ha ha, well, what can you expect, the secret service are just a collection of drunks, drug addicts and pimps
Julia Pierson, Secret Service Director, Resigns Under Pressure About Breaches
Michael Shear, Michael Schmidt, NYT, Oct 1 2014
WASHINGTON — Julia Pierson resigned under pressure as director of the Secret Service on Wednesday after failing to quell a bipartisan political furor over repeated breaches of White House security and losing the confidence of the president her agency is charged with protecting. Pierson’s support in the West Wing began crumbling late Tuesday, in large part because she did not tell the White House of a security failure in Atlanta last month when an armed man was allowed to ride in an elevator with Obama at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite meeting with the president last week, Pierson informed him about the incident only minutes before it was reported in the news media on Tuesday evening, officials said. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Pierson’s delay in telling the president was a crucial part of “recent and accumulating reports about the performance of the agency” that led Obama to conclude that the Secret Service needed new leadership. After Pierson appeared at a brutal congressional hearing on Tuesday, when she had to explain to a House panel how an armed intruder jumped the White House fence on Sep 19 and made it as far into the mansion as the East Room, she woke Wednesday to mounting calls for her resignation and withering criticism, some of it from Democrats. By noon, Speaker Boehner and Rep Pelosi, the House’s top Democrat, had both called for independent inquiries into the security missteps, including the Secret Service’s response to a 2011 incident in which a man shot seven high-powered bullets into the south facade of the White House.But Pierson was already on her way out. In a meeting Wednesday morning with Homeland Security Sec Johnson, she offered her resignation and he accepted it. In a statement, Johnson said he had appointed Joseph Clancy, a former Secret Service agent in charge of the Presidential Protective Division, to become acting director. Johnson also bowed to demands for an outside inquiry and said he would appoint a “distinguished panel of independent experts” (sic! – RB) to report recommendations by Dec 15.
For Pierson, the resignation ended a tumultuous two weeks that started when Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, an Iraq war veteran, evaded capture as he jumped the White House fence, ran across the North Lawn, barged through the unlocked door of the North Portico and knocked down an agent as he sprinted through the Entrance Hall to the Cross Hall to the East Room, the site of presidential news conferences and other formal events. The outrage about the failure to stop Gonzalez escalated with news reports that law enforcement officers had previously encountered him, armed and with a map of the White House. Anger intensified after the waPo reported that the Secret Service had misled the public about how far Gonzalez got inside the White House. Initial reports by the Secret Service gave the impression that Gonzalez had been stopped just inside the North Portico. But the tipping point, according to Earnest, came Tuesday night, when the Washington Examiner reported the incident in Atlanta. Law enforcement officials later confirmed that Secret Service officials were initially unaware that the private security guard riding in the elevator with Obama was armed. They discovered his weapon, they said, after he started taking pictures of the president and acting unprofessionally. Officials said the Secret Service quickly began to investigate the incident. Hours after it occurred, on Sep 16, senior agents met at the agency’s Atlanta field office to start an “after action review” to determine what had occurred and how it could be prevented in the future. But the agency did not immediately inform anyone at the White House, Earnest said, and Pierson did not bring up the incident during an Oval Office meeting with Obama on Sept24, which had been arranged to discuss the fence-jumping case. Earnest said:
I think if there’s a serious breach of the president’s security, that we would anticipate that, at a minimum, that White House officials would be informed in a timely fashion.
Pierson also did not bring up the incident during several hours of testimony before the House panel on Tuesday. In an exchange with Rep Chaffetz, Pierson said that she had briefed Obama about only one incident involving his safety in 2014, the case involving Gonzalez. Chaffetz asked:
So the only time you’ve briefed the president on perimeter security, the president’s personal security, the first family’s security, has been one time in 2014?
“That’s correct,” she replied, just hours before news reports broke about the Atlanta incident. Pierson had not been Obama’s first choice to lead the Secret Service when he appointed her 18 months ago, according to several law enforcement officials. As the White House searched in 2013 for a new director to replace Mark Sullivan, who was retiring, White House officials first offered the job to David O’Connor, a longtime agency official who had recently taken a job as the head of global security for Bain Capital (ha! Remember them? Bishop Romney’s firm? – RB) But despite making the offer to O’Connor, who was known as “the dean of discipline” during his time at the Secret Service, the White House continued to examine his background. Officials uncovered an incident in the mid-1990s in which he had been accused and ultimately cleared by the Secret Service of using a racial slur. O’Connor, who decided against taking the job, declined to comment. Pierson, 55, a 30-year veteran of the agency who became director in 2013, took over after a Secret Service prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, the year before. On Wednesday, the intruder who jumped the White House fence, Gonzalez, pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawfully entering a restricted government building while carrying a weapon, carrying a dangerous weapon in public and unlawfully possessing ammunition. The judge ruled that Gonzalez would remain in detention until another hearing on Oct 21. Rep Elijah Cummings of Maryland, commended Pierson on Wednesday for stepping down, saying the move was in the best interest of the Secret Service and the president. But he said more change was necessary, including, possibly, more resignations. Cummings said:
I don’t want us, after she’s left, to say to ourselves that everything is resolved. Clearly there was a culture there that was not healthy.
In a brief interview with Del Quentin Wilber, a reporter for Bloomberg News, Pierson said that she had resigned because “Congress has lost confidence in my ability to run the agency,” according to a Twitter message from Wilber shortly after the resignation was announced. Wilber also wrote that Pierson said: “I can be pretty stoic about all this, but not really. It’s painful to leave.”
we’ve all had enough of the tough cop, now it’s time for the con cop (but the demands are the same, and amount in fact to total surrender)
leader genocidaire-in-chief offers olive branch to Russia
Adrian Croft, Reuters, Oct 1 2014
BRUSSELS – NATO’s new
leader genocidaire-in-chief offered an olive branch to Russia on Wednesday, saying he saw no contradiction between a strong alliance and building a constructive relationship with Moscow. Former Norwegian PM Stoltenberg, who took over on Wednesday as NATO Sec-Gen, struck a more conciliatory tone towards Moscow than his Danish predecessor Rasmussen. Stoltenberg said Russia needed to demonstrate a clear change in its actions and to comply with international law over Ukraine, where Moscow has annexed the Crimea region and supports pro-Russian separatists in the east. But, speaking at his first news conference at NATO HQ, he said:
I see no contradiction between a strong NATO and our continued effort to build a constructive relationship with Russia. Just the opposite. The ceasefire in Ukraine offers an opportunity, although Russia still has the power to destabilise Ukraine.
Stoltenberg, 55, who in his youth was an anti-war activist, is known for his skills in forging compromise and for his knowledge of Russia. As PM, he negotiated a deal with Russia in 2010 that ended a four-decade dispute over their Arctic maritime borders and built a personal friendship with then-Pres Medvedev. Stoltenberg takes over at a time when NATO is wrapping up its combat mission in Afghanistan but faces new challenges from a resurgent Russia to the east and ISIS on the southern border of NATO
ally vassal Turkey. Symbolising these twin challenges, Stoltenberg said his first visits “in the coming days” would be to Poland and Turkey. NATO said last week that Russia had withdrawn many of the more than 1,000 troops it had inside Ukraine but kept a large force near the border. NATO suspended all practical cooperation with Russia in April in protest against its annexation of Crimea. It said high-level political contacts with Russia could continue but NATO and Russian ambassadors have met only twice since the Crimea crisis erupted. NATO would consider any Russian request for a new meeting with an open mind, Stoltenberg said. Pres Putin welcomed Stoltenberg’s appointment in April, saying the pair had “very good relations.” Stoltenberg’s comments contrasted with the hard line taken by Rasmussen, whose attempts to build a strategic partnership with Moscow were dealt severe blows first by Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008 and now by the Ukraine crisis. Rasmussen told Reuters in a telephone interview on Wednesday:
After the Russian aggression against Ukraine, I also had to realize that the security situation in Europe was, and now is, dramatically changed and it is clear that Russia doesn’t consider us a partner, but rather an adversary. Russia’s behaviour is the strongest regret of my time in office.
NATO has made clear it will not intervene militarily in Ukraine, which is not an alliance member, but it has reinforced the defences of its eastern allies, which worry (of course they do, everybody ‘worries’ – RB) they could be a target of Russian aggression. NATO as such has no plans to fight ISIS, but a number of NATO allies are taking part in air strikes in Iraq or Syria. Stoltenberg made clear NATO would come to Turkey’s aid if it was attacked, saying:
Our responsibility, the basic responsibility, is to stand up and be very clear that we are going to protect Turkey, and that collective defence, Article 5, is something which is also going to be applied if Turkey is in any way attacked.
yeah, well, naturally: there is going to be a huge sum that needs to be laundered, for supporting ISIS (see next post down)
Usaia OKs $1.75b arms sale to Saudi
Matt Lee, AP, Oct 1 2014
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has approved a $1.75b sale of Patriot missiles and associated items to Saudi Arabia to bolster the air defenses of
the key Usaian ally our #1 puppet in the Arab world. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Wednesday that the State Dept had approved the transfer, which includes 202 Patriot missiles, test targets, launchers, spare parts and other equipment. It said the sale would improve the security of Saudi Arabia,a nation it said has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Mideast (this is teir idea of humour – RB). In a statement, the agency noted the move would not change the military balance in the region, where Usaian policy has long been for Israel to have a qualitative military edge (the famous QME, which is carved across the faces of all the presidents at Mount Rushmore – RB).
i have to reassert at this point, as always, that this is sheer misdirection (at which they’re very good)
Just to reiterate, the reality is as follows. A major crisis erupted between Usaia and Israel in May/June 2013, when Egypt’s then-Pres Morsi began building up MB forces in Sinai with the real goal of intervening in Gaza. Israel exercised its veto power over Usaian policy by bypassing Usaia altogether and directly ordering General Sisi to stage an army coup to remove Morsi, and following that, to as far as possible dismantle the MB in Egypt altogether. This naturally meant that Qatar, the main international sponsor of the MB, had to undergo a drastic curtailment of its freedom: the Emir of Qatar was deposed by his own son, who promised to submit all MB sponsorship to exact and rigid control by CIA and Mossad (each with a power of veto). It is not, of course, possible to destroy MB altogether; it is a multinational organisation almost a hundred years old, and the formula in all such cases is to control the organisation, not try vainly to obliterate it. But MB’s power to threaten Israel had to be absolutely destroyed, and so it was. Meanwhile, Bandar Bush, who had been supposedly dismissed from the Saudi leadership amid dark stories about the schemes of the Sudairi Seven, was brought back in, and his enormous covert organisation was renamed ‘Islamic State’ so as to add a third layer of deniability to its operations. The first layer is that Usaia pretends not to be able to control the Saudis; the second layer is that Saudi pretends not to be able to control Al Qaeda, and the third layer is that Al Qaeda pretends not to be able to control ISIS. But ISIS, like all its predecessors, is a covert tool of USraeli policy, and in general the term ‘USraeli’ can be justified by the fact that Usaian and Israeli utilisation of these pseudo-gangs of supposedly Usaia- and Israel-hating Jihadis, proceeds in total coordination. Both Usaia and Israel exercise effective vetoes over Bandar’s hemisphere-straddling schemes, with Israel exercising the ultimate veto even over Usaia itself. The simple test is, how often do any of these Jihadi outfits attack Jewish targets? And the answer is, virtually never. From time to time they stage media spectaculars, such as video’ed beheadings of Jewish captives in orange, Gitmo-style jumpsuits, accompanied by lurid speeches about Jews hiding behind trees. But all this is just fakery. They work for us. Never forget that. They work for us, the rulers of the entire world, the Elders of Zion, etcetera – RB
Obama blame of spy agencies over ISIS’ rise draws riposte
Mark Hosenball, Reuters, Sep 30 2014
WASHINGTON – Obama’s assertion that Usaian intelligence agencies failed to predict the rapid rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq drew a sharp riposte from several top Congress critturs and intelligence community members in Washington on Monday. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representative Intelligence Committee, said:
This was not an Intelligence Community failure, but a failure by policy makers to confront the threat.
Several current officials from the CIA and other agencies declined to publicly comment on the president’s statement. But privately, officials cited many warnings, some made public in Congressional testimony, which had spelled out the growing threat over the last year. Former intelligence officials objected to Obama’s statement. They suggested he was holding the spy agencies up as a scapegoat to mask what the president’s critics say was his own slowness to react to the danger. In an interview with the CBS 60 Minutes on Sunday, Obama quoted DNI Clapper as having “acknowledged that they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” Clapper had told WaPo’s David Ignatius earlier this month that Usaian agencies had underestimated the “will to fight” of ISIS and overestimated the fighting capability of the Iraqi army. However, Clapper also asserted that Usaian agencies did accurately report ISIS’ growing “prowess and capability” as well as “deficiencies” of the Iraqi military. He said:
It boils down to predicting the will to fight, which is an imponderable.
Adam Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said agency analysts clearly understood that ISIS was a growing threat. He said:
I don’t fault the intelligence community for this. There is a difference between providing valuable intelligence and having a crystal ball.
Rogers said in a statement:
For over a year, Usaian intelligence agencies specifically warned that ISIL was taking advantage of the situation in Syria to recruit members and provoke violence that could spill into Iraq and the rest of the region. In 2013, my committee formally urged the Obama administration to act to address the threat.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, quizzed repeatedly on what Obama meant in the CBS interview, said the president did not mean to cast blame on the Usaian intelligence community, and said he had a high degree of confidence in its abilities. Earnest conceded that Obama and the agencies had both underestimated the rise of ISIS. He said:
Predicting the will of foreign security forces to fight for their country is difficult, right?
Usaian agencies and some Congress critturs have over the last year issued many explicit warnings about the growing strength of ISIS, its expansion into Iraq, its apparent interest in moving on Baghdad, and the weakness of Iraqi security forces. Former senior Usaian intelligence officials said Obama and his policy advisors shared the blame for failing to spot the rapid and devastating advance of ISIS, which has drawn the Usaian military back to the region in a new air campaign. Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the region who has sometimes advised Obama on policy, said:
The intelligence community is always a convenient scapegoat for White House failures. If the President believes these are in fact intelligence failures then it behooves him to get new leaders to ensure there are no more such failures.
About Russia’s policy in the Donbass – Part #1
Colonel Cassad, Oct 2 2014 04:34
Detailed material about Russia’s policy in the Donbass. The first part will affect the period from February to June. First, remind the key materials for the future of Novorossia:
- “a Cunning plan” Putin
- “Ah, if he only knew…
- About the political background against Strelkov
- What is “Strelkov is sad”
- About the “workers’ Voentorg”
- The Contours of the “Big Transnistria”
And now about the whole situation. As mentioned in previous articles, the Kremlin’s policy in the matter of the civil war in Ukraine always had an ambivalent and inconsistent. Forced the Usaian coup in Ukraine and the overthrow of Yanukovych, forced Russia to move to a more active policy on the Ukrainian direction. The annexation of Crimea joint forces of the Crimean and friendly forces special operations”, was an unexpected move for Usaia & Euia, which are not expected from Russia so animated, and for the Russians, who in principle are accustomed to crackling patriotic rhetoric, but in general perceived it as part of some ideology, the lack of which Putin himself has repeatedly said. All this has created a real phenomenon, “Crimea is ours,” when Putin’s rating (not drawn, but real) exceeded 80% and the company emerged consolidated pro-Putin majority, that were forced to admit even open enemies of the existing regime. Were announced programmatic ideas (программные вещи) on the protection of compatriots, the restoration of historical justice. In February-March, Russia actually went to the counter at the Ukrainian direction, and rhetoric this time not inside the country. After the success of the Crimean spring, euphoria rose to unprecedented heights. Many people, for the first time after the end of Soviet times, felt a sense of ownership to something historical, grandiose. Many opponents of Putin in this period, publicly repented or openly expressed their support for Vladimir Таврическому (Putin – RB). And because it was not limited to the Crimea, the outbreak in the Crimea, the fire of rebellion against Usaian puppets in Kiev, crumbled тлеющими coals around the South-East of Ukraine, and if these sparks did not lead to fire, the Donbass struck in full force.
Of course, part of this explosion was the result not only of protest against the coup d’etat or local separatism, but the attempt of the local oligarchs to use the explosion to trade with Kiev on guarantees of power and property. The sovereign owner of Donbass through his people tried to act according to the formula “if you can’t win, then lead” (“Не можешь победить, возглавь”). But he didn’t know what kind of power he unwittingly released, getting tangled in their manipulation. The uprising quickly began to go out of control of Akhmetov, with Russian politics and Russian propaganda encouraged the ongoing fermentation. The paradox of Novorossia largely lies in the fact that unlike the Crimean separatism, local separatism was very weak and did not have broad support in society. But during the uprising, the idea of a purely virtual, unexpected for many, began to take shape. Gubarev appeared as the “people’s Governor of Donbass,” (a clean copy of “people’s mayor of Sevastopol” Chaly) and the idea is independence for Donbass began to gain supporters. As the junta had actually brought down the old state apparatus, the Donbass formed unique conditions, when a minor revolt around virtual ideas, quite rapidly evolved into a powerful separatist movement that had its roots precisely in the Donbass. Of course, it got recharged by the Russian volunteers, and inhabitants came Strelkov with their people, but it is very important to understand that without an internal basis, nothing in the Donbass could have even got started. Virtuality had become a reality in less than a month. The nature of this phenomenon is yet to be fully explored. On the wave of the Crimean euphoria, Russia openly approved of the processes taking place in the South-East, where massively hung Russian flags in anticipation that the Crimean script, which became the answers to Kiev coup again and there. It was in March-April actively promoted, including the official ideology of a Big Novorossia composed of regions of South-Eastern Ukraine, and in full compliance with the March statements of Putin, the Kremlin was ready to render various forms of informal support, and to bring in troops to protect the population of the South-East. Actively went for the respective services against similar Usaian services and their Ukrainian puppets. In key regions across the Russian border quite calmly on the territory of Donbass started to come first organized volunteers. Kiev rule was presented by official propaganda as criminal and illegitimate. This was necessary to justify continuing the line to create Novorossia.
The strengthening of the junta and the emergence in the Donbass of Usaian power units (the PMCs “Greystone” and “Akademi”), strengthening the work of the SBU to combat separatist structures and intelligence networks of Russian intelligence, ultimately translating confrontation into the power line, so as capturing a large part of Ukraine (losing the Crimea), the Usaians and their Kiev puppets came into the fight with the Russian Federation for control over the South-East. Shadow confrontation with Usaian intelligence recharged the junta and the Russian подпитывавших local separatists, gradually led the situation to the logical transition to an open violent opposition in early April. On the background of the murders in Kharkov, the stripping of local regional state administration and the beginning of arrests of activists in the cities of the South-East, rebellion began in Donetsk and Luhansk, where they captured the administrative buildings, and above all, the Lugansk HQ of the SBU, where were captured weapons of an entire motorized infantry battalion. On Apr 12 in Slavyansk, the group of Strelkov moving from Crimea (among those who then went to Donbass were such famous people as Beszler and Babai) captured the interior Ministry building. The revolt spread to Donetsk region, Akhmetov during this period, rapidly losing control over events, is at the forefront of national leaders, many of whom we know well by now. Fake clips of negotiations with Usaia cannot convince anyone that Akhmetov was what you needed in Donbass. Since the process is now controlled by Akhmetov, the junta announces ATO and at Slavyansk tied the first fights, a full-fledged war began. Across the cities of Donbass started rolling wave of свержений Ukrainian authorities. The common people begin to destroy the symbols of the Ukrainian authorities and to hang a new symbolism, creating militias. There began the process of складывания the new state, which from the very beginning contained a certain dualism: on the one hand it was like the people’s Republic, but on the other hand over them faced pressure upon the idea of Novorossia, which at that time was regarded as one of the possible options for reformatting of Ukraine.
If March was a month of onset of Russia, it is already April was largely critical. Planted in Dnepropetrovsk. Kolomoisky launched a flurry of activity to suppress separatist movements in this key region, ushering in the creation of punitive battalions, and finally made the inevitable civil war. The junta managed by terror and force to hold Kharkov, and began the suppression of separatist movements in Nikolaev, Zaporozhye and Odessa. Post-Crimean offensive, supported by society, waiting for new successes, beginning to slip on a purely objective reasons. The Kremlin to some extent reaped the fruits of their own policies in relation to the local Russian-speaking population, which over the years had been subjected to Ukrainization and did not have any systemic pro-Russian parties and movements to consolidate resistance to the junta. Unlike the Usaians, who for a year had launched a Ukraine organizational and information infrastructure for a future war, the Kremlin in this issue (when the game went on the whole in a left-wing direction) began disastrously behind in organizing the masses to realize their goals. Plus, affected fruit 23 years of educating young generations of Ukrainians in hatred of Russia. The Usaians also closely worked with this issue, unlike Russia. Illusions on the subject of Soviet ideas of friendship of peoples is already dead, sponsoring Ukraine even in its blatant anti-Russian demonstrations, relying on notoriously rotten Yanukovych, was unable to form any coherent and consistent strategy of Russia in the Ukrainian question, unlike the Usaians, who knew what they wanted to achieve there, how to achieve this, and at whose expense.
Of course, even not perfect Usaian line was more effective than timid attempts to bind to a Ukraine economic gifts or partially разворовываемые money to support pro-Russian movements. As a result, by the beginning of the war, among the “pro-Russian forces” were “class-alien” of the CPU, rotten “Party of regions” (which was a bad clone of the “United Russia” party) and hastily pumped by Russian money, the party of the former head of the apparatus Kuchma of Medvedchuk, which was especially symptomatic, taking into account the fact that the patron Medvedchuk dashed off a book “Ukraine is not Russia” and has done much to stifle the real pro-Russian organizations. In the end, against the background of highly amorphous population, permeated “хатаскрайничеством”, consumerism, and without even any serious organizational structures (Crimea there an exception to the rule), the Usaians and their puppets were able to rely on the already deployed infrastructure and trained to fight mass (trained in the camps of Nazi fighters and trained Euromaidan “hundreds”, which became the basis of future punitive battalions). In a nutshell, Usaia was far ahead of Russia in the deployment and the level of organization, and our country was in a state of catch-up, trying to play in a short time lapse of many years and even decades.
However, the available advantage of Usaia has not prevented them to lose the Crimea (this was not a cunning plan of Obama, but a serious miscalculation by Usaia during the interception of the power control process) and allow the Russian counter-attacks in the South-East. Despite the braking process, Russia has actively supported the development of the uprising in the Donbass, which should be the fuse, to speed up processes in other regions. In terms of the weakness of the junta, such a possibility was very real. But the slow pace of development of the uprising started to play a fatal role,and the junta, recovered with the help of the Usaians from the first shock, began preparations for the implementation of the power scenario in the Donbass. On the borders of Zaporizhzhe, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov oblasts began deployment of the blockposts, Izium was transformed into an advanced base preparing punitive operations, began the withdrawal of its troops from places of permanent deployment and mounted percussion group, in Dnepropetrovsk and Kiev were deployed Usaian information and intelligence staffs, coordinating punitive operations, the company was covered by dense information cap. The main purpose of the Usaians in these conditions was full capture of Donbass forces junta and the transition to a pretty easy fight for the Crimea, based on the occupied territory of Ukraine and its resources.
All this led first to the first collision, and then the first attempt to Slavyansk, who had the key values for the interception of communications troops of the junta covering the border and provided rich operational capabilities in the case of direct input troops. In fact, it was such a challenge for Strelkov and it is there he successfully solved. Fighting in the suburbs of Slavyansk and since the middle of April, showed the low quality of troops of the junta, who have suffered a shameful defeat by a small garrison of Slavyansk. Rate soared something that began with batons and shields on the Maidan, under Slavyansk has grown to APCS and helicopters. On Apr 20, the situation worsened, the junta was finally able to move forward the army, bringing to Izium a column of tanks backed by helicopters. Russia in this time spent “teaching” at the border and the beginning of the massing of troops directly on the border. On Apr 24, a meeting of the National Security Council took place in the Kremlin, where the issue was discussed whether to make the troops in accordance with the existing document from the Federation Council and public obligations to protect the local population. On the border was concentrated to 40,000 soldiers and officers, up to 1,200 units of armoured vehicles and up to 800 artillery systems, not including aircraft and helicopters. It was decided not to enter troops, but the junta saw the beginning of the movement, got scared and columns of technicals began the retreat. Then the junta did not have a clear understanding of how to behave with Russia in case of the outbreak of war. The reasons for refusal of the troops were quite prosaic: in addition to the braking pace of development of the uprising, Usaia and its satellites began to spin the sanctions noose, throwing it around the neck of the Russian economy, which is firmly inscribed in the global economic model dependent on Washington, and to promote it began with the Crimea, so those who think that the sanctions are the result of Russian policy in the Donbass and that it’s only necessary to back down there to take them off, are deeply mistaken. Sanctions will maintain their chokehold on Russia until it surrenders the Crimea and abandons its policy in Ukraine.
At the same time went the strongest political pressure on the authorities and the Russian capital, which was openly threatening new cold war, black lists and confiscation of property. Putin, despite attempts to present him as absolute monarch, is of course nothing of the sort; he is merely a spokesman for the Russian elite consensus or as it is called by Gubanov, “the pact of comprador stability” (I highly recommend reading this article). Having a stable political system and balancing the interests of big Russian capital, security officials and bureaucrats, Putin concentrated in their hands and the hands of his environment considerable power, with which he began to conduct foreign policy in the interests of the Russian and not Usaian imperialism. His Munich speech, the war in Ossetia, Russia’s interference with Usaia on the Syrian issue, the annexation of Crimea, all these reflected a simple thing: Putin was and remains dependent on global capital in economic issues (building combination with crude oil for roubles or projects associated with the BRICS reflect attempts to achieve greater independence in the global economic scenario and to escape from the economic dictates of Usaia), but in political attempts to conduct its own line, which was perceived by Usaia not as easy Keeper over a dependent country, but as an unfortunate misunderstanding, and then a dangerous obstacle that we need to resolve, as they had eliminated the autocrats of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA – RB). Therefore, it routinely has intensified as the external pressure on Putin and the military-political establishment and its agents of influence within the government and the opposition in Russia.
Political pressure on Putin, through diplomatic channels, supplemented by pressure on the circles, the balance of which he provides. First of all it concerns the bureaucracy has economic interests abroad and comprador financial and commodity capital, which is tied to the global market. As a result of this increasing pressure, Putin continued to perform its basic function-balancing of elite interests, resulting from the offensive line, which resulted from the Crimean spring), Russia refused. Was selected intermediate line to support the uprising in the Donbass, to protect annexed the Crimea, but from the open troops to withdraw and try to shy away from direct confrontation with the West. That is: what’s yours is yours, and what’s ours is ours (и вамим и нашим). The balance of interests must be respected. But Usaia of course not satisfied with this, and feeling a weak spot, started hammering away. There was launched a powerful information campaign in support of the fascist junta and demonization of Russia, and Putin personally. Along the way, tied to the global capital of the Russian system, the liberals began to openly threaten that the confrontation threatens the interests of big business that sanctions will lead to this recession (without any casuistry Medvedev government on this account) and the Cold War 2.0 with Usaia. This movement combines the conglomerate Russian oligarchs and Family members (Friedman, Aven, Voloshin and so on), and related bureaucracy (Surkov and Co), as well as their media services (like Kurginyan now called the “sixth column”. Traditional fifth column in the person of street liberal party, headed by political bodies Nemtsov, Kasyanov, and others, became an element of pressure on the government through the streets to demand from the Kremlin, not just concessions, and total surrender. As a fallback to replace Putin, Usaia began to sculpt the image of “the future national leader” of Khodorkovsky, who in the spring went to Ukraine as “the representative of Russia”, trying unsuccessfully to pacify Donbass.
Of course actions both reflect Usaian interests in the struggle for Ukraine. Usaia has activated its resources influence in the Russian Federation with the purpose of providing adjustment of the pressure at the official rate and this question made her, forcing Russia to abandon the offensive line in the Ukrainian question. When in conservative circles say that Putin began during the Crimean spring a revolution from above, they are partly right, since the annexation of Crimea was a step which from the point of view of the current system was truly revolutionary, but this “revolution”, about which there have been so many conversations, did not lead to the elimination of systemic factors of Usaian influence on Russian politics. If the Crimean Spring be regarded not only as a historic reunion of the Crimea with Russia, but as a revolution from above, trying to avoid a revolution from below, or more likely the “revolution from abroad”, at this stage, this “revolution” was left unfinished and here you will see why. While the official propagandists like the old man toiled in the sweat of explaining to the public why it is not necessary to move troops. If the decision to deploy troops was made on Apr 24, they would with the same zeal argue the opposite. In May, with the whole society frightened by the horrors of confrontation with Usaia and persuaded to agree to future major sacrifices in order to avoid even greater ones, the liberal press was screaming about the dangers of the Cold War with the West, and the official propaganda of the beginning of the braking process of information support of the rebellion, was even target-setting to reduce the display of the horrors of Donbass. Foreign pressure had increased, and after a number of meetings of Putin and Lavrov with Burkhalter and Kerry, the junta received assurances from the Usaians that at the beginning of the war, Russian troops will not be entered. All this naturally led to the transition to the next stage. Odessa’s “Khatyn massacre” more brutally killed hundreds of people, the May assault on Slavyansk shamefully failed, with dozens of dead junta soldiers and several downed helicopters, then there was a bloody massacre in Mariupol on Victory Day. The Kremlin found themselves hostage to the already made decision, and were forced to swallow all of this.
The refusal of the troops under Usaian pressure on business, began to destroy the post-Crimean pro-Putin majority, as for concessions in foreign policy he had to pay internal costs. The meme “Putin merged” (surrendered – RB), established in May-June, became one of the symbols of dissatisfaction with the official policy of the Donbass. You have to understand that this was partly the information campaign against Putin, and partly real and objective, existing discontent in society, when people do not agree to live by the principle “Blessed are those that give” (“Лопай что дают”). In this regard, the concessions of the Kremlin under external and internal pressure and the consequences of these concessions, objectively will be used against Putin. In fact, the thus prepared the change of power in the country, when Usaia will be able to gather on the street not just frozen and not very popular liberals, but also dissatisfied patriots, having pulled out from under regime one of its pillars, and combining this traffic with the activity of intra-elite agents of influence, to arrange the replacement of inconvenient Manager (Putin – RB) at their leisure. This option will obviously suit and “fifth” and “sixth” column, but is unlikely to suit the population, which at best will just stay an extra in the redistribution of property dependent on Usaia, and at worst will plunge into a new depression, where there will not be any of the Bolsheviks, who would be the country got out and brought in a sense. To Putin, in which case not tried to rely on those same patriots or guardians, not дуболомов in the style of “What can I do for you”, and those who seriously want to keep the existing system, they are now actively sell-out, they say they are preparing “Maidan in Russia”. In fact, such attacks on various guardians and patriots and provoke further collapse of the pro-Putin majority and to prepare the proverbial “square” (Bolotnaya Square, the “Moscow Maidan” – RB) in the center of Moscow. The intent of this happens or stupidity, not so important. From the point of view of Usaian interests, this is a very handy script that they will undoubtedly use. Compelling concessions on Novorossia serves as a catalyst for discontent in patriotic environment that attempts multiplied by the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in the country under the load of the current problems and sanctions press. By the end of June, this script started becoming more obvious.
While the continued reconfiguration of the information space, political concessions did not end. Russia was forced to recognize the legitimacy of the fascist junta and agree to the appointment of Petro Poroshenko as President of Ukraine in the course of a rigged election. Selecting a rate for the relief of a conflict which had turned into a direct confrontation with Usaia and its satellites, Russia hastily tried to stop the processes of an emerging new State (or States) that was (or were) institutionalising a conflict that already in May had begun to seem extremely undesirable. From the people’s Republic(s), the Kremlin began a recommendation to require to postpone the referendum on independence, but the process had gone too far and it was unstoppable. As a result, there appeared the unrecognized semi-virtual state(s) DND and LNR, and Moscow was in an ambivalent position when the inertia of the previous strategy prevented her from stopping the conflict within the framework of changed priorities. Her attempt to avoid conflict had failed.
In May-June, the junta launched its first large-scale offensive in the Donbass, capturing a significant amount of DND and LNR territory. This contributed to a more active participation of the APU and the help from the Usaians in the development of punitive action. Usaia has supplied non-lethal goods (shape, body armor, helmets, rations, special equipment), instructors and specialists in intelligence, UAVs, information specialists and satellite provision. However, the junta could not achieve complete victory. The flow of volunteers and humanitarian aid from Russia, provided the minimum necessary to start the process of developing the army of Novorossia, which began to show the results in June, when disparate groups began to develop into the first battalions. At the same time, a fairly substantial amount of aid from the “Voentorg” as a continuation of the dual line between the refusal of troops and reluctance to surrender Novorossia, even in truncated form, as the internal consequences would be too dire. An attempt was made to keep going during the entire war on the brakes, concluding the first truce. This was to no avail, as the truce was used by the junta to mount trike groups for a July offensive. The junta openly talked about this, that they would use the truce to prepare for future war, and thereby the position of Russia was even more discredited. Usaia openly supported this behavior by the junta, as it expected that Russia will be forced утереться and swallow the destruction of DND and LNR. Here in July and August was awaiting some surprise.
The LNR and DND lost a lot of time in this period, starting a full state and military construction, through Donetsk began separate negotiations with representatives of major financial capital of the Ukrainian oligarchs. Volodin, who had been appointed in the spring as curator of the Ukrainian direction on behalf of Surkov, openly supported this line of folding up the war, which too clearly started to hit the wallets of the “fat cats”. Negotiations with Akhmetov resulted in the June submission of Mariupol and an attempt to surrender Donetsk in July. Negotiations with Kolomoisky failed, he too sat tight under the usaioans. While Strelkov struggled in Slavyansk against superior forces, for he had already prepared himself for a “heroic death”, accompanying this with the ridiculous excuse that “When Strelkov is sad, it’s good.” By this time, Strelkov already knew that he couldn’t hold Slavyansk, so giving up this important transport hub, he solved the problem of defending the DND by retreating to Donetsk, giving the Republic some extra time to become stronger. But the time it won Strelkov was poorly spent. For two months, the Donetsk jailbirds not only not bothered to take the airport (a shameful attack under the leadership of Khodakovsky ended in one of the biggest single losses for the militia during the entire war), as well as to discourage the junta from building a tank warehouse in Artemovsk and stockpiling weapons in Soledar. Sent from Russia Boroday, and held in Donetsk leaders like Putilin, were shown to be ineffective as statesmen. Ridiculous ideas on the subject of the Constitution, throwing with nationalization, the failure to provide in Donetsk elementary order, theft of humanitarian supplies, activities in Donetsk of structures subordinate to the fascist junta, all this led to the discredit of the political structures in DND. In society was gradually raising the question about what is happening, but the belief that the authorities know what they are doing, was still strong. The Slav epic inspired hopes that Novorossia is organized and would push back the junta to the Dnieper, all the more so as leaders of the militia openly said that they would overcome all problems in the defense and go to Kiev. But the fact was that Strelkov was “sad”, and his work ended “sadly”. But the fruits backstage fuss Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy, as well as the activities of the so-called “fifth” and “sixth” columns in Russia, led to the hardest of the July crisis, when the fascist junta tried to feed Usaia, to drown Novorossia in blood and wipe it off the political map.
(To Be Continued)
Two days in frontline intelligence
A documentary by Alexander Buzaladze (full version, 2014, 15 mins)