Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Key questions about Spygate are: Who at FBI or CIA tasked Halper with contacting 3 people associated with Trump campaign? What did Halper report back to his bosses? How was that information used by US government personnel? Carter Page even visited Halper at his Virginia farm. Definition of 'spy' is irrelevant-Daily Caller, Chuck Ross

"Who tasked Halper, a former University of Cambridge professor, with contacting Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and George Papadopoulos? What did they tell Halper, and what did he in turn tell his FBI/CIA handlers? And how was that information used by government officials in their investigation of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election?"

5/26/18, "The Important Questions About ‘Spygate’," Daily Caller, Chuck Ross

"A battle of semantics has dominated the revelation that the FBI used a Cambridge professor named Stefan Halper to keep tabs on three Trump campaign advisers....

But the debate has overshadowed more important questions about Halper’s role in “Crossfire Hurricane,” the code name for the FBI’s investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The core questions are: "Who tasked Halper, a former University of Cambridge professor, with contacting Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and George Papadopoulos? What did they tell Halper, and what did he in turn tell his FBI/CIA handlers? And how was that information used by government officials in their investigation of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election? Was Halper a credible source?

Carter Page holds the key to many of those questions. An energy consultant and former Naval officer, Page was the first Trump associate known to have made contact with Halper. He also stayed in touch with the 73-year-old the longest of any of the three Trump advisers — from July 2016 to Sept. 2017. The pair met multiple times, including at Cambridge and at Halper’s farm in Virginia. 

That 14-month window leaves open numerous possibilities for Halper’s intelligence-gathering activities.

But Page tells The Daily Caller News Foundation that in his conversations with Halper, he never departed from what he has said publicly in response to the allegations made about him in the infamous Steele dossier.

“I never did anything even remotely wrong [or] similar to what’s alleged in the Dodgy Dossier,” Page says was his general message to Halper when the subject of collusion came up in conversation.

The dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats, accuses Page of being the Trump campaign’s main back channel to the Kremlin for the purposes of collusion. The dossier claims that Page met with two sanctions Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Page has vehemently denied the allegations.

Halper’s interactions with Clovis and Papadopoulos were more limited than those he had with Page. Clovis, the campaign’s national co-chairman, met with Halper once on Sept. 1, 2016 over coffee to discuss the campaign and their mutual interest in geopolitical issues.

The next day, Halper reached out to Papadopoulos through email — unbeknownst to Clovis — to offer to fly the young Trump aide to London to discuss writing an academic paper about Mediterranean energy issues. Papadopoulos accepted and flew to London on Halper’s dime. He was paid $3,000 for the paper, which he submitted in early October 2016.

During one dinner conversation, Halper asked Papadopoulos whether he was involved in [alleged] Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails. Papadopoulos vigorously denied the allegation, much to Halper’s frustration.

Halper’s approach to Page was much softer, Page says. They met multiple times, and Page says he never felt that Halper was trying to pump him for information about the campaign.

But it is now clear that Halper was collecting some information on Page. And there has been speculation that whatever information he collected was provided to the FBI for use in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants granted against Page.

During a press conference on Tuesday, Speaker Paul Ryan linked the issue of allegations about FISA abuse to the revelation of a Trump campaign informant.

“FISA abuse is a serious issue,” Ryan said when discussing House Republicans’ request for information about the FBI’s top-secret source.

The first FISA warrant authorizing surveillance on Page was granted on Oct. 21, 2016. Three renewals were granted in January, April and June 2017. They expired in September 2017, the same month that Page and Halper fell out of contact. As has been widely noted, FISA renewals require additional evidence showing probable cause that a surveillance target is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

What Page and Halper discussed in their encounters looms large over those FISA warrants as well as over “Crossfire Hurricane.”

Page says he can’t recall many details of what he and Halper discussed over their 14 month relationship. But he says that nothing he said would support the idea that he was involved in collusion on behalf of the Trump campaign with Russia.

“I’m not concerned about this other stuff,” Page told TheDCNF, referring to the Halper angle.

Though Page says he never had conversations with Halper in which he said anything that would support allegations in the dossier, what Halper may have relayed to the FBI is another matter....
 
Asked whether Halper could have provided false information to the FBI about him, Page was open to the possibility.

“He may very well have,” he told TheDCNF.

“The reality is there are a lot of lies in there. So whether it was him or whoever, they came to the wrong conclusion.”

There is virtually no visibility into what information Halper collected on Page or any of the other Trump advisers. It’s also unknown what he passed to the FBI."...



 

...............

Educating global celebrity Clapper: You omit relevant data, perhaps hoping to incite US taxpayer funded unwinnable war with Russia. Democrats lost because they treated millions of their voters like garbage for years. They didn't lose 80,000 voters, they lost millions, per NY Times: 6.7 to 9.2 million former Obama voters became Trump voters, "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory"-NY Times, 6/8/2017

Mr. Clapper: 6.7 to 9.2 million former Obama voters became Trump voters, "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory."...Why? "The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."... 

6/8/2017, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times, Thomas B. Edsall, commentary

(parag. 10) "Priorities also studied Obama-to-Trump voters. Estimates of the number of such voters range from 6.7 to 9.2 million, far more than enough to provide Trump his Electoral College victory.

The counties that switched from Obama to Trump were heavily concentrated in the Midwest and other Rust Belt states.

To say that this constituency does not look favorably on the Democratic Party fails to capture the scope of their disenchantment....

A solid majority, 77 percent, of Obama-to-Trump voters think Trump’s economic policies will either favor “all groups equally” (44) or the middle class (33). 21 percent said Trump would favor the wealthy.

In contrast, a plurality of these [Obama to Trump] voters, 42 percent, said that Congressional Democrats would favor the wealthy, slightly ahead of Congressional Republicans at 40 percent.

Geoff Garin is a partner in the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group which, together with the Global Strategy Group, conducted the surveys and focus groups for Priorities USA. Garin wrote in an email: 

[parag. 16] "The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."

Garin added that

"Obama-Trump voters were more likely to think more Democrats look out for the wealthy
than look out for poor people."... 

If the Priorities analysis is bleak, the 13 American Prospect essays are even more so. 

Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, writes in his Prospect essay:

"The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump." 

Greenberg voiced an exceptionally sharp critique of his own party and its candidates. First, he takes on Barack Obama:

"Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially.""...

[Ed. note: Campaigning in 2008 Obama promised Rust Belt voters he'd renegotiate NAFTA. One month after his 2009 inauguration, he announced NAFTA would remain as is, that US should avoid "beggar thy neighbor" policies. 2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear..."The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers." And: 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi]

(continuing): "Hillary Clinton does not escape Greenberg’s wrath:

"In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women."

Greenberg does not stop there, shifting his focus from individual Democratic politicians to the Democratic Party itself: Past supporters "pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’

Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.""...

[Ed. note: 4/5/2017, "Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say," Washington Post, William Wan, Youngstown, Ohio]

(continuing): "Along parallel lines, three analysts at the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, Robert Griffin, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, argue that:

"Rather than debating whether Democrats should appeal to white working-class voters or voters of color both necessary components of a successful electoral coalition, particularly at the state and local level — a more important question emerges: Why are Democrats losing support and seeing declining turnout from working-class voters of all races in many places?"

Griffin, Halpin and Teixeira argue that:

"Democrats allowed themselves to become the party of the status quo--a status quo perceived to be elitist, exclusionary, and disconnected from the entire range of working-class concerns, but particularly from those voters in white working-class areas. 


For Democrats who argue that the adoption of economic populism is the best way to counter Trump, Guy Molyneux, a partner in Garin’s polling firm, warns in his American Prospect essay, “A Tale of Two Populisms,” that voters drawn to Trump are anti-government, deeply wary of a pro-government Democratic Party.

“Many analysts and leading Democrats,” Molyneux writes “have attributed Donald Trump’s impressive 2016 vote margin among white working-class voters to his embrace of economic populism.”...


While “Democrats can take obvious comfort in a story about Trump winning in large measure because he stole our ideas,” Molyneux writes, “this assessment misses the mark in important ways.” Why? Because,

"Trump’s brand of populism — and more importantly, that of working-class whites — differs in important ways from the populism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren." 

While the populism espoused by Sanders and Warren is economic, challenging C.E.O.s, major corporations and “the billionaire class,” Trump is the messenger of what Molyneux calls “political populism,” which “is, fundamentally, a story about the failure of government.""

 ....................... 

Added: In Ohio, 4 months before a single Wikileaks email had been released:

18 Mahoning County, Ohio Democratic precinct captains crossed party lines to vote for Trump in the 2016 GOP primary (4 months before a single email had been released). GOP yard signs popped up in the Ohio Dem. stronghold. "Trump not only flipped the state [of Ohio] but also won by the largest margin of any presidential candidate since 1988." (4/5/17, Wash. Post)

4/5/2017, "Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio Party leaders say," Washington Post, William Wan 
......................

Added:

Democrat Party exodus 2011-2017:

Dec. 2017, "Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation," Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, Author: Robert Griffin (formerly with Center for American Progress and others)

*While most Obama to Trump voters once identified as Democrats, a majority now identify as Republicans. Since 2011, there has been a 28 percent decline in Democratic identification and a 43 percent increase in Republican identification among these voters....

For the Democratic Party, the loss of white people without college degrees is highly problematic. For starters, this group is a larger share of the electorate than is commonly understood. While the national exit poll of the major networks and the AP indicated that non-college white voters made up 34 percent of voters in 2016, the actual number is probably closer to 45 percent.(ii) 

Even small losses among these voters can have a decisive impact on parties’ electoral fortunes — particularly in state and local elections. The reason for this is that non-college white voters are well distributed throughout the country for the purpose of political representation. With few exceptions, they make up a significant, if not overwhelming, portion of voters in counties across the nation. This geographic dispersion makes them influential in every state and in a disproportionate number of congressional districts (Figure 6). 

Even if it were the case that the Democratic Party was making more enduring inroads with other demographic groups, these other groups are presently distributed in comparatively inefficient ways.

White people with college degrees, for example, are not only a smaller group but also tend to be clustered in densely populated areas. The fastest growing groups — Hispanics and Asians — are well represented in a relatively small number of counties located in electorally uncompetitive states. Additionally, black people already identify as Democrats at such high rates that further gains among them would be marginal at best.

Equally problematic for Democrats is the loss of voters from older age cohorts. Not only are those 45 years of age and older significantly more likely to vote, but they are also especially reliable voters during midterms when turnout is down overall. Even if a majority of the younger voters departing the Republican Party found their way into the Democratic camp, their lower participation rates would still make it an uneven trade....

Partisan affiliation is one of the most stable features of the modern American electorate. While individuals’ feelings toward politicians or their attitudes about policy can change quickly, partisanship is a deep-seated identity resistant to change."... 

Added: "Non-college white voters" aren't exactly a fringe group:
..........









































Maps above from Dec. 2017, "Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation," Democracy Fund Voter Study Group  
 
............................................... 


Added: According to Mr. Clapper, Putin, in his spare time, convinced Acela Corridor voters (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island) to vote for Trump in a landslide in 2016 Republican "Acela Corridor" primaries: Trump won every county in all 5 northeast states in the Acela Corridor primaries in landslides of more than 30 percentage points over his rivals a week after his dominating performance in New York state (a neighboring northeast state):

4/27/2016, "Trump wins every county in 'Acela primaries'," The Hill, Jesse Byrnes

"Donald Trump won every county on Tuesday night
in the five Northeastern states that held primaries, sweeping up more delegates in his quest to lock up the GOP nomination.

Trump won each county in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island, including Pennsylvania's Allegheny County, where rival  John Kasich was born.

Trump also won every congressional district in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware to pick up more delegates. He won all but six districts in Connecticut and one in Rhode Island, which Kasich took.

The decisive win moved Trump closer to the GOP presidential nomination, which requires a candidate to win 1,237 delegates nationally."...
...................
 

Added: The amazing Putin even convinced the affluent and college educated to vote for Trump in the primaries: "He (Trump) won among the affluent and college-educated as well as with blue-collar voters and those with no more than a high school education."... 

4/27/2016, "Donald Trump Sweeps 5 States; Hillary Clinton takes 4," New York Times, Healy, Martin

"Mr. Trump had the more convincing performance on Tuesday: He swept all five primaries (Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island) winning landslides of more than 30 percentage points over his rivals, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio....He received more than half the vote in every state....The broad support for Mr. Trump spanned some of the dividing lines that have characterized the Republican race until now: He won among the affluent and college-educated as well as with blue-collar voters and those with no more than a high school education, according to exit polls....Mr. Trump’s advantage across all five states was so forbidding that Mr. Cruz abandoned the Northeast entirely on Saturday....Not only did Mr. Trump have significant prospects for a substantial delegate haul Tuesday, a week after his dominating performance in New York, he also had the opportunity to send a clear message to party leaders and other Republicans that resistance to his nomination is futile."...
...................
..................................

Added: And Putin made sure Trump voters weren't racist: A New York Times reporter said it's "tempting" to blame "racism" for Trump's win, but can't because many white Trump voters had been white Obama voters. (Why would it be "tempting" to cite racism?)








 
 
Above NY Times twitter image via 11/11/16, "2016: The Revenge Of The White Working Class Voter, And Where Millions Of Obama Supporters Flipped For Trump," Matt Vespa, Townhall
 
 
  






















......................


Image at top of post: 12/7/2016, "Valerie Jarrett says Trump election felt 'like a punch in the stomach'," Chicago Tribune, Kim Janssen



............... 

Comment: Unfortunately for the United States, the Republican Establishment is as bad as the Democrat Establishment. Both parties share the same America Last agenda: open borders, endless unwinnable wars funded by US taxpayers, extreme globalism, massive free trade deals, stagnant wages.







................

To Mr. Clapper: It was Obama, not Putin, who in 2008 promised struggling midwest voters that he'd change or opt out of NAFTA. On Feb. 19, 2009, one month after his inauguration, Obama announced NAFTA would remain as is, that it would be mean to change it now-Washington Post

Added: On Feb. 19, 2009, one month after his inauguration, Obama broke his 2008 campaign promise to struggling Rust Belt Americans to renegotiate NAFTA, confirming Canadian officials' belief that his promise had just been to fool Rust Belt union workers into voting for him. Obama made his announcement in Canada "during his first trip abroad" as US president, saying it's not the time for "beggar-thy-neighbor policies." Washington Post, 2/19/2009. Definition of "beggar" when used as a verb: "to reduce someone to poverty."

Obama inaugurated Jan. 20, 2009.

2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear

  
"President Obama warned on Thursday against a "strong impulse" toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.

Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology.

In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards -- and told Harper so -- but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow of trade between neighbors.

"Now is a time where we've got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," the president said. "Because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there's going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we--they can engage in "beggar-thy-neighbor policies."

The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

"Much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the Canadians concluded in a memo after meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior campaign aide and now a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. [Goolsbee was already on his way out by this time: On Nov. 5, 2008, the day after the election, Obama's transition team didn't include Goolsbee. The list of names "was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee...didn't make the cut." 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi] 

When the memo became public, Obama advisers rejected the idea as absurd and insisted that he was serious about changing NAFTA. Obama even suggested that the United States might opt out of NAFTA if the standards could not be improved to the nation's satisfaction.

But some longtime observers of the U.S.-Canada relationship said Obama's current position appears to confirm the impression that Canadian officials got from the meeting with Goolsbee. 

"It sounds like [Goolsbee] was right," said former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci (R), who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada during George W. Bush's first term. "It looks like [President Obama has] softened that quite a bit, to put it mildly."

That could anger some of Obama's staunchest labor supporters, who blame NAFTA for sending American jobs oversees by not requiring a level playing field in the areas of labor and the environment.

But some of those allies said Thursday that they are giving the president more time to make good on his promise and praised Obama for finding a sophisticated way to express support for trade and changes to NAFTA.

"I am happy for him to frame his way of positioning the issue any way he wants, as long as he actually delivers on the issue," said Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "If down the road Obama doesn't deliver on the policy, there will be a whole lot of really upset people."

(p. 2) The trade discussion came as Canadians have expressed concern in recent days about the "Buy American" provision that Congress added to the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law this week. 

Harper said he has "every expectation" that the United States will abide by trade rules that forbid such preferences. But he used strong language to indicate how seriously the country takes that issue.

"If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit ourselves, or to benefit ourselves, worse, at the expense of others, we will deepen the world recession, not solve it," he said. Obama and Harper also pledged to work together to battle terrorism, especially in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying for years.

In his first public comments since sending an additional 17,000 troops to the war-torn country earlier this week, Obama said that "it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up."

The president declined to say how long the troops will remain there, citing a 60-day review he has ordered. Harper also declined to say whether his country's troops will remain beyond 2011, but said the long-term goal of the war should be constrained.

"We are not in the long term, through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan. That, that job, ultimately, can be done only by the Afghans themselves," he said....

 Obama and Harper also pledged cooperation to revive North America's closely linked economy and signed an agreement to work toward developing clean energy technology.

"It will advance carbon reduction technologies. And it will support the development of an electric grid that can help deliver the clean and renewable energy of the future to homes and businesses, both in Canada and the United States," Obama said."

.........................


Saturday, May 26, 2018

UK MP says Russia should be under control of global oligarchy: We thought "we were moving the Russians into a rules-based international system," but it may not happen. "Rules-based international system" led by US has been in place since WWII. Danger today is "questioning of US global leadership has opened the space for other countries," 2015, Chatham House...(Who knew that Russia 'threat' turns out to be merely saying 'no thanks' to being ruled by US)

"Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, who chairs the House of Commons Intelligence and Security select committee, said he did not wish to speculate as to the precise reasons for Sir Richard's departure....
 
He said, "After the heady days of post-Cold War and the belief that we were moving the Russians into a rules-based international system, we seem to be going very rapidly in the opposite direction."...

"Economic and political upheavals are emboldening challengers to the rules-based international system, and to the liberal Western values it embodies....

The danger today is that this questioning of US global leadership has opened the space for other countries to pursue a ‘might is right’ approach to their own policy priorities....

The longevity of the current international system may have led to the assumption that it was in some way the natural order of things, requiring only occasional repair and defence against particular challengers. This has bred complacency.

Many aspects of the [US led international] order are in fact revolutionary, disruptive and disorderly. They provoke violent and understandable resistance from those who see themselves as champions of their own established order, based on different rules....


These fears do not provide a case for the West changing its approach, withdrawing or accepting cultural relativism

However-the West must recognize how radical its agenda can be, realize the depth of the opposition it may provoke, and sometimes tailor its policies accordingly....

Just as the current order was constructed with the clear aim of avoiding a repeat of the nationalism, totalitarianism and conflict of the 1930s and 1940s, a modernization effort should reflect a reforming agenda intended to tackle the problems of the 2000s and 2010s. Who decides this agenda, and what it should contain, remain open questions.

The West has the opportunity to take the initiative, to decide now what sort of revised rules it would like to establish, and how far it is willing to take into account the interests of its rivals or alternatively to fight for its own priorities. If the leading Western powers do not take this opportunity--and at the moment there is little sign that they will--there are now plenty of others who might."

London Conference 2015 - Background Paper - Session One.pdf
 

.................

Two UK sources for above in 2016 and 2015:

12/17/2016, "Cambridge spy seminars hit by whispers of Russian links as three intelligence experts resign," UK Telegraph, Willgress and Heighton

2015, "Challenges to the Rules-Based International Order," chathamhouse.org

Chatham House is UK's Royal Institute in International Affairs. Queen Elizabeth is its patron.

"Chatham House delivers independent, policy-relevant analysis and new ideas to decision-makers around the world, much of it achieved through government briefings, high-level roundtables and conferences, testimony to parliamentary committees and dissemination of the institute's research."

.......................

Added: More on US led "rules-based international order:" US oligarchs exempt powerful Communist China from rules but insist Russia submit to US approved "norms," "regional security" and institutions, accuse Russia of "undermining" global order for merely saying, no thanks, to being ruled by US-Rand study, May 2017, paid for by Office of Net Assessment, Dept. of Defense

May 2017 report "sponsored [paid for] by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment." Americans have never voted on nor agreed to be ruled by self-appointed US defense/intel oligarchs who, seizing US taxpayer dollars, have declared themselves in charge of an "international order." Such an "order" is sick and criminal.

May 18, 2017, "Russia Perceives U.S.-Led International Order as a Threat to Its Security and Interests, but Also Seeks Cooperation," rand.org, Andrew Radin, lead author

"Russia seeks to undermine elements of the current international order because its leaders and analysts see the current international order as dominated by the United States and a threat to their country's security and interests, according to a new RAND report.

U.S. officials have repeatedly described the development of a U.S.-led “rules-based international order,” composed of international economic institutions, bilateral and regional security organizations and liberal political norms, as a core national interest. 

The report draws from analysis of Russian interests and views of the history of the post-Cold War period, during which Russia's underlying foreign policy interests have remained relatively consistent, including preservation of the regime and of the country's territorial integrity.

Though Russia sought integration into Western institutions in the 1990s, this effort to more closely join the U.S.-led order was not successful in their view because the West would not sufficiently recognize Russia's interests. Russia began to perceive the U.S.-led order as increasingly threatening following Western military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and due to perceived U.S. facilitation of “color” revolutions such as that which occurred in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the researchers found.

“They [correctly] see expanding U.S. control as having been achieved through regime change and disingenuous support for 'liberal democracy,'” said Andrew Radin, lead author of the report and an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. “From a Russian perspective, the United States no longer has the power to back up this unilateral approach, and hence the current international order is not sustainable.”

At the same time, Russia sees the potential for cooperation and collaboration in some areas, such as support for the United Nations system, which it believes bolsters Russia's position as a great power, active participation in major international economic institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, and cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.

By contrast, where Russia sees elements of the U.S.-led order threatening its security, or undermining its influence in its neighborhood, Russia has pursued policies to undermine American influence by actively opposing European Union and NATO enlargement into the former Soviet world, and has increasingly sought to undermine these organizations.

“Russian views of order are [correctly] in clear opposition to U.S. global leadership and efforts to expand Western institutions,” said Clinton Reach, co-author of the report and a policy analyst at RAND. “Still, there are areas where cooperation with Russia is possible under the right conditions.”

The authors find that the optimal U.S. approach to Russia with respect to the international order depends chiefly on two factors: the importance of enabling former Soviet republics to freely join Western institutions, and whether Russia will limit its aggression in Europe if its interests are recognized.

Depending on how U.S. policymakers evaluate these factors, the United States could recognize Russia's sphere of influence or double down on the existing approach of promoting democracy [ie, regime change] and supporting the EU and NATO. In practice, U.S. policy toward the European political and security order will likely involve some elements of both.

The report,Russian Views of the International Order, is one of several works on regional great power views of order for a project entitled “Force, Diplomacy, and the Emerging International Order,” which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment. The research was sponsored [paid for] by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institution, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community."

 



.............. 

Mr. DeNiro, if you think Trump is the problem, you've been misinformed. We tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen. Tens of millions of Americans have been treated like garbage by the entire political class for decades. Please understand, we are the reason for Trump




"The TRUMP Fight Song [unofficial]-TRUMP 2016"




................

US oligarchs declare themselves in charge of "rules based international order," exempt powerful Communist China from rules, but insist Russia must accept US approved "norms," "regional security" and institutions, accuse Russia of "undermining" global order for merely saying, no thanks, to being ruled by US-Rand study, May 2017, paid for by Office of Net Assessment, Dept. of Defense...(US voters didn't elect George Soros. Meddling in other countries' affairs is an outrage and a crime)

May 2017 report "sponsored [paid for] by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment." Americans have never voted on nor agreed to be ruled by self-appointed US defense/intel oligarchs who, seizing US taxpayer dollars, have declared themselves in charge of an "international order." The "US leads the international order" operation is criminal and must stop immediately. 

May 18, 2017, "Russia Perceives U.S.-Led International Order as a Threat to Its Security and Interests, but Also Seeks Cooperation," rand.org, Andrew Radin, lead author 

"Russia seeks to undermine elements of the current international order because its leaders and analysts see the current international order as dominated by the United States and a threat to their country's security and interests, according to a new RAND report. 

U.S. officials have repeatedly described the development of a U.S.-led “rules-based international order,” composed of international economic institutions, bilateral and regional security organizations and liberal political norms, as a core national interest.

The report draws from analysis of Russian interests and views of the history of the post-Cold War period, during which Russia's underlying foreign policy interests have remained relatively consistent, including preservation of the regime and of the country's territorial integrity. 

Though Russia sought integration into Western institutions in the 1990s, this effort to more closely join the U.S.-led order was not successful in their view because the West would not sufficiently recognize Russia's interests. Russia began to perceive the U.S.-led order as increasingly threatening following Western military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and due to perceived U.S. facilitation of “color” revolutions such as that which occurred in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the researchers found. 

“They [correctly] see expanding U.S. control as having been achieved through regime change and disingenuous support for 'liberal democracy,'” said Andrew Radin, lead author of the report and an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. “From a Russian perspective, the United States no longer has the power to back up this unilateral approach, and hence the current international order is not sustainable.” 

At the same time, Russia sees the potential for cooperation and collaboration in some areas, such as support for the United Nations system, which it believes bolsters Russia's position as a great power, active participation in major international economic institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, and cooperation in counterterrorism efforts. 

By contrast, where Russia sees elements of the U.S.-led order threatening its security, or undermining its influence in its neighborhood, Russia has pursued policies to undermine American influence by actively opposing European Union and NATO enlargement into the former Soviet world, and has increasingly sought to undermine these organizations. 

“Russian views of order are [correctly] in clear opposition to U.S. global leadership and efforts to expand Western institutions,” said Clinton Reach, co-author of the report and a policy analyst at RAND. “Still, there are areas where cooperation with Russia is possible under the right conditions.” 

The authors find that the optimal U.S. approach to Russia with respect to the international order depends chiefly on two factors: the importance of enabling former Soviet republics to freely join Western institutions, and whether Russia will limit its aggression in Europe if its interests are recognized. 

Depending on how U.S. policymakers evaluate these factors, the United States could recognize Russia's sphere of influence or double down on the existing approach of promoting democracy [ie, regime change] and supporting the EU and NATO. In practice, U.S. policy toward the European political and security order will likely involve some elements of both. 

The report,Russian Views of the International Order, is one of several works on regional great power views of order for a project entitled “Force, Diplomacy, and the Emerging International Order,” which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment. The research was sponsored [paid for] by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institution, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community."



...............


...........

Friday, May 25, 2018

When will US apologize to Russia and reinstate 60 Russian diplomats it kicked out based on pathetic UK spy poisoning story which was only sold to please US profiteers seeking US taxpayer funded unwinnable war with Russia?

5/24/18, "The Skripal Case Is Being Pushed Down the Memory Hole with Libya and Aleppo," strategic-culture.org, Caitlin Johnstone

"Both Sergei and Yulia Skripal, alleged victims of a poisoning by highly trained assassins using the deadliest nerve agent ever created, are doing fine. But you’re still supposed to fear and hate Russia. Just don’t think too hard about it or remember too much.... 

Oh, and [Boris] Johnson’s claim that the Porton Down laboratory had assured him “There’s no doubt” that Russia was behind the poisoning? Turns out that was just a bald-faced lie; Porton Down said no such thing and it was never its job to make such an assessment. Johnson lied, and both the Foreign Office and British mainstream media attempted to cover it up; tweets were deleted, transcripts were re-written, and narratives were given a good spin of historic revisionism by asserting that the UK government’s unequivocal insistence that the Kremlin poisoned the Skripals had been merely a “suggestion”."
 
............................
 

BBC article: "More than 20 countries have aligned with the UK, expelling more than 100 diplomats."
 
March 26, 2018, "Spy poisoning: Russian diplomats expelled across US and Europe," BBC


"The United States and its European allies are expelling dozens of Russian diplomats in a co-ordinated response to the poisoning of a former Russian spy in the UK.

It is said to be the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence offices in history.

More than 20 countries have aligned with the UK, expelling more than 100 diplomats.

Russia vowed to retaliate to the "provocative gesture". Russia denies any role in the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, southern England. The pair remain in a critical but stable condition in hospital.

EU leaders agreed last week it was highly likely Russia was behind the nerve-agent poisoning.


Mrs May said: "President Putin's regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values and interests within our continent and beyond.

"And as a sovereign European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with Nato to face down these threats together."

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also praised the "extraordinary international response" by the UK's allies.

The Russian foreign ministry said the moves demonstrated a continuation of a "confrontational path".


"It goes without saying that this unfriendly act by this group of countries will not go without notice and we will react to it," its statement said."

..............................

Remarkable show of solidarity

By Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent

This is building into the most serious diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West since Moscow's seizure of Crimea.

Whatever the denials, Britain's allies have clearly accepted its view that the use of a military grade nerve agent in Salisbury was "highly likely" the work of the Russian state.

The collective expulsions from the US and EU member states is a remarkable show of solidarity with Britain, even more so because it comes at a time when UK-EU relations are strained due to the Brexit negotiations.

Donald Tusk's note that there could be "additional measures" is a signal to Moscow as it considers how it will respond.

It is a significant diplomatic victory for Prime Minister Theresa May - concerted action has now followed the strong rhetorical support from its allies. It also marks a significant toughening of the Trump administration's stance towards Moscow.

......................

Who is expelling diplomats?

The UK announced it was expelling 23 Russian diplomats earlier this month.

Various countries announced they were making the same move in solidarity on Monday. These are:

  • US: 60 diplomats
  • EU countries: France (4); Germany (4); Poland (4); Czech Republic (3); Lithuania (3); Denmark (2); Netherlands (2); Italy (2); Spain (2); Estonia (1); Croatia (1); Finland (1); Hungary (1); Latvia (1); Romania (1); Sweden (1)
  • Ukraine: 13
  • Canada: 4, plus the rejection of 3 further applications from Russia
  • Albania: 2
  • Australia: 2
  • Norway: 1
  • Macedonia: 1

    Iceland has also announced it is suspending high-level dialogue with Russian authorities, and its leaders will not attend the World Cup, which starts in Russia in June.

    The UK said earlier this month it would not send ministers or members of the Royal Family to the football tournament.

    EU countries that have said they have no intention of expelling diplomats include Austria, Greece and Portugal, although all have said they support the UK and condemn the poisoning.

    Why are they doing it?

    President of the European Council Donald Tusk said the EU states had decided to expel Russian diplomats as a direct result of a meeting, held last week about the Salisbury poisoning.

    "Additional measures, including further expulsions within this common EU framework are not to be excluded in the coming days and weeks," he said.

    The US state department said in a statement: "On March 4, Russia used a military-grade nerve agent to attempt to murder a British citizen and his daughter in Salisbury.

    "This attack on our Ally the United Kingdom put countless innocent lives at risk and resulted in serious injury to three people, including a police officer."

    It called the attack an "outrageous violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and breach of international law".

    The US is expelling 48 envoys at the Russian embassy in Washington and 12 more at the UN in New York. It will also order the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle." 
     
    ................................. 

    US toughens its tone

    By Chris Buckler, BBC News, Washington DC 

    In a phone call last week with Vladimir Putin, the US president failed to mention the attack in Salisbury. But he did congratulate Mr Putin on his re-election, against the advice of his officials.

    The deliberate change in tone also demonstrates real concern about Russian activity inside the US, as well as elsewhere. 

    Alongside the allegations of election interference two years ago, the Kremlin is accused of spying and cyber-attacks targeting vital infrastructure in the US. 

    Closing the Russian consulate in Seattle reflects those specific fears - a submarine base and the aerospace firm Boeing are both close to the city. 

    Diplomatic retaliation is inevitable. Almost immediately, the Russian Embassy asked its followers to take part in a Twitter poll to recommend which US consulate it should close in response.... 

    What are the precedents? 

    In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan expelled 80 Cold War-era Russian diplomats. 

    [On December 29] In 2016 [on his way out the door after Trump's election and 3 weeks before Obama would leave office], the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats in response to the alleged hacking of the US Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election, accusations Moscow denied. [The US has never supplied evidence that "hacking" took place or that Russia was involved. The US never even examined servers belonging to either the DNC or Hillary campaign.] 

    Senior US officials told the Associated Press that Russia had an estimated 100 intelligence officials at its diplomatic posts in the US, suggesting that dozens will still be left in the country.

     However, the diplomats working at the UN were described by the US State Department as "intelligence operatives," suggesting it is looking to hamper more than just administrational work."

    =================

    Blog Editor's note: To my google babysitters: You probably wish Trump hadn't been elected. You probably think vandalizing this small blog and stealing my time--as you've done for many years--is going to help bring you the next political outcome you seek. Why do you think Trump was elected? Because of you. You think you can treat people like garbage and there will no consequence.






    .............

    Followers

    Blog Archive

    About Me

    My photo
    I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.