is an "understanding" between the countries that these are never subject to rendition. Take Poteev for example, a truly huge defection with nothing short of apocalyptic consequences for the Russian external intelligence agency SVR: neither Putin, nor Medvedev nor Lavrov have even mentioned his name in any public statements. The only exception was Putin who said that "traitors always end up living miserable lives" and he did that to a domestic audience. But Russian diplomats are mature enough to understand that once a guy like Poteev makes it to the USA, they have to accept the loss, correct the mistakes they made and turn the page. What you do not do is have hysterical fits of rage and indulge in threatening the entire planet with fire and brimstone if they help your traitor.
The way the USA treats this Snowden affair shows that US politicians are poorly educated idiots with an insular mentality combined with a god complex. They have the mentality of a bully who simply cannot accept that there are rules which everybody else follows and which apply to him too. Beyond any doubt, the US diplomatic corps is the worst, most illiterate and incompetent of any major power and as a result of all that, the US foreign policy is clumsy, irrational, self-defeating and fundamentally dysfunctional. Hence the long series of political defeats the USA had to cope with recently.
Long gone are the days of James Baker who truly was a born diplomat, an effective and refined negotiator and a politician with an acute sense of "the other" who brilliantly succeeded in putting together a large international coalition against Saddam Hussein (which even included the Syrians!). Following Baker all the USA had is a mix of arrogant and bellicose women like Madelaine Albright, Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton, or spineless fake-heroes like Colin Powell or John Kerry who were supposedly war heroes but who never showed any individual courage or leadership qualities and who, as a result, were easily bullied into doing that which they fully knew was the dumb and wrong thing to do.
So here we have it. The USA, biggest superpower on the planet, is reacting to a fundamentally minor annoyance like some crazy mix of a women with PMS and a 5 year old spoiled brat. In a way, of course, it is funny. But in a deeper way, this clearly illustrates something very serious.
Any good student of history will tell you that regardless of the moral and ethical merits of any political system, one can judge the viability of that system by the kind of people it promotes to its top positions. The better the ability of any system to identify, promote and place the correct people at the correct position, the better the overall viability of the system. Judged by this criteria, the USA clearly has lost its former ability to place the best people possible to key position. Instead all it offers is a long list of mediocre, arrogant, ignorant and outright nasty individuals who simply do not have what it takes to get things done.
Yet another welcome sign that the Anglo Empire is running out of gas.
The Saker
a) By openly bullying and threatening China and Russia they are making it impossible for Chinese or Russian politicians to cave in to their demands and render Snowden back to the USA.
b) The White House is threatening Russia and China with unspecified "consequences" as if for the past several decades the USA did not use very dirty trick in the book to threaten, subvert, confront, antagonize, blackmail and otherwise piss off not only the Kremlin but the entire Russian population. Seriously - what else could the USA possibly do to Russia? As for China, Snowden just made public that the US had been engaged in a massive spying program against China, something which the Chinese authorities definitely knew, but which the Chinese general public did not know for a fact. And now they want to make demands on the Chinese about the person who revealed that?
c) The USA and the UK are chock full with Chechen terrorists, Jewish oligarchs and even Russian bankers who have all run away from Russian justice and who have all received political asylum (yes, even bankers on the run!). And, of course, there are plenty of real Russian defectors there too. How can they seriously think that they can ignore any and all demands from the Russian justice system and then have Snowden rendered just because they now are banging their fists on the table?!
d) In legal terms Russia has no extradition treaty with the USA and therefore no obligation at all to render Snowden. But then, the Brits actually had the arrogance to demand that Russia extradite a Russian citizen (Andrei Lugovoi) even while they were refusing to extradite Boris Berezovsky.
What amazes me, and diplomats all over the planet, is that, simply put, this is not how "things are done". Normally, a request for extradition is made rather quietly, in as low profile as possible, and usually after behind closed doors political consultations. In the case of defections from intelligence/security organizations there is an "understanding" between the countries that these are never subject to rendition. Take Poteev for example, a truly huge defection with nothing short of apocalyptic consequences for the Russian external intelligence agency SVR: neither Putin, nor Medvedev nor Lavrov have even mentioned his name in any public statements. The only exception was Putin who said that "traitors always end up living miserable lives" and he did that to a domestic audience. But Russian diplomats are mature enough to understand that once a guy like Poteev makes it to the USA, they have to accept the loss, correct the mistakes they made and turn the page. What you do not do is have hysterical fits of rage and indulge in threatening the entire planet with fire and brimstone if they help your traitor.
The way the USA treats this Snowden affair shows that US politicians are poorly educated idiots with an insular mentality combined with a god complex. They have the mentality of a bully who simply cannot accept that there are rules which everybody else follows and which apply to him too. Beyond any doubt, the US diplomatic corps is the worst, most illiterate and incompetent of any major power and as a result of all that, the US foreign policy is clumsy, irrational, self-defeating and fundamentally dysfunctional. Hence the long series of political defeats the USA had to cope with recently.
Long gone are the days of James Baker who truly was a born diplomat, an effective and refined negotiator and a politician with an acute sense of "the other" who brilliantly succeeded in putting together a large international coalition against Saddam Hussein (which even included the Syrians!). Following Baker all the USA had is a mix of arrogant and bellicose women like Madelaine Albright, Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton, or spineless fake-heroes like Colin Powell or John Kerry who were supposedly war heroes but who never showed any individual courage or leadership qualities and who, as a result, were easily bullied into doing that which they fully knew was the dumb and wrong thing to do.
So here we have it. The USA, biggest superpower on the planet, is reacting to a fundamentally minor annoyance like some crazy mix of a women with PMS and a 5 year old spoiled brat. In a way, of course, it is funny. But in a deeper way, this clearly illustrates something very serious.
Any good student of history will tell you that regardless of the moral and ethical merits of any political system, one can judge the viability of that system by the kind of people it promotes to its top positions. The better the ability of any system to identify, promote and place the correct people at the correct position, the better the overall viability of the system. Judged by this criteria, the USA clearly has lost its former ability to place the best people possible to key position. Instead all it offers is a long list of mediocre, arrogant, ignorant and outright nasty individuals who simply do not have what it takes to get things done.
Yet another welcome sign that the Anglo Empire is running out of gas.
The Saker
Sunday, April 21, 2013
There is a price to pay for ignorance
There is a price to pay for ignorance such as, for example, having a foreign Ambassador issuing the following communique:
Nope, this is not a joke. You can find the original page here:
http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html
But what a shame for a country which fancies itself as some kind of world policeman with a "special responsibility' or even the 'leader of the free world".
This reminds me of this one:
 |
| click on image for full size |
http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html
But what a shame for a country which fancies itself as some kind of world policeman with a "special responsibility' or even the 'leader of the free world".
This reminds me of this one:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
