- How The US Swindled Russia In The Early 1990s
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Due to a historic data-dump on December 10th, the biggest swindle that occurred in the 20th Century (or perhaps ever) is now proven as a historical fact; and this swindle was done by the US Government, against the Government and people of Russia, and it continues today and keeps getting worse under every US President.
It was secretly started by US President George Herbert Walker Bush on the night of 24 February 1990; and, unless it becomes publicly recognized and repudiated so that it can stop, a nuclear war between the US and all of NATO on one side, versus Russia on the other, is inevitable unless Russia capitulates before then, which would be vastly less likely than such a world-ending nuclear war now is.
This swindle has finally been displayed beyond question, by this, the first-ever complete release of the evidence.
It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt (as you’ll verify yourself from the evidence here), that US President G.H.W. Bush (and his team) lied through their teeth to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (and his team) to end the Cold War on Russia’s side, when the US team were secretly determined never to end it on the US-and-NATO side until Russia itself is conquered.
And this swindle continues today, and keeps getting worse and worse for Russians.
Until now, apologists for the US-Government side have been able to get away with various lies about these lies, such as that there weren’t any, and that Gorbachev didn’t really think that the NATO issue was terribly important for Russia’s future national security anyway, and that the only limitation upon NATO’s future expansion that was discussed during the negotiations to end the Cold War concerned NATO not expanding itself eastward (i.e., closer to Russia) within Germany, not going beyond the then-existing dividing-line between West and East Germany — that no restriction against other east-bloc (Soviet-allied) nations ever being admitted into NATO was discussed, at all. The now-standard US excuse that the deal concerned only Germany and not all of Europe is now conclusively disproven by the biggest single data-dump ever released about those negotiations.
The release on December 10th, by the National Security Archives, of a treasure-trove of all the existing documentation — 33 key documents — that’s been made available to them from numerous archives around the world, and brought together finally for the very first time complete and in chronological order, makes crystal clear that the American apologists’ lies about the lies WERE lies, not accurate accounts of the history, at all.
The assemblers at the National Security Archives assume that the numerous and repeated false promises that were made by Bush’s team were mistakes, instead of as what they so clearly were (but you’ll judge it here for yourself): strategic lies that were essential to Bush’s goal of America ultimately conquering a future isolated Russia that would then have little-to-no foreign allies, and all of whose then-existing-as-Soviet allied nations within the Soviet Union itself, and beyond, including all of its former Warsaw Pact allies, would have become ultimately swallowed up by the US-NATO bloc, which then would be able to dictate, to a finally alone nation of Russia, terms of Russia’s ultimate surrender to the US That view (which the National Security Archives documents to be clearly true, even as it denies it and says that only Bill Clinton and subsequent Presidents were to blame) is now exposed irrefutably to have been the US plan ever since GHW Bush’s Presidency.
In other words: This release of documents about the turning-point, provides capstone evidence that the US never really had been in the Cold War against communism; the US was instead aiming ultimately to be the imperial nation, controlling the entire planet.
For America’s Deep State, or what President Eisenhower famously warned about as the “military-industrial complex,” the Cold War was actually about empire, and about conquest, not really about ideology at all. This also had been shown, for example, by America’s having assisted so many ‘former’ Nazis to escape and come to America and to be paid now by the US Government. After World War II, the top level of the US power-structure became increasingly taken over by the military-industrial complex, America’s Deep State, so that increasingly the US Government is in a condition of “perpetual war for perpetual peace” — a warfare state and economy: fascism.
Here, then, are highlights from this historic data-dump, presented in chronological order, just as in the release itself, and with a minimum of added commentary from myself [placed in brackets], but all stripping away here the dross of accompanying inconsequentials, and leaving only the golden steady core of stunningly successful American deceit of Russia. These are those highlights, from the data-dump, which the National Security Archives headlined “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard” and sub-headed “Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner,” so that the swindlers (or as the National Security Archive view them as having instead been blunderers) can become immediately recognized and known.
All of these documents pertain to negotiations that occurred throughout the month of February 1990, and a few relate also to the immediate aftermath. That’s the crucial period, when the geostrategic reality of today (which all the world now know to be a continuation of the Cold War, but this time against only Russia, and not against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact) was actually created.
At the negotiations’ start, West Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s agent, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, stated publicly to the whole world, West Germany’s initial offer to the Soviet Union’s President Mikhail Gorbachev, and this offer did not include a simultaneous termination of both military alliances — the Soviets’ Warsaw Pact and America’s NATO — but instead only a promise that NATO would never absorb any additional territory, especially to the east of West Germany (and this publicly made promise was never kept). So: right from the get-go, there was no actual termination of the Cold War that was being proposed by the US group, but only an arrangement that wouldn’t threaten Russia more than the then-existing split Germany did (and yet even that promise turned out to have been a lie):
Document 01
US Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His Vision of a New European Architecture.
1990-02-01
Source: US Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829
“This US Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s proposals – that NATO would not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other NATO territory.”
Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State’s Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
1990-02-06
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990.
“The US State Department’s subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts, mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR.” [The National Security Archives’ calling that Bill-Clinton-era State Department cable ‘mistaken’ is unsupported by, and even contradicted by, the evidence they actually present from the February 1990 negotiations.]
Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about “Forum for Germany” meeting in Berlin.
1990-02-06
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library
“This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War’s architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that Central and Eastern European leaders attending the ‘Forum for Germany’ conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and US presence in Europe.”
Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: US Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
“Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, ‘A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.’”
Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: US Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
“Even with (unjustified) redactions by US classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous US assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: ‘The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process’ of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, ‘We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.’”
Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
1990-02-09
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.
“The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer ‘a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.’ … Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that ‘neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,’ and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that ‘not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.’”
Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.”
“This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been speaking beyond his brief in his ‘not one inch eastward’ conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates was the top deputy to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated approach by the US government to Gorbachev.”
Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90
“Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev’s noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with pledges against eastward expansion.”
Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
“Prepared by Baker’s letter and his own foreign minister’s Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, ‘We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.’ Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Gorbachev commenting, ‘They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: What is the WTO without the GDR?’ When Kohl disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for ‘reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations’ and says this part of the conversation should not be made public.”
Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
“Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: ‘And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.’”
Document 10-2
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 12, 1990.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
“This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze’s view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted.”
Document 10-3
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 13, 1990.
1990-02-13
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
“Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement. … ‘During the day, active games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,’ and finally, the text of the settlement was settled.”
Document 11
US State Department, “Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points.”
1990-02-21
Source: State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.
“The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the bottom lines for the US, mainly membership in NATO.”
Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-20
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
“Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the US presence in Europe.”
Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-21
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
“Bush’s request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that ‘We will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying “we win, you lose.” Emphasizing the point, Bush says, ‘tell Gorbachev that … I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.’ The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, ‘It is a question of prestige.’”
[I think that Havel was deceived to believe that “prestige” was the issue here. This is what the US team wanted the Soviet team to think was the US team’s chief motivation for wanting NATO to continue. But subsequent historical events, especially the US team’s proceeding under President Bill Clinton and up through Donald Trump to expand NATO to include, by now, virtually all of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself except for Russia, in NATO, proves that US aggression against Russia has been the US aim from the start, and the US Government has been working assiduously at this plan for ultimate conquest. I think that Havel’s use there of the word “prestige” was very revealing of the total snookering of Gorbachev that Bush achieved. Gorbachev and his team trusted the US side. Russia has paid dearly for that. If the US side continues and NATO isn’t voluntarily terminated by the US Government, then WW III will be the inevitable result. NATO will end either after the ‘conquest’ of Russia or before that WW-III ‘conquest’ (likelier to be actually destruction of the entire world) even happens. The world, today, will decide which. NATO should have ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact did.]
Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
1990-02-24
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
“The Bush administration’s main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO membership. … The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without [West German Foreign Minister] Genscher because the latter does not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[11] … Bush’s priority is to keep the US presence, especially the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: ‘if US nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don’t see how we can persuade any other ally on the continent to retain these weapons.’ … [Bush wanted Lockheed and other US weapons-makers to continue booming after the Cold War ‘ended’ — not for the nuclear-weapons market to end. Bush continued:] ‘We have weird thinking in our Congress today, ideas like this peace dividend. We can’t do that in these uncertain times.’ [For the US team, ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’ would be the way forward; a ‘peace dividend’ was the last thing they wanted — ever.] … At one point in the conversation, Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters against Germany staying in NATO, he says: ‘To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.’” [I earlier had placed that crucial secret statement from Bush into historical perspective, under the headline, “How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West”.]
Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
1990-04-06
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
“Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the US presence in Europe and German unification in NATO. He declares that he wants to ‘contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.’ The Soviets — wrongly — interpret this as a declaration that the US administration shares Gorbachev’s idea.”
Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: “Secretary of State’s Meeting with President Gorbachev.”
1990-04-11
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
“Ambassador Braithwaite’s telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev’s ‘expansive mood.’ Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for Margaret Thatcher’s letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that ‘the British and Soviet positions were very close indeed.’”
Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
1990-04-18
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
“This memorandum from the Central Committee’s most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even ‘depression after the March 18 elections in East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. ‘Summing up the past six months, one has to conclude that the “common European home,” which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to implement, is now turning into a mirage.’ While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO, Falin notes (correctly) that ‘the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements among themselves’ regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a ‘long phase of constructive development.’ He notes the West’s ‘intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies’ with the goal to isolate the USSR. … He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking advantage of Soviet flexibility. … The main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his American partners: ‘The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step, separating us from “traditional Europe”.’”
Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, “My meeting with Shevardnadze.”
1990-05-04
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 – June 1990 [3]”
“Baker reports, ‘I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.’”
Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-05-18
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1
“When Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that reveals much about the real US position on the subject: ‘It’s nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. …’ Gorbachev suggests that if the US side insists on Germany in NATO, then he would ‘announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.’ Shevardnadze goes further, offering a prophetic observation: ‘if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.’”
Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
1990-05-25
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
“[Miterrand] implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is ‘personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs.’ Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about US effort to ‘perpetuate NATO’.” [This was extraordinary documentation that the US team had deceived Gorbachev to think that they were trying to suggest to him that both military alliances — NATO and Warsaw Pact — would be ended, but that Gorbachev was “wary” and “suspicious” that maybe they didn’t really mean it. Stunning.]
Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
1990-05-25
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files
True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev’s predicament on the issue of German unification in NATO, calling it genuine, not ‘fake or tactical.’ He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without Gorbachev’s consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier – suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal ‘peace settlement in International law,’ and informs Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he “‘indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.’”
Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
1990-05-31
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[12]
“Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev’s preferred position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact — the ‘two anchors’ — creating a kind of associated membership. Baker intervenes, saying that ‘the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack of schizophrenia.’ After the US president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that the German people have the right to choose their alliance — which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the future: ‘If the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.’ It is a remarkable admission about domestic political pressures from the last Soviet leader.”
Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
1990-06-08
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office
“Gorbachev says he wants to ‘be completely frank with the Prime Minister’ that if the processes were to become one-sided, ‘there could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.’ Thatcher responds firmly that it was in nobody’s interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: ‘we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured.’”
Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
1990-07-15
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
“This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: ‘We must talk about the nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain transition period.’ The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already begun transforming itself. For him, the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet willingness to compromise on Germany.”
[Of course, Gorbachev never knew that Bush had instructed his agents, on the night of 24 February 1990, “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat,” indicating that for the US aristocracy, conquest of an isolated Russia was the actual ultimate aim — there would be no actual end of the Cold War until the US would conquer Russia itself — grab the whole thing. Gorbachev was, it is now absolutely undeniable, conned.]
Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
1990-07-17
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
“In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl’s security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: ‘So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.’”
Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
1990-11-02
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files
“the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – ‘special military status’ for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a ‘minute’ that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word ‘deployed’ should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the ‘minute’ was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the ‘spirit’ of this Final Settlement treaty.”
[Obviously, now, it was no “Final Settlement” at all.]
Document 26
US Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
1990-10-22
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files,
“Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that ‘[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for the continuance of NATO.’ At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests that ‘In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the US that these states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees.’ The United States does not ‘wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border’ – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War confrontation, NATO ‘out of area’ functions will have to be redefined.” [Clearly, they wanted the revolving door to land them in high-paid positions supported by US weapons-making corporations, not just in retirements with only military pensions. Or else, they just loved war and, like Bush, didn’t want there to be any “peace dividend.”]
Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for October 29 Discussion.
1990-10-25
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files
“This concise memorandum comes from the State Department’s European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the document’s summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD ‘wishes to leave the door ajar’ while State ‘prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda….’ The Bush administration effectively adopts State’s view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration.”
[This allegation, by the National Security Archives, fundamentally misrepresents, by its underlying assumption that the Bush Administration’s statements such as that NATO would move “not one inch to the east” weren’t lies but instead reflected Bush’s actual intention. They ignore altogether Bush’s having secretly told his vassals on the crucial night of 24 February 1990, “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.” Gorbachev believed that this was to be a win-win game; but, the US side were now under secret instructions that it’s to be purely more of the win-lose game, and that now a lone Russia would end up being its ultimate loser. The despicable statement by the National Security Archives, “yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration,” presumes that it didn’t actually already ‘prevail’ in the Bush Administration itself. It prevailed actually in George Herbert Walker Bush himself, and not only in his Defense Department. Bush brilliantly took advantage of Gorbachev’s decency and expectation that Bush, like himself, was decent. Bush lied — and his team and their successors ever since have been carrying out his vicious plan. The National Security Archives downplays to insignificance Bush’s crucial instruction to his people, “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.” That statement, at that crucial moment, is what enables us to understand what was actually going on throughout these negotiations. The Archives’ blaming only Bill Clinton and the other Presidents after Bush is a despicable lie. And it wasn’t just “the Defense view” — Cheney — who prevailed within the Bush Administration there. Cheney, like Baker, were doing what GHW Bush had hired them to do. Baker’s job was to lie. If it weren’t, then he’d have told Gorbachev the next day not to trust what the Bush team were saying, but instead to demand everything to be put in writing in the final document, and to assume the worst regarding anything that the Bush team were refusing to put in writing in the final document. Baker was a lawyer, and a very skilled liar, who was just doing his job for Bush. For some inexplicable reason, the National Security Archives simply assumes otherwise.]
Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
1991-03-05
Source: Rodric Braithwaite personal diary
“British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major’s visit to Moscow and right after his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO dynamics: ‘Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.’ Major responded: ‘I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO.’”
Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
1991-04-27
Source: US Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016
“These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the ‘education of Vaclav Havel’ on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2 above). US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on ‘The Future of European Security,’ on April 24-27, 1991. During the conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel, Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. … In conversation with Dobrovsky, Wolfowitz remarks that ‘the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago.’“
Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
1991-07-01
Source: State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1
“This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening. The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to meet NATO’s leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns. Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: ‘The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.’ Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion — ’13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view’ — and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.”
- Considering Faking Your Own Death? Then The Philippines Is The Place For You
The technical term is pseudocide – a fancy word that means, essentially, “faking your own death."
Hundreds of thousands of Americans – some struggling with seemingly insurmountable debt burdens or are being hounded by the IRS after stiffing the tax man – have probably fantasized about faking their own deaths. But few understand just how easy it is to – um – execute such an ambitious, if legally precarious, plan.
That’s where purveyors of so-called “death kits” come in. Few westerners are aware of its existence, but there’s actually a thriving cottage industry based in the Philippines, where investors can purchase all the tools they need to fake their own deaths for the surprisingly low price of about 350 pounds (about $500).
Of course, the scheme has several macabre elements. The process involves buying an unclaimed corpse from one of the many morgues in the Philippines where the bodies of John and Jane Does are stored.
According to the Telegraph, many customers who choose this route are desperate Wall Street bankers seeking to escape debt, and men having affairs who want to leave their families.
The Philippines has long been cited in official statistics as the foreign location with the highest number of American tourist deaths. But many of these fatalities are actually fraudulent, the result of desperate westerners faking their own deaths.
Take Elizabeth Greenwood, who “died” as a tourist in the Philippines in 2013. Multiple spectators witnessed her crash her rental car into another vehicle on a busy road in Manila, and doctors at the local hospital pronounced Greenwood dead on arrival – or so her death certificate would have you believe…
Greenwood, who was inspired to fake her own death by her ballooning student debt, is now working as a journalist in New York City after deciding at the last minute that she didn’t want to go through with the scheme.
She first stumbled upon the idea during lunch with a friend who joked about it after she finished ranting about the colossal size of her student debt. But the joke got her thinking. So she started Googling.
“I began poking around online and discovered that death fraud truly is an industry with a whole host of experts and consultants to help you go through with it, and that there are far more people than you might imagine who had done it themselves, with varying degrees of success,” Greenwood explains.
She eventually stumbled on a Wall Street Journal article from the 1980s that referenced “a southeast Asian country” where morgues pick up the bodies of derelicts and freeze them to help customers commit death fraud for insurance purposes.
Greenwood then discovered two elite private investigators, Steven Rambam and Richard Marquez, who consult for life insurance companies seeking to stamp out death fraud.
“Again and again, they named the Philippines as a hotbed for the kind of theatrical death fraud that involves false corpses,” she adds. “They sniff out life insurance fraud all over the globe – it is attempted everywhere – but they told me some memorable stories about cases they’d worked on in the Philippines, so I wanted to check it out myself."
The cost of death fraud can vary widely. A fake death certificate from the Philippines generally costs anywhere in the region of £100 to £350. Some will pay upwards of £20,000 to hire a professional fixer who will help them scratch their trail as they move forward with a new identity.
During a week-long stay in the Philippines, Greenwood found a pair of locals there who obtained a fake death certificate for her from a mole working inside a government agency. All the witness accounts were fake, and there was never a fatal traffic accident as outlined on the papers.
She never crossed the line and actually filed the documents with the US embassy.
“My death certificate sits encased in a plastic sheath at the bottom of my filing cabinet,” Greenwood states.
The difficulty of feigning one’s death depends on the purpose of the fraud. If one is trying to cash in a life insurance policy, then the fraud will require a body and an accomplice, since, without a body, most insurers will wait seven years before paying out a claim. This is why the cottage industry of fake morgues has sprung up.
Some fraudsters might go to the lengths of staging a funeral for their dummy corpse and filming it to submit to the insurance company, she adds, but in most cases, this is an unnecessary flourish.
If insurance fraud isn’t your ultimate aim, then the process of faking your death will be exponentially easier.
“If you’re not committing life insurance fraud, you needn’t go to all the extra trouble,” Greenwood told the Telegraph. “Staging a more open-ended, elegant escape, like disappearing while on a hike, usually looks more believable to investigators."
While insurance companies typically hire private investigators to sniff out death fraud, few cases are ever prosecuted, particularly if they were committed on foreign soil. Often, the only punishment for death fraudsters is their insurance claim being denied.
Greenwood cites one example of a German woman who faked her death and whose fraud remained undiscovered for two decades.
When German authorities discovered she was alive in 2015, after being presumed dead since 1985, the only penalty she shouldered was the trouble of filling out the paperwork necessary to declare herself still alive.
Death fraud happens “constantly”, Greenwood said adding that she detected a spike in cases around the financial crisis.
But while faking one’s death on foreign soil is easier than many believe, the reasons people get caught are also simpler than many might assume.
Particularly if an accomplice is battling it out with an insurance company, fraudsters are typically caught when they try to reach out to loved ones or their parents.
As it turns out, even if they’re dead on paper, many people just can’t cut the ties to their old lives.
- Putin Warns: Foreign Powers Are Trying To Meddle In Russia's Affairs
Perhaps because he fears retaliation for his government's deliberate – and unsubstantiated – interference in last year's US presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin is apparently worried that foreign powers might interfere in Russia’s upcoming federal election. So, nearly a year after US intelligence agencies first blamed Russia for conspiring against their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and throwing the vote to Trump, Putin is ordering Russia’s security services to “erect a safe barrier” to prevent foreign powers from meddling in federal elections set for March.
In a speech to security and intelligence personnel on Wednesday, Putin urged everybody in attendance to work tirelessly to try and prevent foreign influence from creeping into Russian society and politics, according to Russia Today.
Putin’s request, which is an obvious, if indirect, sleight against the US despite the recent “collusion” between US and Russian intelligence that helped prevent a terror attack in St. Petersburg.
“There is a great responsibility on the intelligence services to erect a safe barrier against external meddling in our social and political life, and to counteract the work of foreign security agencies, which are doing all they can to ramp up their level of activity in Russia,” Putin said.
Russia’s security services should also remain alert as terrorists from Muslim-majority areas of the former Soviet Union return home, and try to carry out attacks in densely populated urban centers.
“Agents must work to destroy the financial and recruitment networks, and to prevent radicals from influencing youths, and spreading the ideology of hate, intolerance, and also aggressive nationalism,” he said.
Earlier this year, Putin said that up to 7,000 Muslims from the former Soviet Union, primarily from predominantly Muslim regions in the Caucuses and Central Asia, had flown to Syria and Iraq to join Islamic State. Since Syrian Army forces – aided by Russian troops and aircraft – drove ISIS out of Syria, many of its former foreign fighters have tried to sneak back into their home countries.
- Who Feels the Tax Sting
Now that the massive new tax bill has passed, I thought I’d do a little experiment with a spreadsheet to see how a hypothetical Silicon Valley, California earner might be affected. I was sure his tax bill would be higher, but I am surprised at how much higher.I wouldn’t be surprised if some people decided not to stay in their homes since their tax bite is so substantial.
I will preface this by saying I’m not a tax expert, but I’ve got a pretty good understanding of taxes, and I put together a deliberately simplistic spreadsheet for this experiment. And while it may be simplistic, it still makes a powerful point, and the tiny amount of rounding error for an actual tax form won’t change the conclusion.
In this examination, I make the following assumptions:
- The individual earns a very handsome salary of $500,000
- He bought a $3 million house in Palo Alto (which is going to be a pretty decent but not opulent home). He has a $1 million mortgage at an interest rate of 4%.
- He pays property tax of 1.2%
- His state income tax rate comes in at 10% (California is actually 13.3%, but I’m making it a little lower to take into account lower income levels aren’t taxed as highly)
- His blended federal income tax rate is 30% (again, the actual highest rate is 37%, which is the new rate, reduced from 39.6%, but for this experiment, I’m moving it down quite a bit)
So here is the spreadsheet. I want to stress this is extremely simplified (hey, almost a tax return on a postcard!) but here we go:
In the left column, which is “pre-reform”, this person has state income tax and property tax totaling $98,000, which he can used to offset income for the purposes of calculating federal income tax. In the right column, he is limited to $10,000. So suddenly he’s got an extra $88,000 in income which is taxed that wasn’t taxed before.
He’s already limited to deducting only the first $1 million of his mortgage, but even that drops down to $750,000 (we’re assuming his home purchase was after 12/15/2017, when the law changes).
So, in the end, his federal tax bill is $29,400 higher than it was. That isn’t small. That’s a nice new car. Or a year’s tuition at a private school. And it sure as hell isn’t tax “relief.”
Now some of you who live in places with lower (or no) state income taxes or inexpensive real estate may be thinking, “Awww, fuck ’em, those rich Californians.” But this isn’t some scumbug Goldman Sachs managing director who is making tens of millions of dollars.
I also don’t have a personal ax to grind here. I bought my house so long ago, so cheaply, and I owe so little on it, that none of this applies to me personally. However, I think hardly any of those affected have any CLUE what is about to hit them. There is an enormous tidal wave heading toward huge masses of professionals in states like California, Washington, and New York that are about to have the rug pulled out from under their feet.
But, hey, what am I complaining about, with reassurances like this coming from the White House:
Oh, and since I’m in the Silicon Valley…….
Our poor hypothetical taxpayer has one more indignity to suffer: between (1) rising interest rates (2) the loss of deductibility in state income taxes (3) the reduction of deductibility in mortgage interest (4) the loss of deductibility in property taxes…………..his house is going to sink in value as it dawns on people how badly they’ve been screwed. So on top of massively higher expenditures to pay federal taxes (after all, SOMEONE has to pay for Bob Corker’s tax cuts!), he’s making payments on a diminishing asset.
Congratulations, America. You’re not even sure what’s hit you yet.
- 'Pentagon Papers'-Leaker Warns, US Is "Close To Nuclear Armageddon"
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon papers which exposed the government’s lies during the Vietnam war is vocalizing a warning. He says the United States is really close to a nuclear Armageddon.
Ellsberg, now 86-years-old, leaked the Pentagon papers back in 1969 and he’s now got a new book out which serves a warning to those who care to listen.
According to the Daily Mail, Ellsberg’s 7,000-page report was the WikiLeaks disclosure of its time, a sensational breach of government confidentiality that shook Richard Nixon’s presidency and prompted a Supreme Court fight that was supposed to advance press freedom.
In his new book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Ellsberg details how easy nuclear bombs can be triggered and shot off on a false alarm – and that the president isn’t the only who can launch the nukes, as we are often told.
Low-level military commanders are capable of launching nuclear weapons too…
“All out-nuclear war – an irreversible, unprecedented and almost unimaginable calamity for civilization and most life on earth – has been, like the disasters of Chernobyl, Katrina, the Gulf oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, and before these, World War I, a catastrophe waiting to happen, on a scale infinitely greater than any of these,” writes Ellsberg in his new book.
Adding to fears of a nuclear armageddon is North Korea’s insistence on building a nuclear weapon. This has created a mass panic in nations all around the globe. Not to mention, last month, President Donald Trump put North Korea back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, a designation that allows the US to impose more sanctions and risks inflaming tension over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.
North Korea then denounced Trump’s decision to relist it as a state sponsor of terrorism, calling the move a “serious provocation and violent infringement,” as the rogue nation sentenced the US president to death, saying he “hurt the dignity” of the “supreme leadership.” All of this is alarming, according to Ellsberg, who believes a nuclear war can be started simply by a false alarm.
Nuclear bombs “are susceptible to being triggered on a false alarm, a terrorist action, unauthorized launch or a desperate decision to escalate,” Ellsberg wrote in his book.
“They would kill billions of humans, perhaps ending complex life on earth. This is true even though the Cold War that rationalized their existence and hair-trigger status – and their supposed necessity to national security – ended 30 years ago.”
Many US citizens falsely believe that only the US president, in this case, Donald Trump can order the use of nuclear weapons. But Trump isn’t the only military commander authorized to launch nuclear weapons, according to the New York Post.
“There has to be a delegation of authority and capability to launch retaliatory strikes, not only to officials outside the Oval Office but outside Washington too,” Ellsberg wrote.
Ellsberg says that the only way to avoid a nuclear holocaust is full disarmament by the United States and Russia.
“The risk that one city will be destroyed by a single (perhaps terrorist) weapon in the next year or the next decade cannot, unfortunately, be reduced to zero,” Ellsberg writes.
“But the danger of near-extinction of humanity – a continuous possibility for the past 65 years – can be reduced to zero by the dismantlement of most existing weapons in both the United States and Russia.”
- In Unexpected Move, Trump Enacts Obama-era Law Opening US Arms Sales To Ukraine
After years of covert American involvement in the Ukrainian proxy and civil war which has raged since 2014 – and which a leaked recording confirmed was precipitated by the US State Department – President Trump has decided to come off the fence regarding his prior reluctance to formally approve arms sales to the Kiev government. Late Wednesday the Washington Post first reported the bombshell news that after months of indecision over whether or not to move forward with Obama-era legislation which initially paved the way for legalizing US arms sales to Ukraine, Trump has approved the first ever US commercial sale of weapons to the war-torn country.
According to The Washington Post, "administration officials confirmed that the State Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at $41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces. There has been no approval to export the heavier weapons the Ukrainian government is asking for, such as Javelin antitank missiles."
Image via News FrontThough WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again "unexpectedly" in charge?
Going back to nearly the start of the conflict, the US and EU have leveled increasingly harsh sanctions on Russia – first on individuals, companies, and banks – and then on Russian defense and energy sectors operating in relation to the Crimea. The US has long accused Russia of destabilizing the former Soviet republic along its southwest border, while Moscow credits American and European with engineering the Euromaidan coup in order to weaken Russian influence and suppress Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine's east.
Congressional anti-Russia hawks have long sought greater long-term military engagement along Russia's European border, especially after the May 2014 referendum which saw the pro-Russian Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk declare independence from Kiev. And though Congress originally authorized weapons sales via the Ukraine Freedom Support Act signed into law in December 2014, the Obama administration never made the decision to actually follow through on the legislation.
Senator Bob Corker is one such original co-sponsor of the legislation, who told the Washington Post concerning Trump's decision to move forward, “I’m pleased the administration approved the sale of defensive lethal arms to Ukraine.” And he added, “This decision was supported by Congress in legislation that became law three years ago and reflects our country’s longstanding commitment to Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian aggression.”
Concerning the impetus behind internal White House deliberations to move on the issue, the Washington Post reports:
Another senior Trump administration official said that Trump personally approved the decision to allow the issuing of the license after being presented a decision memo by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. While there was never a formal ban on such weapons transfers, the decision was discussed internally as a lifting of the de facto Obama administration restrictions, the official said.
And while somewhat soft-peddling the significance of the decision in terms of on the ground escalation in Ukraine, WaPo admits that this likely means the floodgates are now open on multi-national weapons exports to Ukraine, especially as it coincides with a similar measure approved by Canada earlier this week. The WaPo report continues:
“We have crossed the Rubicon, this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be coming,” said one senior congressional official. It’s likely no mere coincidence that Canada also approved lethal defense sales to Ukraine this week, which would happen only if the Canadian government knew the United States was on board, the official said.
The Trump administration notified leading congressional committees of the sale on Dec. 13 but didn’t make any public announcements, which some say reflects the sensitivity of the decision and concern about how it will be received by Trump supporters who long opposed the move, as well as by Putin.
Meanwhile, as the Washington Post also affirms, fighting in eastern Ukraine is heating up after a period of relative Western media silence on the war. And likely with this announcement it will return to the media spotlight.
During the presidential campaign Trump appeared to take a more conciliatory tone on the Ukraine and Russia issue, repeatedly stating that he would work with Putin to resolve the crisis while at the same time he resisted Republican efforts to include more aggressive language endorsing lethal assistance to Ukraine as part of the GOP platform.
- These Are The 12 Most Disaster-Prone States In America
Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,
No matter where you live, there’s always a possibility that a disaster might occur in any of the states. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, wildfires…Mother Nature can get you regardless of your location. And it isn’t just Mother Nature we have to worry about – things like chemical spills, terror attacks, and explosions can also create a disaster scenario.
But, 12 states, in particular, are more disaster-prone than others and have had more than their fair share of disasters declared by presidents over the decades. These statistics are from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and only encompass crises in which an official declaration of disaster was made.
These 12 states are the most disaster-prone.
If you have been thinking, “Wow, it seems like there sure are a lot more disasters lately than there were before” you’re absolutely right. In some areas, as you’ll see, the disasters have tripled since the original article I located that was written only four years ago. The original list of disaster-prone states I found was on the Bankrate website and was published in 2013, but since then, there’s been a shocking uptick in disasters, with a number of previously less affected states bumping out some of the top 10 of 2013.
In reverse order of the number of disasters, here are the dozen states that have been hit the most since the 1950s.
#12) Arkansas: 70 Disasters Declared
58 disasters in 2013
This state has had more than its fair share of disasters from heavy rain, snow, ice, tornadoes, and massive flooding. Snow and ice are a tremendous problem there when they do happen because it’s so rare that the municipalities aren’t prepared with the correct equipment to deal with them. One particular ice storm in 2009 knocked the power out for nearly a month for some parts of the state. The New Madrid fault lies in the eastern part of the state, leaving it vulnerable to a potentially massive earthquake.
#11) Oregon: 73 Disasters Declared
not on the list in 2013
Oregon has dealt with numerous fires and floods, some severe storms, and even a tsunami. The Cascadia Subduction Zone puts the state at risk for an extremely serious earthquake one of these days.
#10) Kentucky: 74 Disasters Declared
56 disasters in 2013
Variety also reigns in Kentucky, with disasters declared for landslides, mudslides, rockslides, flooding, blizzards, and tornadoes. As well, in 1981, a chemical explosion rocked the sewers of Louisville.
#9) Louisiana: 75 Disasters Declared
60 disasters in 2013
Who can think of Louisiana without thinking of Hurricane Katrina? The storm killed more than a thousand residents, and it is far from the only one to hit the state. Flooding and severe storms are also issues in Louisiana.
#8) Alabama: 79 Disasters Declared
58 disasters in 2013
Alabamas issues have all come from the weather. Not only do they have to contend with hurricanes, but they’ve also been devasted by some of the worst tornadoes in America.
#7) Colorado: 80 Disasters Declared
Not on the list in 2013
Wildfires have been a serious issue for this mountainous state, followed by flooding and severe storms. It’s important to note that in the years after a wildfire, landslides and flooding frequently occur because the soil is no longer anchored by trees and brush.
#6) New York: 93 Disasters Declared
68 disasters in 2013
New York has been hit with everything from tropical storms to hurricanes to floods to blizzards. Notably, Hurricane Sandy devastated New York City and Long Island, leaving some residents without power for more than 3 months. Of course, on Sept. 11, 2001, planes hit the Twin Towers in a devastating terror attack.
#5) Florida: 122 Disasters Declared
67 disasters in 2013
Surprisingly, the number one disaster in Florida has been fires. Unsurprisingly, tropical storms and hurricanes make up another larger portion of disasters for the southernmost state in the USA. (Hurricane Irma recently caused a lot of damage.) A few hard freezes have also caused a state of emergency, particularly affecting citrus growers. As you can see, disasters since 2013 have nearly doubled for Florida.
#4) Washington: 132 Disasters Declared
Not on the list in 2013
Washington state has risen quickly on the disaster scale over the past few years, skyrocketing due to the number of wildfires, floods, and landslides. They’ve even had a volcanic eruption, Mount St. Helens, in 2008. Like Oregon, they’re also on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which means that a very serious earthquake could occur in the state.
#3) Oklahoma: 167 Disasters Declared
75 disasters in 2013
Oklahoma gets an average of 55 tornadoes PER YEAR, and one recent twister was clocked at more than 300 miles per hour. Other disaster declarations have involved severe winter storms, wildfires, floods, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. With the fracking-induced uptick in earthquakes, it’s not out of the question that the state could be hit with a major quake one of these days. The disasters in this state have more than doubled since 2013.
#2) California: 250 Disasters Declared
79 disasters in 2013
Having lived there for 5 years, I can confirm that the state is a death trap. Disasters have been declared for earthquakes, wildfires, landslides, flooding, winter storms, severe freezes, and tsunamis. Poor infrastructure maintenance makes each disaster worse, as roads crumble (or open up with sinkholes) and dams break after heavy rains. (Remember Oroville?) And who can overlook the severe 5-year drought the state just dealt with? The disasters in California have tripled since 2013.
#1) Texas: 254 Disasters Declared
88 disasters in 2013
Barely edging out California, Texas has a declared disaster just about once a year. They range from tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and coastal hurricanes. One non-weather related disaster they suffered was when a fertilizer plant exploded in 2013 and we just witnessed the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey as well as its deadly aftermath. This state has also seen disasters nearly triple in the past 4 years.
How disaster-prone is your state?
If you want to check the disaster statistics for the state where you live, go here and select your state from the drop-down box. You’ll be provided with the reasons why declarations were made and can click around to explore further.
It isn’t always practical to just say “MOVE” when someone lives in an area that is more likely to suffer a disaster. While that is a popular refrain from many who live in areas that are less at risk, we all have reasons we live where we do. Maybe we have family members for whom we have responsibility who are not willing to relocate. Perhaps we have good jobs or our children are in school. Maybe we’re upside-down in our mortgage and can’t sell our homes. Moving just isn’t always an option, but that doesn’t mean you have to be a victim.
Knowledge of what the most likely possibilities are for your area is power. It means that you can get prepped for the things that could target your home. For example, if you live in an area prone to flooding, you can take steps to make your supplies more water resistant through packaging and where you store them. If you live in an area with frequent tornadoes, you can build a sturdy shelter and stock it well. Those in hurricane-prone areas should keep supplies on hand for boarding up windows and riding out a power outage. Everyone should have emergency food and water supplies and be prepared for a power outage.
So, how does your state measure up?
- Netflix Subs On Verge Of Surpassing All Cable Viewers
According to a new industry report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, cord-cutting momentum has never been greater in the US, as the number of Americans who are subscribed to cable TV is now tied with the number of Netflix subscribers, and the latter are set to surpass the former.
The PwC survey included 1,986 Americans, ages 18-59, with an annual income above $40,000. The survey found that 73% subscribe to a traditional Pay-TV service, down from 76% in 2016 and 79% in 2015. 73% of respondents said they subscribe to Netflix, which is the same number of people subscribe to Pay TV. 82% of respondents said they would trim their Pay TV if access to live sports were cut.
While cord-cutting is hardly new, in the last 3 years its momentum has accelerated, and as traditional Pay-TV subscribers decline, “cord cutters”, “cord trimmers”, and “cord nevers” grow at an accelerating pace.
As PwC notes, a streaming explosion is occurring at all ages (18-59) for the 2017 year, but especially with people 50-59 years old, where 63% said they stream TV content versus just 48% last year. The number is not exactly surprising seeing how Netflix has been producing more content to rope in older audiences. Last week, Nielsen reported that more than half of viewers for the British historical drama The Crown are over 50.
Despite the rapid growth of streaming platforms, customers show signs of content overload:
Consumers are showing signs of being overwhelmed. While respondents indicate they have four services on average—including Pay TV and digital services—they only watch about two of those services on a regular basis. Just a quarter of consumers say they can handle using more than four services in addition to Pay TV. Looking for content only adds to the burden—a notion we analyze in depth in our sister Consumer Intelligence Series publication on content discovery.
PwC also appears to have called the bubble in the streaming space:
Having too many options might mean limited growth for incumbents and new entrants alike—the #1 reason for ending a subscription is “I didn’t use it enough” (29%). With all the energy and resources required to keep up with subscriptions and content, appreciation for the ease of Pay TV grows. Pay TV solves many of the issues that surround streaming, creating a relaxed and efficient viewing process. Pay TV spin-offs that can provide viewers with the best of both worlds are poised for success.
As the balance of power of shifts from cable to streaming platforms such as Netflix, PwC makes the interesting observation that we are approaching a saturation point amid the glut of streaming content which is becoming self-defeating and could hurt rather than help the streaming industry. And while it would lead to reduced churn, it would also be welcome news to NetFlix which is spending billions of dollars each year on content. How this tension is resolved remains to be seen. Until then, however, the great migration from TV to streaming will continue.
- A Review Of The Most Disturbing Events Of 2017
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
With events like the British vote to leave the EU, the peak of the mass Muslim immigration into Europe, the "surprise" (for some people) upset win of Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election and the subsequent leftist riots, it may be difficult to top the absolute geopolitical and social mayhem of 2016. However, when examining recent history and ongoing trends, it's important to understand that these shifts are often cumulative; they tend to build upon each other like sheets of ice on a mountainside, storing up energy for a great avalanche.
We witnessed what I would consider a moderate build up and "avalanche" in the economic world in 2008, and of course this merely set the stage for an evolving form of fiscal collapse for the ten years that followed. This time around though, that ongoing collapse will surface in the form of currency crisis and treasury bond crisis, as well as all the international tensions and conflicts that come with these financial atom bombs. If I was to define the year of 2017 and its place in the grand scheme, I would say it represents the moment that the path became obvious for the next decade, at least for those that have been paying attention.
There have been some incredible revelations this year, things that will change the face of global economics and international relations, but most them have gone unnoticed in the mainstream overall. Here are just a few of the earth shattering events that will lead to unprecedented instability in 2018, probably through to the year 2030.
Coup In Saudi Arabia
I outlined the implications of this powder keg in the Middle East in considerable detail in my articles 'Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Diminishing Petrodollar' and 'Saudi Coup Signals War And Global Economic Reset'. But, I don't think that the gravity of the situation is being taken seriously by very many people yet.
The rise of prince Mohammed Bin Salman to the status of dictator in the Saudi government is disturbing enough. That said, let's not forget some of the most important details. For example, Salman's "Vision For 2030," which includes the decoupling of the Saudi currency system from the U.S. dollar (perhaps sooner than many predict), thereby killing the petrodollar relationship that has sustained the U.S. economy for decades. And, the fact that Salman has the extensive backing of globalist corporations like The Carlyle Group, Goldman Sachs and Blackrock through his Public Investment Fund (PIF). This indicates a blatant support by international financiers for the eventual death of the dollar's world reserve status, yet very few people have dared to mention it.
Along with Prince Mohammed's banker-boosted rise to power, turmoil in the region is inevitable. It is clear that a new large scale war in the Middle East is intended. War rhetoric is heating up by the Saudis against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran. War propaganda out of the oil kingdom is becoming laughably overconfident, to say the least. Just take a look at this video widely spread by the Saudi media.
Crisis in Saudi Arabia, just as with crisis in Syria, will change the face of the region forever, and it will have far reaching consequences around the globe as the U.S. dollar's petro-status is placed on the chopping block.
Russia Pulling Troops Out Of Syria, Leaving Assad Vulnerable
I have been warning for years about the false East/West paradigm and I think the reality of it is finally starting to set in with many liberty activists as behavior on the part of Eastern "saviors" falls right in line with what the globalist banking syndicate desires.
For example, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which so many people claimed was going to "bring down" the establishment power structure is now working directly with the establishment power structure through World Bank and the IMF. China is now the flagship nation for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket system and has openly called for a global currency controlled by none other than the IMF.
In 2017, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan became the top investment banks in Russia. Rothschild and Co. firms continue to operate in Russia as they have for at least a decade uninterrupted, despite all the nonsense we hear in the activist sphere that Putin "booted out all the bankers."
This along with a veritable mountain of evidence led me to suggest recently that an invasion of Syria by either Saudi Arabia or their recently revealed ally Israel could be used to draw Iran into conflict. I also suggested that Russia would step aside if the globalists deemed it advantageous. And suddenly, we have Russia announcing that the war on ISIS is over and a "significant portion" of troops will be pulled out over the coming months. This leaves their ally Assad rather vulnerable and makes little sense unless you understand that this is not about Russia, Assad or East versus West. This is about geopolitical theater, and the show must go on. Act three appears to be expanded widespread war in the cradle of civilization, and the Russians are opening the door for this to happen.
North Korean ICBM launch
Tensions with North Korea are going to continue if not explode going into 2018, and the primary reason is the recent ICBM test launch by Pyongyang. One of the mainstream arguments against war in North Korea was that their missile technology was not sufficient enough to pose a threat to the U.S. mainland and that a U.S. military response would be extreme as well as disastrous for everyone involved given the minimal threat North Korea poses. This rationale has now been erased, perhaps conveniently for the neo-con warhawks advising the Trump administration.
North Korea's missile and nuclear tech has made an astonishing quantum leap in 2017 (It's almost as if they've been getting help…) and their latest ICBM has the capability to strike the Eastern U.S., or almost anywhere else in the world for that matter. So, for American citizens in particular, the threat suddenly becomes more personal. Any major U.S. city could see a quarter of its population vaporized in a flash and another quarter killed by radiation exposure in due course. With images of mushroom clouds dancing in their heads, Americans, who are predominantly tired of war after nearly two decades in the sandbox farce, now have a reason to cheer for yet another one rather than argue against it.
All that is left is a little "push" to motivate the U.S. populace to take that first terrible step into the abyss of an Asian mountain conflict.
China Leaves The Door Open To Regime Change In North Korea
It's amazing how a few carefully placed words in a major geopolitical statement can leave the door open to considerable calamity. The state-owned Global Times is quoted as saying China will not allow regime change in North Korea by the U.S., but, if North Korea attacks first, then China will remain neutral. This to me is perhaps the most astounding statement made by the Chinese government since they called for a world currency controlled by the IMF.
The message is clear — North Korea is on the table, it is not going away and a false flag or provocation is likely. When this occurs, China has already established that it will not intervene, which means there is no political deterrent. Yes, another example of how the East/West paradigm between governments is as fraudulent as the Left/Right paradigm is between top politicians, but also an extremely disturbing development. This would indicate that a conflict in the region is near at hand, and for those that understand the strategic obstacles in North Korea, at least a decade long quagmire would follow along will millions of civilian deaths.
Federal Reserve Reducing Its Balance Sheet
The final stage of the Fed's program to pull the rug out from under stock markets has arrived. Interest rates continue to be increased, and I hope liberty activists will finally be able to accept the fact that these hikes will continue and that the Fed does not care about the continued bull market in equities or the continued support of U.S. bonds. The results of Fed tightening are slow, to be sure, but effects have also been obscured for months now by yet another distraction — namely the Trump tax reform bill.
Trump's bill has been acting as a placebo for markets going into the end of 2017, mostly because the assumption among investors is that corporations will use the profits from tax cuts for continued stock buybacks. For those unaware, it has been stock buybacks fueled by no-interest Fed loans that has allowed for the seemingly endless stock market bull rally the past few years. This is essentially open manipulation of equities by corporations coordinating with the central bank. However, with interest rates rising even marginally, the billions (if not trillions) of dollars required to sustain such a rally are no longer affordable. They must be free in order to be exploited.
The Fed's balance sheet rise corresponds almost exactly with the explosion in the Dow Jones. If the correlation continues, then it only follows that the Dow will fall as the balance sheet is reduced. Faith in Trump's bill to prop up stocks is misplaced, and the rally is purely driven by blind assumption. It would take at least a couple of years of tax cycles before tax cuts could be utilized effectively to fund buybacks, and the effect would be nowhere near comparable to that produced by zero cost fed capital.
The Rise Of The Cryptocurrency Psyop
What is interesting and also most suspicious in the sudden "explosion" in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology like Bitcoin is that the actual market volume and individual trading interest in these digital products is still rather small, yet, the global mainstream media promotion of crypto has been massive; almost unprecedented. Is perception driving demand? Is demand driving perception? Or, is it really that an all out mainstream branding campaign supported by international banks is driving perception and thus artificial demand? I think the latter option is the most likely given the evidence.
I have written extensively on the "Virtual Economy" being created by globalists using crytpocurrencies as a flagship in my articles 'The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin' and 'The Virtual Economy Is The End Of Freedom'. The extensive establishment interest in crypto and the blockchain certainly refutes the farcical notion that these products are somehow a threat to the international banks. But beyond this, the rise of cryptocurrencies outlines a rather obvious trend being engineered for the next decade. Clearly, globalists want a cashless society with zero anonymity for the serf class, and this system is set to launch subversively in the next year.
Crypto is potentially the most disastrous development in 2017, exactly because so many liberty activists see it as as tool for decentralization when it is really a tool for total centralization. Many are beginning to wake up to the reality that crypto is not what activists thought it was years ago, but is this too little too late? Crypto means the death of the real decentralized and private economy as humanity begins to abandon localization and person to person transactions for a digitized phantom economy completely dependent on internet based trade under constant surveillance. If left unchecked, economic independence, localization and individual production will be crushed under the weight of the crypto-psyop, just as sound money was crushed under the weight of the central banking fiat psyop.
When historians look back on 2017, they will say that this year was the beginning of the end of the greatest economic bubble of all time, as well as the beginning of the full-spectrum digital economy and the last vestiges of fiscal independence.
To be sure, there have been many more events this past year with wide ranging implications for the future, but I felt that those listed above would have the largest impact over the longest period of time. 2017 has been a year for subversive foundation building and the lighting of geopolitical fuses. 2018 will likely be a year of actions and consequences.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...