The "war of the lists" is over, now the serious stuff begins

So finally the US has published its "Magnitsky List" (see full list here).  Russia instantly retaliated with its own list (see full list here).  Now what?

Nothing.

Let's recap what happened.  The US Republicans, now completely controlled by Jewish Neocons, tried to play electoral politics by showing that, unlike the Democrats, they are "tough on Russia".  First, this caters to the traditional Jewish hatred of everything Russia and, second, it also caters to the instincts of those Americans who want to see their country like some kind of cop of the universe.  So the country which has legalized torture and the extra-judicial murder of "enemies" was now seriously expressing its outrage at the death of one man in disputed circumstances. 

Obama and his Democrats wanted none of that since they perfectly understood how ridiculous the entire scheme was.  This is why the actual number of names on the US list has gone from 60 to 240 to 280 to a mere 18 in the final version.  Not only was the list very short, but no major Russian figure was involved.  Something of a wet firecracker, really.

The Russian "retaliatory" list was equally short and limited in scope. The Russians fully understood that Obama had nothing to do with this nonsense, so they kept their response to the required minimum.

Now that this kindergarten-level episode is over, at least until the next elections in the USA, its time to turn back to serious, adult, politics and, first and foremost, the upcoming trip of U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to Moscow were he will no doubt present a "grand bargain" to Putin: drop your support for Syria and we will re-deploy our anti-missile system further away from Russia and/or provide some written guarantees about its purpose.

This will be a tempting deal for Putin as it would appear to give him a big political victory.  But, if my instincts about the man are correct, he will reject that deal because he is aware of two crucial facts:

a) the Russian "asymmetrical" response to the US deployment is a cost-effective way to deal with this threat.

b) if Syria falls to the US/NATO/al-Qaeda alliance, Iran and Russia are next.

There will probably be some very tough bargaining, but I want to believe that Putin will remain firm and reject the US offer.

We shall see soon.

The Saker

Russian envoy to NATO threatens to "reconsider" Russia's support for NATO in Afghanistan

Dimitri Rogozin,  the official Russian top envoy to NATO (and who is also one of the most interesting Russian public figures), has just declared that Russia is considering revising its support for NATO operations in Afghanistan.  This is a direct consequence of the US decision to deploy an anti-missile system along the Russian border in Europe.

And since Pakistan has decided to close down (probably for a limited time) the NATO supplies through Pakistan following the murder of 24 Pakistani soldiers by NATO, it sure looks like NATO infinite arrogance has landed it into some painful circumstances.

The Western corporate media: the Empire's most subservient lackey

Following President Medvedev's speech yesterday, I decided to scan the western corporate media for reactions.  I was curious, what would the pundits make of what I personally consider a total failure of Obama's foreign policy?  Would at least the European press express outrage over the fact that the always imbecile US foreign policy has now turned several European countries into targets?

I mean, really, let's consider the following basic and, I strongly believe, undeniable facts:

a) There is no Iranian missile threat to Europe, nor will there ever be.  Under no imaginable scenario would the Iranians ever even consider striking at Europe simply because it would make absolutely no sense.

b) It is a well-known "secret" that this entire anti-missile system is designed to "protect" NATO from a putative Russian strike.  However, since it is quite evident to anybody except for a complete cretin that under no circumstances would Russia ever gain anything from striking at Europe.  Thus the real reasons behind this anti-missile system are the following:

1. to provide more taxpayer money to the US MIC
2. to firmly peg the East-Europeans into the NATO colonial realm
3. to spite and threaten Russia by brazenly ignoring its legitimate concerns

c)  Militarily speaking, this anti-missile shield is only a minor annoyance for Russia because Russia does have the technical means to defeat it.  President Medvedev outlined these measures, adding that "these measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost". He is right.  This is not Reagan's "Star Wars", but a system deployed within a short range of Russia's borders.  Countering it will be cheap.

What this deployment does "achieve" is a psychological return to the worst years of the Cold War, at least for Europe.  For those who, like myself, lived in the late 1970s and 1980s under the threat of Soviet SS-20 missiles, it is deeply distressing to see that the USA is, again, turning the European continent into a target, in particular considering the fact that there is no "Russian threat" to "counter" (why would Russia ever wanted to threaten its biggest market for gas? and if it really wanted to threaten the EU, all it would need is to cut its gas supplies anyway...).

Bottom line: this entire anti-missile debacle is useless, counter-productive, and fundamentally toxic.  The only 'winners' in all this are the CEOs of a few American corporations, and the USA faithful servant in Eastern Europe.

I wondered, would the Western corporate press notice any of that?

I checked the WSJ, the WP, NYT and a host of other outlets and I was shocked.  Speaking with one voice, as they apparently always do, they brought it all down to three talking points:

a) Medvedev is catering to his election campaign (he ain't running, but nevermind)

b) Russia is creating a new Cold War (and what is NATO doing exactly?)

c) NATO is "frustrated" by Russia's stance (and the Russians, might they be frustrated?)

That's it.  Nothing more.  Not a single attempt at understanding anything, no analysis of the Kremlin's position.  Not a word about the consequences for Europe.  The Western corporate press is basically fully and unconditionally endorsing the White House's propaganda without any attempt whatsoever to form its own opinion.

In its ever-present hubris, the West fails to see an important detail: we are not living in the 1980s anymore and, unlike the Brezhnev years, Russia's economy is booming, while both the EU and the USA are in the midst of a deep, structural, crisis with no foreseeable way out.  Furthermore, the US empire is hopelessly over-extended,  spending more on "defense" than the rest of the planet combined.  Who do you think has more staying power this time to win this arms race?

Could it be that Obama's empire is repeating exactly the same mistakes as the Soviet Union committed under Brezhnev?

The Saker

PS: there is one entity in Russia which, no doubt, is deeply satisfied with Obama's hubris: the Russian military intelligence service, GRU, which Medvedev had almost abolished, and whose Spetsnaz brigades have been reduced in number.  It just so happens that the original function of the (then still Soviet) Spetsnaz forces was precisely to destroy the kind of system which the USA will be deploying in Europe.  Thanks to Obama, the GRU and its Spetsnaz forces - which have just be re-subordinated to the Russian strategic commands - have now re-acquired their traditional target.

I can just imagine the high-fiving at 766 Khoroshovskoye shosse...