Thursday, November 3, 2022

Who’s Afraid of US Troops in Ukraine?

undefined

Very innocuously, the Biden Administration has ‘sensitised’ the world opinion that American troops are indeed present on Ukrainian soil in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood. Washington made a “soft landing” with an unnamed senior Pentagon official making the disclosure to the Associated Press and the Washington Post. 

The official gave an ingenious explanation that the US troops “have recently begun doing onsite inspections to ensure” that Ukraine is “properly accounting” for the Western weapons it received. He claimed that this was part of a broader US campaign, announced last week by the State Department, “meant to make sure that weapons provided to Ukraine don’t end up in the hands of Russian troops, their proxies or other extremist groups.” 

In effect, though, President Biden is eating his own word not to have ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine under any circumstances. There is always the real danger that the clutch of Americans on tour in Ukraine may come under fire from the Russian forces. In fact, the US deployment comes against the backdrop of intense Russian missile and drone attacks currently on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. 

Plainly put, wittingly or unwittingly, the US is going up the escalation ladder. So far, the US intervention involved deployment of military advisors to the Ukrainian military command, supply of intelligence in real time, planning and execution of operations against Russian forces and allowing American mercenaries to do the fighting, apart from steady supply of tens of billions of dollars worth weaponry. 

The qualitative difference now is that the proxy war may turn into a hot war between the NATO and Russia. The Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu said today at a joint board meeting of the Russian and Belarusian defence ministries that the number of NATO forces in Eastern and Central Europe had risen by two and a half times since February and might increase further in the near future.

Shoigu underscored that Moscow understands fully well that the West is pursuing a concerted strategy to destroy Russia’s economy and military potential, making it impossible for the country to pursue an independent foreign policy. 

He flagged that NATO’s new strategic concept suggested moving from containing Russia “through forward presence” to creating “a full-scale system of collective defence on the eastern flank,” with the bloc’s non-regional members deploying troops to the Baltic countries, Eastern and Central Europe, and new multinational battalion tactical groups being formed in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. 

It may not be a coincidence that Washington acknowledged the presence of its military personnel in Ukraine at a point when the Russians have alleged the participation of British intelligence in the recent sabotage act on the Nord Stream pipelines and the drone strikes on Saturday at the base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

There are grey areas, historically speaking, in the so-called “special relationship” between the US and the UK. The chronicle of that relationship is replete with instances of the tail wagging the dog at critical moments. The point is, interestingly enough, on the attack on Sevastopol, Moscow is pointing the finger more at the MI6 operatives than at Kiev. (here and here)

The US-UK calculus was originally to get the Russians bogged down in a quagmire in Ukraine and to incite an insurrection within Russia opposing ‘Putin’s war.’ But it failed. The US sees that over 300,000 trained ex-military personnel from Russia are being deployed to Ukraine for launching a major offensive to end the war in the coming 3-4 months. 

That is to say, the roof is coming down on the entire edifice of lies and deceptive propaganda that formed the western narrative on Ukraine. The defeat in Ukraine could have disastrous consequences for the US’ image and credibility as a superpower not only in Europe but on the global stage, undermine its leadership of the transatlantic alliance and even disable NATO. 

Curiously, however, it cannot be lost on Washington that even at this juncture, Moscow is nudging Kiev to resume the negotiation process. In fact, in a significant development on Tuesday, Ukraine gave written guarantees to the joint coordination centre in Istanbul (comprising Turkey, Russia and the UN) that the humanitarian corridor and Ukrainian ports designated for the export of agricultural products for military operations will not be used henceforth against the Russian Federation. Kiev assured that “the maritime humanitarian corridor will be used only in accordance with the provisions of the Black Sea Initiative and the related JCC regulation.”

In retrospect, the Biden Administration made a terrible mistake in its estimation that the war would lead to a regime change in Russia following a collapse of the Russian economy under the weight of western sanctions. On the contrary, even the IMF admits that the Russian economy has stabilised. 

The Russian economy is expected to register growth by next year. The comparison with the western economies that are sinking into high inflation and recession is far too glaring to be missed by the world audience. 

Suffice to say, the US and its allies have run out of sanctions to hit Russia. The Russian leadership, on the other hand, is consolidating by pushing ahead with the shift to a multipolar world order challenging the US’ century-old global dominance.

Fundamentally, it is the capitalist system itself which is responsible for this crisis. We are currently suffering under the effect of the longest and deepest crisis the system has known since the redivision of the world that took place in World War II. The imperialist powers are once again preparing for war to redivide the world in the hopes of getting out of their crisis, much as they prepared prior to World War II. 

The big question is what Russia’s response is going to be. It is all but certain that Moscow hasn’t been caught by surprise at the revelation in Washington regarding the presence of US troops in Ukraine. It is highly unlikely that Russia will resort to knee-jerk reaction. 

The so-called ‘counter-offensive’ by Ukraine has fizzled out. It made no territorial gains or any significant breakthrough. But the Ukrainian military suffered heavy casualties in the thousands and huge losses in military equipment. Russia has gained the upper hand and it is conscious of that. All along the frontline, it is becoming evident that the Russian forces are steadily seizing the initiative.

Neither the US nor its NATO allies are in a position to fight a continental war. Therefore, it will be entirely up to the American troops moving around in the steppes of Ukraine auditing the US-made weaponry to stay out of trouble and keep their body and soul together. Who knows, the Pentagon may even decide to work out a ‘deconfliction’ mechanism with Moscow, as in Syria!

That said, seriously, from the Russian perspective, the auditing of US weaponry on Ukrainian soil per se may not be a bad thing. There is real danger that the weapons supplied by the US may reach Europe and turn that beautiful manicured garden into a jungle (like Ukraine or America) — to borrow the stunning metaphor used by Josep Borrell, EU’s foreign policy chief, recently.

Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline.

from Who’s Afraid of US Troops in Ukraine?

Destroying Western Values To Defend Western Values

undefined

So it turns out the US intelligence cartel has been working intimately with online platforms to regulate the "cognitive infrastructure" of the population. This is according to a new investigative report by The Intercept, based on documents obtained through leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, on the "retooling" of the Department of Homeland Security from an agency focused on counterterrorism to one increasingly focused on fighting "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation" online.

While the DHS's hotly controversial "Disinformation Governance Board" was shut down in response to public outcry, the Intercept report reveals what authors Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein describe as “an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms” in order to "curb speech it considers dangerous":
According to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target 'inaccurate information' on a wide range of topics, including 'the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of US support to Ukraine.'
The report reveals pervasive efforts on the part of the DHS and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), along with the FBI, to push massive online platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to censor content in order to suppress "threats" as broad as fomenting distrust in the US government and US financial institutions.

"There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use," The Intercept reports.

"Emails between DHS officials, Twitter, and the Center for Internet Security outline the process for such takedown requests during the period leading up to November 2020," says The Intercept. "Meeting notes show that the tech platforms would be called upon to 'process reports and provide timely responses, to include the removal of reported misinformation from the platform where possible.'”

While these government agencies contend that they are not technically forcing these tech platforms to remove content, The Intercept argues that its investigation shows "CISA’s goal is to make platforms more responsive to their suggestions," while critics argue that "suggestions" from immensely powerful institutions will never be taken as mere suggestions.

“When the government suggests things, it’s not too hard to pull off the velvet glove, and you get the mail fist,” Michigan State University's Adam Candeub tells The Intercept. “And I would consider such actions, especially when it’s bureaucratized, as essentially state action and government collusion with the platforms.”
The current CISA chief is seen justifying this aggressive government thought policing by creepily referring to the means people use to gather information and form thoughts about the world as "our cognitive infrastructure":
Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media. “One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” said Easterly, speaking at a conference in November 2021.
Another CISA official is seen suggesting the agency launder its manipulations through third party nonprofits "to avoid the appearance of government propaganda":
To accomplish these broad goals, the report said, CISA should invest in external research to evaluate the 'efficacy of interventions,' specifically with research looking at how alleged disinformation can be countered and how quickly messages spread. Geoff Hale, the director of the Election Security Initiative at CISA, recommended the use of third-party information-sharing nonprofits as a 'clearing house for trust information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda.'
But as a former ACLU president tells The Intercept, if this were happening in any government the US doesn't like there'd be no qualms about calling it what it is:
“If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages,” noted Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, “there is no doubt we would call it censorship.”
Indeed, this report is just another example of the way western powers are behaving more and more like the autocracies they claim to despise, all in the name of preserving the values the west purports to uphold. As The Intercept reminds us, this business of the US government assigning itself the responsibility of regulating America's 'cognitive infrastructure' originated with the "allegation that Russian agents had seeded disinformation on Facebook that tipped the 2016 election toward Donald Trump." To this day that agenda continues to expand into things like plots to censor speech about the war in Ukraine.
Other examples of this trend coming out at the same time include Alan MacLeod's new report with Mintpress News that hundreds of former agents from the notorious Israeli spying organization Unit 8200 are now working in positions of influence at major tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon (just the latest in MacLeod's ongoing documentation of the way intelligence insiders have been increasingly populating the ranks of Silicon Valley platforms), and the revelation that The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté were barred from participating in a Web Summit conference due to pressure from the Ukrainian government.

We're destroying western values to defend western values. To win its much-touted struggle of "democracies vs autocracies", western civilization is becoming more and more autocratic. Censoring moreTrolling morePropagandizing moreJailing journalists. Becoming less and less transparentManipulating information and people's understanding of truth.

We're told we need to defeat Russia in Ukraine in order to preserve western values of freedom and democracy, and in order to facilitate that aim we're getting less and less free speech. Less and less free thought. Less and less free press. Less and less democracy.

I keep thinking of the (fictional) story where during World War II Winston Churchill is advised to cut funding for the arts to boost military funding, and he responds, "Then what are we fighting for?" If we need to sacrifice everything we claim to value in order to fight for those values, what are we fighting for?

Dissent is becoming less and less tolerated. Public discourse is being more and more aggressively disrupted by the powerful. We're being shaped into the exact sort of homogeneous, power-serving, tyrannized, propagandized population that our leaders criticize other nations for having.
If the powerful are becoming more tyrannical in order to fight tyranny, what's probably actually happening is that they are just tyrants making up excuses to do the thing they've always wanted to do.

As westerners in "liberal democracies" we are told that our society holds free speech, free thought and accountability for the powerful as sacrosanct.

Our leaders are showing us that this is a lie.

The problem with "western values" is that the west doesn't value them.

In reality, those who best exemplify "western values" as advertised are the ones who are being most aggressively silenced and marginalized by western powers. The real journalists. The dissidents. The skeptics. The free thinkers. The peace activists. Those who refuse to bow down to their rulers.

Our ongoing descent into tyranny in the name of opposing tyrants calls forth a very simple question: if defeating autocracy requires becoming an autocracy, what's the point of defeating autocracy?

Reprinted with permission from Caitlin's Newsletter.
Support the writer on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal.

from Destroying Western Values To Defend Western Values

Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Some State Governments Say ‘No’ to Coronavirus Shots Mandate for Students Despite CDC’s Childhood Vaccine Schedule Change

undefined

In October, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee voted to add yearly experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule. Many state governments have a history of looking to this CDC schedule to guide their imposing of shots mandates for students.

Which states will follow along to mandate the newly added shots? As we start the month following the committee’s vote, it is good to take a look across the country to see what different state governments have done to protect against or welcome the CDC schedule’s addition of these yearly shots that have proven to be neither safe nor effective and that are asserted to target a threat that has been long known to pose a miniscule risk of serious sickness or death for children. Young adults in college have also tended to be at very low risk, though you wouldn’t know it from the draconian policies many universities imposed in the name of countering coronavirus.

Compounding the absurdity and detestability of including the coronavirus shots in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is that the much-hyped coronavirus that people were worried about during the coronavirus scare is long gone. What is not gone is the risk of serious sickness or death from the shots.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo advised well when he posted the following at Twitter last week:
Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.
Unfortunately, when faced with a shots mandate for school attendance, many parents may, against their better judgment, give in to the pressure and authorize their children being given the shots. Older students at universities that have more commonly imposed coronavirus shots mandates since last year have faced similarly terrible pressure to take the shots.

The good news is that, according to tracking by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 21 state governments have taken at least some action to prohibit mandating coronavirus shots for students.  Still, even where state governments have taken action against mandated coronavirus shots for students, there is in many cases room to make that protection against pushing these shots on students both stronger and broader.

Check out NASHP’s map of America where you can see information regarding states standing up against or supporting mandated coronavirus shots for students. Put the cursor over a state to find out some details regarding a particular state’s policy on mandating the shots.


from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2022/november/02/some-state-governments-say-no-to-coronavirus-shots-mandate-for-students-despite-cdc-s-childhood-vaccine-schedule-change/

Rumble Says "Non!' To French Government Censors, Pulls Out Of Country

Faced with French Government demands that free-speech video platform Rumble censor Russian news channels, the company's CEO simply said "no." No more Rumble for France. It's a brave example of how to resist "cancel culture." Also today: US weapons to Ukraine continue to end up in the hands of criminals. And: Anti-sanction parties surge in Germany and Austria - is the backlash gathering steam? Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2022/november/02/rumble-says-non-to-french-government-censors-pulls-out-of-country/

No Amnesty for Lockdowners

undefined

Now that we can talk to our friends and neighbors about it, the reality is sinking in. What our public-health experts and politicians did to this country was egregious. Inspired by the totalitarian lockdowns in Wuhan, China, and urged to replicate that policy by the World Health Organization in a report that Fauci’s National Institutes of Health approved, all constitutional rights were thrown out.

The churches were shut. The schools were closed, in some places for as long as two years, thus sacrificing the education of a whole generation. We faced restrictions on house parties. We could not visit the elderly in homes, not even sons and daughters who were paying the rent. There were even restrictions on travel between states: quarantine rules made it impractical.

Health authorities specifically demanded the need to close ALL venues where people congregate. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Once people were allowed to crawl out from their domestic holes, they were forced to mask up (even though we had zero evidence that this would achieve anything!) and eventually get shots that everyone said would end the pandemic but obviously did not.

It’s been nearly three years of imposed hell. We now live with the after-effects, which include terrible inflation, learning loss, drug addiction, rising crime, cultural nihilism, and wholly justified public fury that is driving the Democrats to doom on Tuesday because it was the Democrats who leaned in and perpetuated all these policies long after they obviously failed.

So sure, people are upset. The right answer would be for our health authorities and politicians to apologize and beg forgiveness. But nothing like that has happened. They just keep on pretending that all of this was fine. There has been no repeal of the CDC’s claimed power to quarantine you next time, and the Biden administration’s own pandemic planning scheme is to prohibit states from opting out the next time around.

So let’s discuss Dr. Emily Oster’s piece in The Atlantic, in which she claims that everyone needs immediately to comply with some kind of amnesty she has declared. We are supposed to forget it all and move on. And why is this? Because, she says, there was so much uncertainty. They just didn’t know about the virus. It was the fog of war, after all, and everyone did their best.

“We didn’t know,” she says, and then keeps invoking the supposed “uncertainty” of the times, a word she deploys five times. Why if she (or they) were so uncertain did they so quickly decide to wreck all liberty in the United States? The so-called precautionary principle would suggest that government should undertake no such policy due to the obvious harms it would impose. They did it anyway.

Here’s the problem. This is complete rot. We knew from February of the risk stratification of the disease’s serious outcomes. It was in all the papers. We had the data. We knew from the Diamond Princess experience in February 2020 that there were no deaths under the age of 70 on the ship. That comported with every bit of information we had at the time. Based on what we knew at the time, there was absolutely no case for locking down at all and every reason not to do this.

For that matter, Professor Oster could have merely read the news. MSNBC on Jan. 30, 2020 reported that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s Health Advisor said, “Everyone in America should take a very big breath, slow down, and stop panicking and being hysterical. We are having a little too much histrionics on this.”

On March 4, 2020, Slate reported: “There are many compelling reasons to conclude that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is not nearly as deadly as is currently feared. But COVID-19 panic has set in nonetheless. … Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest.”

The same day, Psychology Today reported: “Yes, this virus is different and worse than other coronaviruses, but it still looks very familiar. We know more about it than we don’t know …. It’s scary to think that an invisible enemy is out there to make you sick. But your doctor is not panicking, and you don’t need to, either.”

We can even turn to Dr. Fauci himself, who wrote as follows on Feb. 20, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine: “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1 percent) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10 percent and 36 percent, respectively.”

On March 17, 2020, the legendary epidemiologist John Ioannidis broke it all down: “The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco …. One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.”

Wow, talk about prophetic! All of that happened. He knew this not because he was clairvoyant but because he has a working brain. You cannot just shut down society without egregious consequences that affect health, economics, social relations, and so much more. In other words, authorities acted with extreme measures that were in no way justified by the data and did with measures they KNEW FOR SURE would massively damage the social fabric.

For that matter, we’ve known about the damage of lockdowns since they were first pushed in 2005–06. The famed epidemiologist Donald Henderson warned that such measures would turn a manageable pandemic into a catastrophe!

So here we are, living amidst catastrophe. There are no apologies. There is only coverup. Now, you might ask the following: why if the mainstream media from late January through mid-February 2020 was counseling calm and urging against lockdown frenzy, and even Fauci was saying that we didn’t need a vaccine to get out of this pandemic, why was there a sudden shift? What new evidence came in that caused Fauci, along with his minions and inner circle, to surround Trump in early March and demand that he green-light the lockdowns?

Why did this happen? I have my own theories but they are only that. My suspicion is that 1) Fauci and his gang believed that they were culpable for the pandemic due to NIH’s funding of the Wuhan lab and so pushed lockdowns in the hope of stopping the spread or just causing a chaotic diversion of attention, and 2) getting Trump to wreck the economy would be the surest path to unseating him in the November election. On the second point, it so happened that the manufactured disease panic permissioned changes in absentee voting rules that ultimately led to Trump’s demise.

Now, you could call this a conspiracy theory. I sincerely hope it is not true because it would be a scandal for the ages. And perhaps I’m wrong here and there is some other reason for the egregious actions that wrecked millions of businesses and lives. I would like to know what it is. But as for Emily Oster’s excuse that we just didn’t know—that we believed that the virus was worse than it was, that masks would stop the spread, and so on—that claim is utterly baseless. So too her demand for “amnesty” for the lockdowners falls flat.

We knew. We knew for sure based on existing data what the nature of the threat was and we knew for sure, based on historical experience and common sense, the deep damage that would be caused by lockdowns. The plea of ignorance here simply doesn’t hold up to any evidentiary standard.

Reprinted with author's permission from Epoch Times.

from No Amnesty for Lockdowners

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Blockbuster Report: Homeland Security Colluding With Social Media To Silence Americans!

An amazing investigative report from The Intercept has brought "the receipts" proving the deep - and corrupt - relationship between the US Department of Homeland Security and social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Government agents actually had special access to directly request takedowns of any posts at odds with Biden Administration policy on a range of issues from Covid to Afghanistan to Ukraine. Will the next Congress investigate this shocking attack on the First Amendment? Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Blockbuster Report: Homeland Security Colluding With Social Media To Silence Americans!

Ukraine, Asterix and Rules: Notes from the Birthplace of American Empire

undefined
Photo: Nebojsa Malic

“The first parliamentarian summit of the International Crimea Platform showed the world Europe ALMOST entirely united against Russian aggression,” the US embassy in Belgrade posted on Twitter last week, accompanied by a map showing all of the continent in blue – with Belarus, Serbia and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in grey.

No doubt the embassy thought this would bring home the “isolation” of Serbia. Not the first time, however, the Imperial legation had miscalculated. The map made Serbia look more like the “one small village of indomitable Gauls” from the famous prologue of Asterix, while the representation of “Kosovo” as a separate, independent state just lost Washington another 10 points in favorability polls. I know this, because I had just come back from several weeks in Serbia and Bosnia, where the vibe was very much in evidence.

American ambassadors in Belgrade have acted less like diplomats and more like imperial gauleiters ever since the October 2000 “color revolution” that ousted the legitimately elected Slobodan Milosevic and installed a US-friendly regime. Activists trained in Hungary by the National Endowment for Democracy went so far as to sack the Yugoslav National Assembly and torch the ballots, so no one could dispute their claims. Yet the Western media did not label them “insurrectionists” or “election deniers,” but celebrated them as democratic democrats. The model was then applied elsewhere, including Ukraine – twice, in 2004 and 2014 – triggering the conflict that eventually went fully kinetic.

The current gauleiter is one Christopher Hill, a 1990s sidekick of Richard Holbrooke. Not a day goes by that the condescending Hill doesn’t lecture the Serbs on what they “must” do to please him and the Globalist American Empire (aka Our Democracy). His predecessor Anthony Godfrey was a gaffe machine in his own right, but at least he had enough charm – genuine or manufactured – to compliment the country’s cuisine. The dour Hill can’t be bothered; he’s a downgrade even from Godfrey’s humorless predecessor Kyle Scott, who had actually forced Serbian media to transliterate his surname as “Scat” instead, believing it less offensive.

Hill objective is the same as it has been for ambassadors over the past 21 years: compel the Serbian government to recognize “Kosovo” as independent, and thereby retroactively justify NATO’s 1999 air war that resulted in the province’s occupation. Whatever one wishes to hold against current president Aleksandar Vucic, he has – so far – refused to do so, even when told outright this would be the necessary precondition for Serbia’s (still very hypothetical) entry into the EU. Yet Vucic’s continues to maintain Serbia’s future is with the bloc, even as the EU is imploding from a combination of consequences from pandemic lockdowns and hare-brained trade embargoes against Russia over the conflict in Ukraine.

The vast majority of Serbs are opposed to recognizing Kosovo and embargoing Russia. The rest amount to professional “woke” activists reciting Imperial talking points in Western-owned media to justify their grants and projects, their words falling on deaf ears. Much like their US counterparts, they are unable to be decent, even tactically: When the women’s volleyball team defended their word title, these moral busybodies insisted the patriotic song belted out by the celebrating crowd (“Rejoice the Serbian kindred“) amounted to bigotry.

Their approach is about as effective as the Ukrainian method of pressuring Belgrade to side with Kiev: phoned-in bomb threats against the airport, schools and other public buildings. All have been fake, so far, but with a regime perfectly willing to assassinate Darya Dugina or suicide-bomb the Crimean Bridge, one can never tell.

If Serbia is quasi-occupied but defiant, the neighboring Bosnia is simply schizophrenic. The US-brokered deal to end the civil war in 1995 partitioned the country into the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Serb Republic (RS), with a rudimentary central government. Rather than find a modus vivendi and live side by side in peace, however, the Muslims continued to claim the country was rightly their nation-state and demand centralization.

Party politics has entirely coalesced around ethnic interests. The only major upset in the October general election was the defeat of Bakir Izetbegovic, whose nepotism and corruption must have finally angered enough Muslims. Even so, the setback was only personal – his party still got the most votes in Muslim jurisdictions. However lackluster Bakir (and his vain, power-hungry wife) may be, the vision of his father Alija – wartime leader of the Bosnian Muslims, who in 1971 wrote a manifesto urging the rejection of democracy and socialism alike and RETURN to Islamic political forms – continues to hold sway.

Over in the Serb Republic, the US-backed opposition tried to stage a “color revolution,” accusing the dominant SNSD party of election shenanigans in order to stop Milorad Dodik from becoming president. It didn’t work: even when the central elections authority in Sarajevo – illegally – took over the vote-counting, they found no irregularities. Meanwhile, over 50,000 people rallied in Banja Luka in support of Dodik.

Bosnia’s domestic deadlock translates into external policy as well: the Serbs don’t mind joining the EU but are absolutely against membership in NATO – which Muslims want – and sanctions against Russia. Officially, the tripartite presidency cannot make decisions except by consensus. That hasn’t stopped the Muslim member from unilaterally endorsing the “Crimea Platform,” which is why Bosnia was shaded blue on that US embassy map mentioned earlier. So much for the “rule of law” or “norms” or “rules” the world order is supposedly based on: turns out the “international community” doesn’t care about any of those, if violating them achieves the desired result.

Sojourning in Serbia and Bosnia this October, I was once again reminded that is where the Globalist American Empire arose in the 1990s. Far from bringing order or prosperity, either to the American people or the foreigners it sought to conquer, it has fueled chaos and misery at home and abroad. Its obsession with power is now destroying lives and livelihoods in Ukraine and raising the specter of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, that “one small village” indomitably abides.

from Ukraine, Asterix and Rules: Notes from the Birthplace of American Empire