Cancel Culture Round Three Get Out?


[Note: Since this article was written, the organizers of “Rage Against the War Machine” have reversed their decision to withdraw their invitation for me to speak at the February 19 anti-war event in Washington, DC. They made this decision under pressure from many of the other speakers scheduled to attend who opposed my being removed from the event. This is the right decision. I recognize that being invited to speak at an event such as the one scheduled for February 19 is a privilege, not a right. I will do my utmost to ensure that my presentation is worthy of the occasion. I have no hard feeling against the organizers. However, the decision to kick me off the speakers list, after publicly announcing I would be speaking, sent a message to all those who promote “cancel culture” tactics that their methods work. This is a threat to everyone. Moreover, given the vicious and vociferous attacks that have been leveled against me, I believe it only appropriate that I respond by staying true to the emotions and mindset I had upon learning I had been removed, and which governed the tone and content of the article as originally written. Cancel culture cannot be allowed to prevail. Thank you again to those who supported me, and to the event organizers who have honored me by allowing me to be in the company of such esteemed individuals working in support of such a worthy cause.]  

Back in early January 2003, I was involved in a project intended to be a last-gasp effort to head off a US-led war with Iraq. In December 2002, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesperson, had articulated during a press conference that while the official US policy toward Iraq was regime change, this did not necessarily mean removing Saddam Hussein by use of force. Fleischer indicated that a significant change in behavior on the part of the Iraqi government could constitute “regime change.”

I picked up on that theme and reached out to the Iraqi government (keeping in mind I had addressed the Iraqi Parliament back in September 2002 in a successful bid to get UN weapons inspectors back on the job), and outlined a proposal based upon a six-point plan of action that would have the Iraqi government agree to changes in policy regarding disarmament, human rights, democracy, diplomacy, economy and peace. (…)

RAND: Avoiding a Long War

Avoiding a Long War
U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
How does this end? Increasingly, this question is dominating discussion
of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington and other Western capitals.
Although successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson
in fall 2022 renewed optimism about Kyiv’s prospects on the battlefield,
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on September 21 of a partial
mobilization and annexation of four Ukrainian provinces was a stark reminder that
this war is nowhere near a resolution. Fighting still rages across nearly 1,000 km of
front lines. Negotiations on ending the conflict have been suspended since May.
The trajectory and ultimate outcome of the war will, of course, be determined
largely by the policies of Ukraine and Russia. But Kyiv and Moscow are not the only
capitals with a stake in what happens. This war is the most significant interstate
conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences for the United
States. It is appropriate to assess how this conflict may evolve, what alternative tra-
jectories might mean for U.S. interests, and what Washington can do to promote a
trajectory that best serves U.S. interests. (…)

Russland hat keine aggressiven Absichten – US-Strategiepapier erklärt die wahren Gründe der US – Politik

Andreas Heil on Facebook wrote:

Favoriten  · 23 Std.  ·

A key paper to understand who wages war on whom for what reasons and employing which means.

Overextending and Unbalancing Russia


by 2019, current update of a paper series, starting 1972

Key issues explained by Thomas Röper below in german language:

26. Juni 2019

Russland hat keine aggressiven Absichten – US-Strategiepapier erklärt die wahren Gründe der US-Politik – Anti-Spiegel

Forward to the USSR and Operation Z+

Forward to the USSR and Operation Z+

By Batiushka for The Saker Blog

May 04, 2022

On 28 April 2022 President Lukashenko of Belarus spoke of a possible coming together of various independent countries, former Soviet republics, to join the Russian Federation and Belarus in a ‘Union State’. ( Then, on 3 May President Putin and President Lukashenko discussed the construction of this Union State further. (

In 1991 the Soviet Union, the successor of the Russian Empire, suddenly collapsed in a remarkably similar way to the way in which the former suddenly collapsed in 1917 and on orders from exactly the same transatlantic financial and political circles. No coincidence. Since then the territory concerned, the heartland of Northern Eurasia, like much of the rest of the world has been in chaos, with poverty, injustice and war. Geopolitically, the formation of a Sovereign Union (not Soviet Union) of the peoples and nations of Northern Eurasia is now perhaps the only way of overcoming the vacuum created, which has been at the root of planetary chaos since 1991.

Northern Eurasia, whatever it has been called, is, like it or not, marked by its central and by far its largest nation, the Russian. This is the only one capable of bringing together the sovereign states of the many and varied peoples who live in this continuous intercontinental land-area for peace and justice. Indeed, many look to Russia to carry out precisely this task and so to rescue them from the present disorder of Western ‘divide and rule’ politics, the resulting Western exploitation of their natural resources and oppression of Western-loving oligarchs.  (…)

Statement by the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council on Russian aggression against Ukraine

Statement|22 February 2022|Brussels

Statement by the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council on Russian aggression against Ukraine

Page contents

The decision of the Russian Federation to recognise as independent entities and send Russian troops to certain areas of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts is illegal and unacceptable. It violates international law, Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, Russia’s own international commitments and it further escalates the crisis.

Both Presidents welcome the steadfast unity of Member States and their determination to react with robustness and speed to the illegal actions of Russia in close coordination with international partners.

An informal meeting of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers chaired by the High Representative will take place today at 4 pm. Following that, a first package of sanctions will be formally tabled later this afternoon.

Appropriate bodies will then meet to finalise the package without delay.

The package contains proposals:

  • to target those who were involved in the illegal decision,
  • to target banks that are financing Russian military and other operations in those territories,
  • to target the ability of the Russian state and government to access the EU’s capital and financial markets and services, to limit the financing of escalatory and aggressive policies,
  • and to target trade from the two breakaway regions to and from the EU, to ensure that those responsible clearly feel the economic consequences of their illegal and aggressive actions.

The EU has prepared and stands ready to adopt additional measures at a later stage if needed in the light of further developments.

Both Presidents supported by the High Representative continue to follow closely developments on the ground and consult with fellow EU leaders and international counterparts.

The Union remains in full solidarity with Ukraine and united in support for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We stand by and will continue to support Ukraine and its people.

Russia recognition of the LDNR – a few initial thoughts — The Vineyard of the Saker

I listened to the full Russian Security Council meeting, then to Putin’s address to the nation, then the signing of the the treaties on cooperation and mutual support. The first

Russia recognition of the LDNR – a few initial thoughts — The Vineyard of the Saker

Russia-Ukraine conflict: America needs a better idea than NATO expansion to keep the peace

Russia-Ukraine conflict: America needs a better idea than NATO expansion to keep the peace

Dec 14, 2021

Ukraine and other former Soviet republics are proud countries. They are not, with all due respect, places we should send U.S. troops to fight and die.

Michael O’Hanlon  |  Opinion contributor

Can it really be true, at this date in 2021, that large-scale war in Europe is again possible?  Why are about 100,000 Russian troops massing near their country’s border with neighboring Ukraine – a country with which Russia shares a close history, religion, culture and previous membership in the Soviet Union? And most of all, what can the United States and allies do about the situation?

President Joe Biden has taken the Russian troop buildup seriously, as he should. His call last week with President Vladimir Putin provided a good start to crisis management. Warning Putin about much more severe economic punishment than Russia has experienced to date, if it should invade Ukraine, Biden struck the right balance. He appears to have avoided ill-advised threats to start World War III over a distant part of Europe not integral to core American security, yet sent an unmistakable message of firmness. 

Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day

U.S. and European Union sanctions imposed over the past seven years, since Russia grabbed back Crimea back from Ukraine with its “little green men” attack and then fomented a separatist revolt in Ukraine’s east (that has since killed at least 13,000), have kept the Russian economy on its back. Its gross domestic product growth has for a decade averaged just about 1% a year

I would have preferred that Biden be even more specific about the types of new sanctions and related steps we might consider – for example, he could have promised that NATO would fund construction of more liquid natural gas terminals in Western Europe to reduce the region’s need for Russian gas, should Putin choose war. But the message was still well delivered, in a calm yet firm manner, and the past seven years of previous policy give it credibility.

NATO membership won’t prevent war

However, we need to think bigger. The crisis this year arose partly because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently asked NATO to bring his country into the Western alliance soon. He wonders why we have not done so. After all, back in 2008 during the Bush administration, the United States and NATO allies promised they would in fact someday invite Ukraine and Georgia into NATO  – though they provided no timetable and no interim security help, in effect painting a bullseye on the back of both countries. Putin has been sure to keep them unstable, and thus ineligible for NATO membership, ever since. (…)

Full text here:

This Is How the U.S. Does ‘Dialogue’ — The Vineyard of the Saker

Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea. So much for “dialogue”. by Pepe Escobar, posted with the

This Is How the U.S. Does ‘Dialogue’ — The Vineyard of the Saker

Pepe ESCOBAR Steppe in Flammen: Kasachstans farbige Revolution


Steppe in Flammen: Kasachstans farbige Revolution

Pepe Escobar

33-41 Minuten

6. Januar 2022

© Bild: REUTERS/Pavel Mikheyev

Maidan in Almaty? Oh ja. Aber es ist kompliziert.

Geht es bei so viel Angst und Abscheu also nur um Gas? Nicht wirklich.

Kasachstan wurde praktisch über Nacht ins Chaos gestürzt, und zwar wegen der Verdoppelung der Preise für Flüssiggas, die das (russische) Äquivalent von 20 Rubel pro Liter erreichten (zum Vergleich: in Russland selbst liegen sie bei durchschnittlich 30 Rubel).

Dies war der Auslöser für landesweite Proteste, die sich über alle Breitengrade von der Wirtschaftsmetropole Almaty über die Häfen Aktau und Atyrau am Kaspischen Meer bis hin zur Hauptstadt Nur-Sultan, dem früheren Astana, erstreckten.

Die Zentralregierung war gezwungen, den Gaspreis auf umgerechnet 8 Rubel pro Liter zu senken. Doch das war nur der Auslöser für die nächste Phase der Proteste, in der niedrigere Lebensmittelpreise, ein Ende der Impfkampagne, ein niedrigeres Renteneintrittsalter für kinderreiche Mütter und – last but not least – ein Regimewechsel gefordert wurden, mit einem eigenen Slogan: Schal, ket! („Nieder mit dem alten Mann“).

Bei dem „alten Mann“ handelt es sich um keinen Geringeren als den 81-jährigen Staatschef Nursultan Nasarbajew, der auch nach seinem Rücktritt vom Präsidentenamt nach 29 Jahren an der Macht im Jahr 2019 praktisch immer noch die graue Eminenz Kasachstans ist, die den Sicherheitsrat leitet und über die Innen- und Außenpolitik entscheidet.

Die Aussicht auf eine weitere Farbrevolution drängt sich unweigerlich auf: vielleicht Türkis-Gelb – in Anlehnung an die Farben der kasachischen Nationalflagge. Zumal aufmerksame Beobachter herausfanden, dass die üblichen Verdächtigen – die amerikanische Botschaft – bereits am 16. Dezember 2021 vor Massenprotesten „warnten“.

Maidan in Almaty? Oh ja. Aber es ist kompliziert. (…)

Der vollständige Artikel und das englische Original findet sich hier: