In the following you will find our translation of an analysis from the Russian site Ria Novosti, with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos. The political class and msm are constantly warning of “fake news” from Russia. The Ria Novosti article translations we publish at NSS are almost all based on US sources, however, so what part is fake? The one appearing below is no exception. Yet, without even making the effort to read and ponder such an article, professional mainstream Russophobes, which control most of the media and the American mind, immediately jump to the conclusion that anything like this published by a Russian outlet is “Russian propaganda.” Americans are thus virtually prohibited from reading articles by Russians – even if all the information sources are American – and making up their own minds. The translation below shows that liberal icon George Soros is co-founding a new organization based on the proposition of abandoning US interventionism.
 
George is the interventionist par excellence, so this is a shocking turn of events.
 
How a discussion of this could possibly be Russian propaganda is a mystery to me, but not to worry, the Neocons and Neoliberals will not hesitate to raise this accusation because, you see, being Russian is evil, reading anything from Russia is evil, and anyone who discusses Russia without saying something negative about the country and its government is also evil. But I wonder how many Americans or other Westerners actually buy this steaming pile of blather?
 
Now as for Soros, he is now organizing supposedly to oppose US interventionism, but he is probably the one mover and shaker who has done more than anyone to promote regime change in countries that the US Establishment considers too close, either physically to Russia. The latest attempts are in Georgia, Hong Kong and Kyrgyzstan.
 
Just to give you an idea of Soros’ influence in just these three countries, here is what I just now brought up in an internet search:
 
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/open-society-foundations-kyrgyzstan
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqyArUU38U
 
This last link indicates that Soros, while no longer allowed to operate a foundation in Hong Kong, still has a presence there in the form of an investment fund. Note that there are also NGOs active in Hong Kong that are funded by US NGOs that are no longer intervening in politics there. This opens the door for under-cover intervention in protests of the kind occurring there now.
 
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/i6i998nmrio5fntw1mkmjw2
 
QUOTE from our translation below:
 
“It seems he understands that in order to bring the ideology of liberalism out of crisis, it is necessary to start searching for new meanings and abandon the well-established but hopelessly outdated clichés of the last century.
 
“Of course, one must be very sceptical of such attempts by the American elites to finally grasp the destruction of the aggressive policy of regime change around the world.”
 
Yes, in fact, I would go so far as to say that as long as Soros runs foundations (generally searchable using: “Open Society” plus country name) in any country in the world, he simply is not being sincere about abandoning interventionism. You can’t have your cake and eat it both. So if you want to see whether he is sincere about promoting non-intervention, you can investigate any uprising anywhere to see if it is home-grown and spontaneous or Soros-instigated by doing a search with the search term:
 
Soros foundation [plus country name]
 
and see if one of his foundations is still open and running. If it is, he is hardly sincere about his new Quincy Institute co-founded with the Koch brothers. Remember the proverb: Beware of Soros bearing non-intervention.
 
This Soros is broken. He’s suddenly begun to sponsor peace initiatives.
 
June 11, 2019
 
Another analytical centre of foreign policy orientation is being created in Washington. You might think this is hardly news. So many of these think tanks regularly open and close in America that they’re countless. But the emergence of this institute is very actively discussed in political and journalistic circles, since its main sponsors are prominent representatives of two antagonistic strata of the elite, the Koch brothers and George Soros.
 
In order for a novitiate in American internal affairs to understand the meaning of this event, let me clarify: this is as if a hundred years ago Lenin and Denikin had created an analytical centre for joint study of the results of the First World War. If the activity of Soros in connection with his whirlwind activity in the post-Soviet space is well known to our reader, the Koch brothers are not so familiar, since for the most part they are connected with domestic American politics. It can be said that billionaires Charles and David Koch are to Republicans and US libertarians what Soros is to Democrats. And maybe more so since they are much more active at the local level, constantly sponsoring election campaigns of various Republican candidates in individual states, districts and cities. The Kokhs have created a whole empire of media and analytical centres supported by them in different areas, and are almost officially called Kokhtopus – that’s how widely distributed the tentacles of this conservative monster are.
 
And now, according to the newspaper The Boston Globe, two incompatible camps are being showered with 500 thousand dollars to create the Quincy Institute of Responsible Government. The existence of such a union is striking in itself. But even more formally declared goals are being promoted, for the sake of which this institution is supposedly being created: "The Quincy Institute promotes the idea of ​​leading US foreign policy out of endless war and conducting active diplomacy in pursuit of international peace."
 
The institute has chosen a sentence from the speech of the sixth President of the USA John Quincy Adams as the main slogan, after which the centre is named: America "no longer searches abroad for monsters that must be destroyed." It is declared that this institution, which has planned a full-fledged start-up for November of this year, will promote the line of non-interference of the USA in the affairs of foreign countries and will try to develop a sound foreign policy. In general, this is a direct confession that the current aggressive behaviour of Washington abroad does not look very healthy even in the eyes of American political scientists.
 
Financier George Soros wrote an article in which he predicted the disintegration of the European Union and compared the EU leadership with the Soviet politburo. On radio Sputnik, an expert in international affairs, Dmitriy Ofitserov-Belsky, opined that it might be worthwhile paying attention to Soros’s position.
 
In principle, there is also nothing new in the calls to abandon interventionist policies. This kind of campaign was developed by various US presidential candidates. Donald Trump resorted to such appeals to some extent, and the ideologist of Trumpism, Steve Bannon, considers this idea to be fundamental. Moreover, Trojan horses have already appeared among the Democrats - urging abandonment of the regime change policy in the current campaign to nominate US President Congresswoman Democrat Tulsi Gabbard [I am puzzled as to why this author calls such support for Tulsi Gabbard a Trojan horse]. But for such ideas to be financially supported by George Soros, whose numerous centres and centrics around the world are engaged in the opposite policy, this is in fact something new and amazing. This phenomenon deserves separate study and analysis.
 
What prompted the notorious billionaire to take a step that is so unconventional for him? Yes, it was the very crisis of liberal ideology that Vladimir Putin pointed out in the recent sensational interview with the newspaper The Financial Times. This interview quite naturally triggered a violent and extremely negative reaction on the part of liberals of all stripes. The President of Russia stepped on their sore spots, outlining a clear problem that since 2016 has manifested in a series of defeats of the liberal establishment for which no solution can be found. As for the ideological outcry of the neoliberals, The Economist magazine even devoted the last issue to an in absentia dispute with Putin, stating on the cover that it was not liberalism that was in crisis, but rather conservatism.
 
The liberal establishment of major Western countries clearly lacks ideas and strategies. Instead of doing a serious analysis of its painful defeats of the last three years, it could not come up with anything better than to dig up a foreign enemy (and, as we know, Russia was cast in this role). On the one hand, this is the easiest way out, because otherwise you would have to admit responsibility for the current crisis. But, on the other hand, this approach does not solve the problem itself, just drives it into a remote corner.
 
Apparently, Soros has recently begun to realize the hopelessness of such approaches. This is evidenced by his last year’s speech about the "existential crisis of Europe" and the frankly panicky article this year entitled "Europe, please wake up." In these, the main sponsor of the liberal ideological centres openly opposes one of the fundamental principles of the neoliberals, namely, the European open-door policy for migrants. That same policy is staunchly defended by the the numerous rabid fledglings of Soros's nest in various countries throughout the continent.
 
Now, as we see, the billionaire has attacked the shrine of American liberals - the US policy of global interventionism. It seems he understands that in order to bring the ideology of liberalism out of crisis, they must start searching for new meanings and abandon the well-established but hopelessly outdated clichés of the last century.
 
Of course, one must be very sceptical of such attempts by the American elites to finally grasp the destruction of the aggressive policy of regime change around the world. A single analytical centre that will promote a sensible foreign policy strategy in Washington, does not at all mean that this voice will be heard by someone and taken into consideration. However, the very fact that the influential sponsors of two opposing ideological currents of America even thought about this possibility inspires cautious optimism. What if, with the formation of new, more robust strategies in American politics over time, there will eventually be more sensible politicians who seek, not confrontation with Russia and other global actors, but peaceful coexistence?
 
To some, these expectations seem naive - they say America still cannot exist otherwise. Perhaps this is so. But in any case, nothing in Washington’s policies will change without a search for new ideas and approaches. Therefore, all movements in this direction are welcome.

Vince Dhimos answered a question at the German-language sector of Quora. The following is a translation of the question and Vince’s answer.
 
https://de.quora.com/Warum-wurden-und-werden-Juden-gehasst/answer/Vince-Dhimos?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=4784656529
 
Why were and are Jews hated?
 
Before we start this discussion about hating Jews, we have to realize that there is a real and significant difference between Jews and Zionists. The Israeli government and the Zionists - including the American and European Zionists - have made great efforts to make the world believe that hatred of the Jews and opposition to Zionism are one and the same phenomenon. However, this is illogical for the simple reason that there are a growing number of Jews in Israel, the US, and Europe who reject Zionism and no one would accept the idea that Jewish groups might be anti-Jewish.
 
The reason why the Jews were hated in the distant past is not very clear. We do not have reliable historical records explaining the grievances on both sides, and we need to be careful not to fabricate our own reports out of whole cloth.
 
Much of the hatred of Jews in the past centuries is attributed to European Christians. There can be little doubt that often so-called "Christians" were to blame. For instance, Jews who refused to convert to Christianity in Spain could be burned at the stake. However, the word "Christian" has never enjoyed a consistent definition and it is hard to imagine Jesus approving of executing people for failing to accept Him.
 
If we define Christians as people who love friends and enemies, as Jesus taught, then we cannot blame Christians, but hypocrites who pretended to be Christians, but were not. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is generally considered a semantic game.
 
Ironically, most Protestant Christians in the US are "Christian" Zionists, but they do not follow the teachings of Christ.
 
They tend to give more importance to the Old Testament prophecy than to the words of Jesus.
 
For example, they influence political life in the US so that the political leaders they vote for give Israel arms to wage war against their neighbours. These weapons are sometimes used to kill unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and Iranian militias in Syria whose mission is to fight Wahhabi terrorists. The Israeli missile attacks in Syria even target domestic airports and endanger the lives of passengers. What happened to love thy neighbour as thyself? Judaism teaches this. It is from Leviticus. The "Christian" Zionists are Donald Trump's most important constituency, and thanks to them, the US is now flirting with a major war that has the potential to become a world war. In other words, there are significant numbers of both Jews and Christians who reject their own scriptures.
 
In addition, these "Christians" have been brainwashed by ultra-rightwing propaganda teaching that Iran, a Shiite country that rejects Saudi Wahhabism (the religion of ISIS and Al-Qaeda) for religious reasons, is the "biggest terrorist sponsor in the world." This absurd lie supports Israeli propaganda that Iran is a dangerous enemy of civilization. But in reality, Israel has 300 nuclear weapons (Iran has none!) and promotes war, causing the US to wage war against several countries. Countries that are not enemies of the US population.
 
Fortunately, Europe has not yet fallen victim to this religious fanaticism based on a complete misinterpretation of the scriptures.
 
Let me be clear: anti-Semitism is morally wrong and violates the teachings of Jesus.
 
But Zionism in its radical form teaches racism, and this racism led to the killing of countless innocent Palestinians by Zionist terrorists like the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah in 1948 and earlier.
 
The following is an excerpt I translated from the Spanish-language book, "Violencia y terror de los sionistas, antes y después del Estado de Israel", Editorial Canaan, and posted at Quora:

 
"Dr. Teresa Aranguren [2] reports in an informative book about the events that have taken place. I just want to highlight a few touching paragraphs from her book:
 
On April 9, 1948, Irgun and Stern (whose leaders included future Israeli Prime Ministers Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) carried out the massacres of the residents of Deir Yassin.
 
"A young man was tied to a tree and set on fire. A woman and an old man were shot. Girls were put on a wall and shot with a submachine gun. The statements of the filmmaker Neta Shoshani about the massacre in Deir Yassin are hard to understand even 70 years after the fact.
 
"The region's Red Cross delegate, Jacques de Reynier, was the first to arrive in this location when the [Zionist] Irgun militias were still present:" Among the troops were some very young people, almost adolescents, all in military clothing and helmets, men and women armed to the teeth with pistols, machine-guns, grenades and even big knives, most of them still dripping with blood. A very beautiful young woman showed me her blood, that dripped [from her knife] like a trophy...
 
"I went between them and entered a house. The first room was dark, everything was confused, but nobody was visible. In the next room I found several bodies under the furniture and the broken mattresses, which were already cold.
 
"The cleansing had been done first with machine guns, then with grenades, and finally with the long knives; they were not worried that they would be discovered. The same scene as in the next room, but when I was about to leave, I heard what I thought was a sigh.
 
"I moved the bodies until I touched a small foot that was still warm. She was a ten-year-old girl, badly injured by a grenade, but still alive. I picked her up and one of the men tried to block me at the door, I pushed him and left with my precious body ...
 
"We checked the other houses and found the same horrific scene in all of them. We only found two other people alive, two women, one of them an old woman, who had huddled in the kitchen and hidden there for hours ...
 
"The village had four hundred inhabitants, about fifty were able to flee, three survived, the rest had been massacred by order of the commanders, since they are admirably disciplined troops ..." [3]
 
"Jacques de Reynier cites the death toll of 347 from the murder of Deir Yassin. Other sources speak of 250. In any case, it is not about the number of victims - because in those months of 1948 there were similar massacres in many other villages in Palestine - but the echo that the murder had and the panic movement that it evoked that made Deir Yassin one of the keys to the exodus of Palestinian peasants.
 
[In my debates with Israelis and Zionists in Quora, I repeatedly encounter the argument that the Arabs had left of their own free will and that the Zionists were not responsible for their exodus. Of course, they never mention these massacres, which, as reported at Haaretz, is being systematically covered up by the Israeli government. What is the definition of evil? Vince]
 
"Indeed, one of the elements of military strategy has been to achieve the “spontaneous” evacuation of the Arab population in rural Palestine. One pattern that was constantly repeated was to surround the villages and send a message through loudspeakers to the inhabitants: leave the village, or you will suffer the same fate as Deir Yassin.”
 
Below is a link to a video that allows you to understand how the first Zionists got their “rights” to the land:
 
In light of the above, it seems that if the Israelis have a right to this land, the Arabs have no rights, not even the right to life, and the Israelis have the right to kill them with impunity.
 
That is the essence of Zionism, so the elites had better stop saying that Judaism and Zionism are identical! Because saying that is the height of anti-Semitism and it suggests that Judaism promotes murder, when it does not. The startling truth of the matter is that Israel has a shortage of Jews and a surplus of Zionists.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md9Yqff1C-Q
 
CHRISTIANS, IT’S TIME FOR A FRANK, LOVING DIALOGUE WITH OUR JEWISH FRIENDS
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/christians-its-time-for-a-frank-loving-dialogue-with-our-jewish-friends
 
U.S. EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS ARE THE STAUNCHEST SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL’S CRIMES
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/us-evangelical-christians-are-the-staunchest-supporters-of-ls-crimes
 
ISRAEL AND SAUDI ARABIA: SUSPICIOUSLY COZY BED FELLOWS
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/israel-and-saudi-arabia-suspiciously-cozy-bed-fellows
 
HOW ISRAEL REPAYS U.S. KINDNESS
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/how-israel-repays-us-kindness
(why US blindly supports Israel)
 
RUSSIA IS ONLY CHOICE FOR RESOLVING ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/russia-must-serve-as-arbiter-in-israeli-arab-conflict
 
I WARNED YOU ISRAEL WANTS TO DRAG THE US INTO ITS WAR AND HERE IT COMES
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/i-warned-you-that-israel-wants-to-drag-the-us-into-its-war-and-here-it-comes
 
RUSSIA: CHARLES SCOFIELD’S INVENTED ENEMY OF ISRAEL
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/russia-scofields-invented-enemy-of-israel
 
HOW JOHN BOLTON PAVED THE WAY FOR DESTRUCTION OF LEBANON BY ISRAEL
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/how-john-bolton-paved-the-way-for-destruction-of-lebanon-by-israel
 
ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST=PALESTINIANS’ DUTY TO DIE
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/ls-right-to-existarabs-right-to-die

 
Below is our translation of another article by Ivan Danilov with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
 
Putin’s explosive interview with the British paper Financial Times at the Kremlin the day before the Osaka G20 conference, arguably has caused an even bigger media splash than his monumental 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference and the heads of media moguls and Western politicians are exploding like never before. Perhaps the most iconoclastic segment was the following:

“I am not trying to insult anyone because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia. But we have no problem with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish,” he said. “But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can have five or six gender roles.” “Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that,” he added. “But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”
 
Western social media users and commentators have lost their user privileges and their jobs, and some have gone to jail for saying things less inflammatory than this, for example, in the Land of the “Free.” Yet the Western world breathed more freely after this no-holds-barred interview went to press. Westerners have felt this kind of liberation only temporarily on those rare occasions when a bold candidate stood up for the people and then was elected to high office, only to have this same leader compelled to his knees before powerful Establishment figures upon assumption of the office. The Establishment brings everyone down to its own sleazy level. No hero can survive the smears in the West. There is no such thing as a powerful personality any more. They all go in the meat grinder once they start to make waves. That’s why more than one conservative activist has commented, only half jokingly, “I want Putin for president.”
 
Slowly but surely, Putin is asserting himself not only at home but throughout the world. He took the reins in Syria and got the US-backed terrorists on the run. He is quite likely the reason there has been no war in Iran, at least so far. And now the British have even given him a platform to argue his case.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
https://ria.ru/20190629/1556021845.html
 
Major humiliation from Putin: he seems to be winning the media war
 
by Ivan Danilov
 
June 29, 2019
 
Vladimir Putin's interview with the Financial Times flagship of the world financial press literally blew up the global media field. Traditionally, traders, financiers and officials of economic ministries and departments of various countries usually watch the interviews of political leaders in financial media, but in this case, the theses of the Russian leader went far beyond financial issues and now we can safely predict that this interview with Putin will be a source of hard-hitting and pithy quotes for the widest western audience. Firstly, the Russian leader has demonstrated a level of political incorrectness that no Western politician can afford in the modern world. Secondly, Putin’s interview looks like an indictment of “global liberalism,” which shocked many in the West. And most importantly: the Russian president made a powerful bid for global ideological leadership. Millions of people around the world now have a politician who does not hesitate to say things that are forbidden to mention, and a politician who professes altogether classical values ​​that have been strictly prohibited in the West.
 
If we summarize the reaction of the Western media (at the time of writing this column), we see that in the western media world, three theses of the Russian leader aroused the most interest. This is quite noticeable in the headlines: "Vladimir Putin says liberalism is outdated” and praises Donald Trump as a" talented person" (British The Telegraph), "Putin assesses Trump as talented,” says liberalism is “outdated" (the American political publication The Hill), “Western liberalism is outdated, warns Putin on the eve of a meeting with Teresa May” (British The Guardian).
 
Almost all media (and there are a lot of reactions) are writing about “outdated liberalism” and only Euronews is interested in at least something other than criticism of liberalism and the assessment of President Trump’s political talents, and reports with reference to Reuters news agency: “Putin said that (shrinking. - Ed.) oil production has helped stabilize world markets."
 
From this brief study, two important conclusions can be drawn. First, there can be no question of any media isolation of Russia or the transformation of Russia to a secondary (and uninteresting) regional player. On the world stage, there are only three political leaders whose interviews with a foreign publication will immediately become top news on all continents, and they are Putin, Xi and Trump. The second conclusion: the Russian leader delivered a verbal strike at the sore spot of Western political discourse. The topic of criticism of modern Western "liberalism" has turned out to be so painful that it is absolutely impossible to ignore it.
 
Aside from the issue of the Donald Trump’s political talents, the Western media is generally extracting two quotes from the whole interview: “there is a modern so-called liberal idea, which, I think, has simply completely outlived itself. Regarding some of its elements, our Western partners have admitted that they are simply unrealistic: multiculturalism is one of them, for example. When the problem of migration began, many admitted that yes, this, unfortunately, does not work and we need to remember the interests of the indigenous population, and "this liberal idea implies that you [immigrants] don’t need to do anything at all. Kill, rob, rape - you have nothing to worry about, because you are an immigrant, we need to protect your rights. What rights? You break the law, you get punished. Therefore, this idea itself has become obsolete and contradicts the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population." From the standpoint of the editors and journalists working in the western media, these quotes are probably evidence that Vladimir Putin is the enemy of all that is good and enlightened in the western (liberal) world, but now we have a case where all the anti-Putin Western media efforts are engaged in improving the image of the Russian president.
 
If you look at the reaction of ordinary social network users, it is easy to notice that Putin had said out loud what many in the West would like to say, but cannot, for fear of losing their job, their reputation or even their freedom. Moreover, the Russian president was the only European politician who could afford such statements, and this interview shows that he is much freer in his statements than a certain Donald Trump, who (despite all his extravagance and flamboyant rhetoric) is obliged in most cases to demonstrate a respectful attitude towards liberal ideology and its values. From the entire interview, the Westerner will most likely remember a simple principle: where there is Putin, there is freedom, and he will note for himself that the Russian president is telling the truth that hurts the sensibilities of the Western political establishment.
 
When the western expert community recovers a little from the shock, it will surely accuse Putin of allegedly being the ideological inspirer or even the secret leader of the right wing (as well as the far right) everywhere and of the nationalist and the anti-Establishment movements of the planet. But even that would rather benefit his international image.
 
The main reason for the painful reaction of our Western partners lies in the fact that Vladimir Putin gave an ironic and rational explanation for the political phenomenon that tormented the consciousness of Washington, London and Brussels experts.
 
In their world, history should have ended a long time ago in accordance with Fukuyama’s forecasts, but instead, Brexit happened, Trump was elected, and the European Union plunged into a systemic crisis such that its continued existence after regular elections to the European Parliament has been called a genuine success. Of course, the public is allowed to believe in "explanations for the plebeians." This is along the lines of, for example, "Russian hackers bought advertising on Facebook and that’s why Brexit happened." But for their personal understanding, the expert community would like to hear something more reasonable, while no one has the courage to admit the obvious systemic problems. But Putin has the courage to do this, and his precisely articulated wording "the contemporary modern so-called liberal idea, it <...> has simply become obsolete itself" is, in fact, the correct answer to the main question of the modern Western world.
 
Even if Western politicians and experts do not want to accept this explanation, the reality will not change. Conservative and populist revenge is not just inevitable, it is already gaining momentum around the world, and instead of coarse “liberal idealism” (which declares humanism, but behaves like a cannibal), pragmatic realism, which is so beneficial to Russia and which is so disliked by many Russophobes in the West, will gradually come to dominate. This does not mean that Western partners in particular will love Russia in general and Putin in particular, and this is not necessary. It does mean, however, that at last there is a chance that world politics will be discussed by leaders for whom their real national values ​​and interests are more important than ideologies.
 
END TRANSLATION

Many Americans supported Trump only because he sounded like he wanted peace, although I was skeptical because of his anti-Iran rhetoric, which was aimed at pleasing Israel.

Tulsi Gabbard talks peace and not out of both sides of her mouth either. If you are sick of wars being foisted on you by lies and want peace, no one else in the race will deliver.

Already they have revved up the lie machine, calling her a Putin stooge. Can we ignore that nonsense this time around? After all, if Putin is the only one calling for peace and US candidates want war, why should anyone hate him?

The following is a publication produced by the Larouche PAC
 
https://larouchepub.com/pr/2019/190627_support_gabbard_warning.html
 
Americans Support Tulsi Gabbard’s Warnings against War in Democrats’ Debate
June 27, 2019 (EIRNS)—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard forced the great strategic issue of the danger of nuclear war, the urgency of ensuring that the U.S. does not go to war against Iran, and the need to end the current wars (e.g., Afghanistan) on the agenda in the first of the Democratic Party Presidential candidate debates last night.
Drudge Report, which is followed by many in President Donald Trump’s base, headlined the “shocker” result of its online survey after the debate: over 41% of the 75,000 people who answered its poll voted Gabbard the winner of the debate. In similar, if smaller surveys by the Washington Examiner, NJ.com (Newark Star Ledger), and Heavy, Gabbard also carried the day with between 30-40% of the “vote,” the other candidates coming in far behind.

Gabbard used the first question to her—about her position on equal pay—to force the war issue onto the agenda. After recounting her military experience—she is a war veteran who served one tour in Iraq, and a second in Southwest Asia, and now carries the rank of Major in the Army National Guard—Gabbard answered that our leaders have been leading us from one war to the next, and leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives.

Later, she hit the biggest danger: “We’re in a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history.”

The American people need to understand that a war on Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly, than anything that we saw in Iraq, she stated at another point. It would take more lives, would exacerbate the refugee crisis, and would not be contained to Iran. This would turn into a regional war. She continued: “That’s why it is so important that everyone one of us, every single American, stands up and says no war with Iran.”

NBC, citing FBI agents and other known liars, immediately put out the line that Gabbard is being promoted by “the Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election.” What worries them, as “former” FBI agent Clint Watts admitted to NBC, is that candidate Gabbard may be able to make such “positions” part of the Democratic primary debates—and thereby of the presidential election as a whole.
    

Below you will find out translation of an article by Ivan Danilov from RIA Novosti with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
 
Every Russian knows the history of the Georgia-Russia war but US news consumers are subjected to a version that is far from reality. I recommend this site for a decent summary. The gist of it is that the US seeks control of Georgia and much of Eurasia, but Russia has thrown a spanner in its plans. Mikheil Saakashvili was president of Georgia at the time of this war but had used questionable tactics to rise to that position. His rise to power was facilitated by the Rose Revolution that deposed the previous president Edward Shevardnadze. It is important to note that, while Western media insist that this revolution was due to the “spontaneous” Kmara youth movement, it in fact grew from a subsoil prepared far in advance by US NGOs, including USAID and a George Soros Open Society Georgia foundation (OSGF). A thorough academic investigation done after the revolution is reported here in PDF format and shows that this revolution was by no means home-grown. The idea is to control Eurasia and most of the rest of the world according to a nifty plan by Zbigniew Brzezinksi that keeps on failing.
 
At the outset of the Georgia-Russia war, the US-supported Saakashvili aggressively launched an offensive against two breakaway regions of Georgia that had been part of the Soviet Union and wanted no parts of Georgia. Same story as Crimea and the Donbass. Russia came to the defence of the two breakaway regions, whose citizens were being slaughtered by Georgia, and easily won a victory. The pro-US Georgian government is smarting to this day.
 
Eventually, the US-educated and US-backed Saakashvili turned out to be more authoritarian and anti-democratic than the Shevardnadze government that he replaced (same scenario as in Ukraine) and there was unrest in Georgia as a result. GlobalResearch writes:
 
“In 2007, similar demonstrations took place in Georgia. Back then, Saakashvili responded by imposing emergency rule and riot police was used to prevent this wave of discontent from escalating and some pro-opposition TV stations (Imedi and Kavkasia) were, apparently, forcibly closed.[2] What both episodes have in common is that Georgian opposition members have denounced the Saakashvili government as corrupt and arbitrarily authoritarian.”
 
The US narrative of “Russian aggression” in Georgia and the constant pressure of US NGOs in the country has maintained a smouldering Russophobia, just as it has in the Baltics, Poland and elsewhere.
 
We must always consider all actions of US NGOs in the former Soviet bloc as part of a grand plan aimed at depriving Russia of its influence in that region. This is part of a grand plan to control Eurasia and Asia, as described here:
 
“What’s at stake is what former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard.” He called Eurasia the “centre of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.” [My highlighting]  He continued: “The most immediate (US) task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” Dominating that part of the world and its vast energy and other resources is Washington’s goal with NATO and Israel its principal tools to do it:
 
“— in the Middle East with its two-thirds of the world’s proved oil reserves (about 675 billion barrels); and
 
“— the Caspian basin with an estimated 270 billion barrels of oil plus one-eighth of the world’s natural gas reserves.
 
“New World Order” strategy aims to secure them. Russia, China, and Iran have other plans. India allies with both sides.”
 
The game the US is playing in Georgia today is ultimately doomed to failure because, thanks in part to US bullying in the form of tariffs, sanctions, embargoes and media slander, Russia and China are being pushed into each others’ arms. But without these two countries, Brzezinski’s “centre of world power” will never be theirs, and they know this. So what we are seeing in Eastern Europe, with regime change efforts, meddling by US NGOs, anti-Russian propaganda and NATO exercises at Russia’s border, is all just vain flailings much like the gasping and flopping of a landed fish at the bottom of a boat. The Middle East is also lost to the US thanks to US overreach in the region, ie, the near-total destruction of Iraq and Syria with US bombs and US-allied terrorists cynically called “moderates,” the hostility of US ally Israel toward the Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and Russia’s increasing military power to confront the US armed forces. Just this morning, for instance, we read that Israel – which has been itching for war with Russia partner Iran – is charging Russia with using its electronic warfare means to disrupt the GPS signals over Israeli airspace. Seen in this perspective, the Georgian protests were mere pinpricks, and Putin dealt swiftly with them by banning air travel between Russia and Georgia. The following translation adds up the reckoning for this move by the Kremlin.
 
We remind the reader that this economic backlash is at work all over Russophobic Eastern Europe, for example, in Latvia, as we showed here. We also showed here how Ukraine had been impoverished by its adventure with the US and its suicidal disconnect from the Russian economic sphere that once provided a fair share of the nation’s income. What the victims of anti-Russian propaganda need to wake up to is the fact that the US, despite its history of generosity, eg, via the Marshall Plan, has long been out of the business of actually helping people economically, even those states that have fallen for its regime change propaganda. Its modus operandi now is flat-out impoverishment.
 
The unspoken statement by Putin is “you want to hate on Russia, fine, but there is a price to pay.”
 
BEGIN TRANSATION
 
Russophobia costs at least 750 million dollars
 
June 25, 2019
 
Ivan Danilov
 
Thanks to the consistent efforts of Georgian politicians (and the Georgian voters who support them), we can finally answer the question: how much does Russophobia cost? If the data provided by the head of the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants of Georgia Shalva Alaverdashvili are true, then the approximate price is (for a start and without additional Russian sanctions) about 750 million US dollars. If we proceed from the population of Georgia at 3.7 million (according to the World Bank), it turns out that the anti-Russian actions and demonstrations with slogans about the Russian occupation, and indeed the whole bright carnival of gleeful Russophobia will cost $202 per resident of Georgia, that is, about half the average white collar salary, according to the government portal Investingeorgia.org. It is clear that the losses from the decline of the Russian tourist flow will not be evenly distributed across the population, but still the figure is already making an impression. Moreover, with the continuation of the anti-Russian policy, these losses (in the form of lost revenues) will be repeated from year to year.
 
In terms of Georgia’s GDP, the losses from a reduction in the number of Russian tourists look even more interesting. According to the World Bank, Georgia’s GDP is only $ 15.5 billion, so a loss of $ 750 million, or about 4.83% of gross domestic product, is a very serious blow to the national economy. The figures are especially impressive if you consider that the loss estimate of the Georgian side was taken not from a Russian official, but from a Georgian source - after all, who would know better than the founder of the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants of Georgia how much money the tourist sector of the country will lose?
 
However, it is definitely not necessary to dwell on tourism. There is no need to engage in lengthy polemics with arrogant politicians of foreign countries, and even more so we need not beat our breasts over the fact that a certain Kiev or Tbilisi at some point in its history does not see its future as being with Russia, does not want to respect Russian interests or show even minimal respect for Russians, who in some limiting countries are called “Moskals” [an ethnic slur of Russians in Ukraine], sometimes “occupiers,” or other pejorative terms.
 
All neighbours and partners need to convey (preferably with the help of the most painful measures of economic impact) a simple idea: good relations with Russia, which, among other things, make it possible to earn access to Russian markets and Russian money, is a privilege, and this privilege must be earned, and then carefully cultivated, groomed and cherished. Those who do not understand this will remain without access to Russian money and markets – this is not a matter of punishment, it is a matter of Russia's elementary self-esteem as a country. Paying money to a country whose leadership sincerely hates Russia and the "Russian occupiers" is, to put it mildly, a strange and extremely unproductive strategy.
 
The ultimate goal of this economic educational process can be considered a situation in which any anti-Russian statement by the president or prime minister will trigger an immediate reflex in the residents of a bordering country, namely:  you need to go to a rally and throw this president or prime minister out onto the street, otherwise there will be sanctions again, and again there will be expensive gas, again there will be no tourists, again there will be no money. If the residents of the neighbouring country do not do this, then economic pressure must be increased until the conditioned reflex becomes fixed. And this is not “imperial manners,” as lovers of the idea of ​​“returning Crimea in exchange for jamón” might think, but the best experience of our Western partners. [The mention of jamón references the Russian counter-sanctions against the first US sanctions imposed on Russia following the accession of Crimea to Mother Russia. Imported Spanish ham (jamón), a favourite of Russians, was missed at first, but was soon replaced by local delicacies when Russia embargoed European food imports].
 
Experience with Washington, especially if you look at the actions of the current US administration, shows how consistent the Americans are in using economic and power methods of putting pressure on those who show even the slightest anti-American intentions. An important point: for the introduction of economic sanctions or even holding actions of forceful influence, Washington, London or Brussels do not even need any special reason, and the set of pretexts is limited only by the imagination (and sometimes the sense of humour) of specialized officials. However, Russia is a more civilized state. And it uses coercive methods only in case of extreme necessity, that is, for self-defence or defence of allies, but measures of economic impact are definitely gentlemen's tools that must be applied often and wholeheartedly.
 
The practice of the Soviet Union convincingly shows that the elites (and a certain part of the population) of countries neighbouring Russia do not feel any gratitude for all the financial and human resources that were invested in bringing true European civilization to the backward regions that were once an individual country. And consequently, one should not repeat the mistakes of the past and look for some kind of magical mixture of attractive ideology and investments, which often slide into banal "subsidies in exchange for kisses." The inconsistent sympathies of politicians of neighbouring countries who betray Russia at the earliest opportunity (for example, after receiving the first more advantageous offer from Brussels or Washington), are not worthy of our even spending one rouble on them. The best way to make Russia an attractive partner is to invest in Russia itself, since our country is huge: every rouble invested in Kaliningrad and Samara, Perm and Vladivostok is not only an investment in the future of Russia, but also an investment in prompting the residents of neighbouring States to be jealous of the Russians, to desire that their children learn Russian and live in Russia. If this burning, total, all-pervading envy is combined with a keen sense that Russia will be quite well off without any love for Russophobic government formations at its borders, but it will be bad for them to lack access to Russian markets and money – this means that the missions of foreign policy in the so-called near abroad can be considered fulfilled.
 
Institutional Russophobia, contempt for Russia, statements about “Russian occupiers,” etc, are all luxury political goods that very few and very rich countries can afford (but with pain in the soul and in the wallet). Henceforth we will observe how Georgia gradually becomes aware of the high cost of the political position taken by those politicians for whom the Georgian voters massively voted. We can assume that those 750 million dollars, which Georgia may lose on reduced Russian tourism, will be augmented by losses from embargoes of Georgian wine to Russia (which is about 116 million dollars a year). Paraphrasing the well-known Russian saying, one can say that the miser pays twice, the fool thrice, and the Russophobe constantly, and it always will be so. Paraphrasing of the Russian proverb: Скупой платит дважды, дурак трижды а лох — по жизни, ie, the miser pays twice, the fool thrice and the dupe all his life]
 
END TRANSLATION

 
The following is our translation of an article from RIA FAN with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
 
According to our translated article, the trigger of the recent uprising in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi was that the head of the Russian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy in Tbilisi, the chairman of the meeting, Gavrilov, who also headed the Russian delegation, sat in the chair of the speaker of the Georgian parliament.
 
Almost every Western commentator referencing issues between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia takes the view that the Georgians are simply striving to be free of the nefarious influence of Russia and need US and European help. The implication is always that they need US NGOs and NATO to keep them “free.” I had shown here that  NATO certainly does not make any European nation free, but makes Europe a vassal of the warlike Washington government, and that it has already murdered 13,500 Europeans.
 
But “freedom” has a special definition in the West and in the US-aligned former Soviet republics. In Soviet days, it was easy to see that these republics were under Russian control and that their peoples understandably yearned to be free of this pernicious influence.
 
But today, in the absence of a Soviet Union, only the US tries to bring these peoples under its heavy-handed control. Yet the US NGOs and other agents there are strongly suggesting – without evidence — that nothing has changed since the Soviet Union fell and that today’s Russia is just as big a bully as the former Soviet bosses. One of the US agencies involved in the former Soviet states is USAID, which is a front for regime change that pretends to be helping the poor. USAID was one of the agencies that instigated and supported the illegal and violent Maidan coup that changed Ukraine from a rapidly developing state to the poorest country in Europe – according to IMF statistics. Let me point out that the European countries with the most anti-Russian sentiment, ie, the Baltic states and Ukraine, are the ones most strongly aligned with the US and are also the poorest countries in the region. Makes you wonder when their citizens will wake up and restore normal relations with Russia.
 
Even the NYT, which is generally seen by many as an Establishment screed, admits, in a short editorial here, that USAID has been meddling in European internal politics.
 
21stcenturywire.com calls USAID a CIA front. An article in The American Conservative lists several countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Slovakia and Ukraine, where USAID has worked to achieve regime change in the name of “democracy.”
 
USAID is active in almost all of the former Soviet republics and bloc, and the main thrust is not “democracy” but regime change and social change, as well as a the promotion of a toxic anti-Russian atmosphere. In Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, thanks to the US influence, there are now laws that ban or discourage the teaching and/or official use of Russian even though some of these countries have very large populations of ethnic Russians and Russian has long been the lingua franca between non-native segments of the population and the locals. In Latvia, for example, 43.7% of the population speak fluent Russian as a second language. Ukraine also has a very high percentage of Russian speakers and one of the main sore spots that caused the republics of Lugansk and Donetsk to break away was the US-backed Kiev government’s anti-Russian language laws. The national languages of the tiny Baltic states are spoken by very small numbers of people and graduates with a higher education in any of these national languages are either limited to the professional job markets of those countries themselves, where unemployment is high, or are obliged to acquire a professional level of proficiency in the language of the country to which they emigrate. For many, Russian would be the most useful language because it is relatively easy for a citizen of a former Soviet republic or bloc country to immigrate to the Russian Federation, where jobs are abundant, and it is hard to ignore that Russian is the language with the most native speakers and the biggest cultural influence in their region. In Poland and Czechia, for example, where, fortunately, this Russian language ban does not exist, there is a high demand for the teaching of Russian. Thus, the anti-Russian influence of Washington not only causes economic problems but also denies cultural opportunities for the Baltic states. On a personal note, I was able to use Russian to communicate in Estonia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 70s, and at that time, the language was preferred for communication between travellers and immigrants from various countries in the region. It makes no sense at all to discourage the use of this very practical language.
 
Thus the Baltic states are shooting themselves in the foot with these language restrictions and I strongly suspect this rejection of Russian language and culture is rooted in the teachings and propaganda of American NGOs like USAID, which boil down to simple anti-Russian racism.
 
I suspect that once the American campaign to discourage Russian language and culture and replace it with American everything subsides, Russian will once again recover its rightful place in the region.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
Expert explains who is behind the protests in Georgia
 
US globalists have launched in Georgia a new phase of the effort to separate that country from Russia. This was announced to the Federal News Agency by Valery Korovin, a member of the Izborsk Club and director of the Centre for Geopolitical Expertise.
 
“In Georgia, the next stage of military detachment from Russia has begun,” he stated. “After the establishment of the nationalist course launched by [the first president of Georgia] Zviyad Gamsakhurdia and the operation on behalf of the United States [by the country's former president] Mikhail Saakashvili, it was time to target orthodoxy, the last link between Russia and Georgia.”
 
According to the FAN interlocutor, the liberalization of Georgia occurs in stages: first, hard nationalism, which provoked the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia [Western media and pols insist this secession was all Russia’s fault], then the orientation towards NATO membership, and then - church reform, post-modernization and dehumanization, a scenario implemented more than once by globalist strategists.
 
“By creating their networks on the territory of various states, US globalists use any excuse to put pressure on the government, demanding greater liberalization, and if the state doesn’t want to make concessions, they demolish it entirely,” explained the Director of the CGE.
 
The IMF tranche allotted the day before, and the call to hold a gay pride parade in Tbilisi (amid the unrest) were no coincidence.  This is the political globalist machine that devours states and peoples. ”
 
Korovin is convinced that Georgia will be able to resist only if it rallies around Orthodoxy and traditional values and does not give in to minorities again.
 
Recall that the riots began on the evening of June 21, 2019 in the Georgian capital, in fact, because of a strange circumstance. After the State Duma deputy Sergei Gavrilov sat in the chair of the local parliament, infuriating Georgian radicals, the building began to be stormed.
US involvement was suspected in the riots. Earlier, the senior director of the Biden Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Michael Carpenter, stated that “one day Georgia may wake up and find not 20%, but 100% occupied territories,”
 
In addition, it is very symptomatic that the American Foundation “Free Russia” is located in Georgia, whose activities are openly anti-Russian. The United States Agency for International Development (United States Agency for International Development, USAID) is also likely behind the riots.
 
It is American internet activists, including those residing in the territory of the European Union, who incite Georgians to unrest, and so actively support the “struggle” of Georgians with Russia. Thus, the Web maintains the media background necessary for subsequent implementation of the mission of the US globalist elites.
 
END OF TRANSLATION

Cocky Netanyahu before US Congress:

"If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee that it will have enormous reverberations on the region. And I think that the people sitting right next door, in Iran, young people, will say that the time for such regimes, such despots, is gone. Something new is happening."

Er, Mister Netanyahu, was that a money-back guarantee by any chance?
 


I had shown before right here on May 18, 2019 at New Silk Strategies that Israel had admitted it wants to drag the US into its war on Iran.
 
As far as I know, no one in the msm and no blogger picked up the story. I am not trying to grab the limelight. I stumbled upon this Israeli op-ed by accident. Like in the old Peter Sellers movie “Being There,” I was just there. But I saw the danger in what I was reading. It was crystal clear that Israel – the Middle East nation with 300 nukes – was going to try its best to push the US into war, because it said so, in black and white. Israel, the warlike country with 300 nukes, admitted it wanted to punish non-nuclear Iran for even thinking about developing a nuclear bomb. Even though Iran had signed an agreement with multiple countries not to develop a nuke under a verifiable regime, and Israel friend Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement without cause, to the delight of the ultra-right in Tel Aviv, thereby giving rise to this current crisis. So of course, all of this is Iran’s fault and the whole world needs to punish that evil country for trying to defend itself. Right?
 
As I reported here on May 18, Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror brazenly wrote in his op-ed at TV7israelnews in March 2019, scarcely 3 months ago that:
 
Israel must “win the struggle” against Iran “one way or the other” and
 
“Israel must enlist a reluctant US to take an active part in operations alongside it, and not only as a supportive observer from the sidelines.”  [my highlighting]
 
In the past, anyone who stated that Israel was behind US wars in the Muslim world was instantly flagged as anti-Semitic and was tarred with the smelliest brush in the box – before he had a chance to defend himself or continue exposing the Israeli military for its role in creating war and chaos in the Middle East.
 
And this despite the fact that prior to the disastrous Iraq war, Netanyahu spent 2 hours haranguing the US Congress to sell that war. Specifically, Amidror had said in his op-ed at TV7israelnews.
 
QUOTE:
 
“Israel’s opposition to Iranian entrenchment in Syria and Lebanon is twofold:  To prevent Iran from building a beachhead against Israel through its proxies on Israel’s borders, and to impede development of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile capabilities. Israel is absolutely determined and prepared to act forcefully against Iran, which could lead to a full-scale war. Israel must win this struggle against Iran, one way or another.”
 
And so far, Amidror’s scheme is working. Israel has, “one way or the other,” enlisted the willing assistance of Lindsay Graham to pressure Trump into war. Graham blared out his overbearing statement on national TV, and at realclearpolitics, the headline reads:
 
“Graham: If Iran gets away with anything else, it is a signal to the world That Trump is ‘all talk’"
 
With these offensive words, aimed at a fellow Republican colleague, Graham has pushed Trump into a corner and Trump now has to act. Or do nothing and take it on the jaw.
 
Interestingly, Graham then said “If they do anything else against an American asset and this president doesn't respond like Ronald Reagan, that's a signal to North Korea and the entire world we're all talk.” Graham forgets that N. Korea already is working on developing a nuke, already seeing Trump as all talk. Further, though the US public may have forgotten, Reagan never started a war with or attacked a militarily powerful nation, even when provoked. For example, he did nothing when the Soviets shot down US commercial flight 007 over Kamchatka in 1983. Unlike Trump. Reagan did not make threats against the USSR at that time, nothing. He let if blow over. And no one dared question his authority – the whining mouse from S. Carolina wouldn’t have dared.
 
I am not going to stick my neck out and suggest that Mossad or the CIA was behind those attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf (though Israel has the assets to carry out such an attack and has a history of false flags). I will only say that Iran had no motive whatsoever unless they are really stupid or crazy, though maybe they are. But it is a mark against the US that Pompeo and Bolton so quickly accused Iran of perpetrating those attacks before an investigation could be performed, when it was abundantly clear that Israel was the one itching for war “one way or another” in its own words! Who had the motive? Cui bono? Yet, the known war mongers (including known Iranophobe John Bolton) in Trump’s cabinet quickly pointed the finger at Iran in an attempt to trap Trump into attacking Iran, a move that would greatly endanger his chances of re-election in 2020.
 
Now that the senator has indirectly pointed his dainty finger and accused the president of being weak, it will be interesting to see what happens next.
 
As Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif said after the attacks and the swift US accusations: “suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what happened.”
 
So now I have a question for the US public:
 
Did you learn a lesson from the phony narrative of the WMDs in Iraq that no one has been able to find? Or are you about to fall into another trap that could lead to a war three times as costly as that one?

 
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Russia-been-for-decades-a-traditional-enemy-of-Israel-What-did-the-Israelis-ever-do-to-them#
 
Why has Russia been, for decades, a traditional enemy of Israel? What did the Israelis ever do to them?
 
BEGIN QUORA ANSWER
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
This question is more of a statement and it is erroneous. Russia has never been a traditional enemy of Israel ever. Now if the querier had said Russia was a traditional enemy of the Jews, that may have been a bit closer to the truth, but also not very accurate. While the word pogrom is Russian in origin, several other countries waged pogroms against their Jews, including Poland, Ukraine, and Greece, the Soviet Union was the country that sent more of its people to Israel than any other. 20% of Israelis were born in Russia and many more are descended from them. Not only that, Putin frequently meets with Netanyahu and is so friendly with him that the Russian people are annoyed because of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians and its attacks on Syria, as can be seen by reading the forums of Russian-language news sites.
 
And as for traditional enemies of the Jews, no nation under the sun has come anywhere near to Germany in terms of persecuting Jews. The Holocaust and concentration camps like Auschwitz were not located in Russia, of course, and Russia bitterly opposed Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. Soviet propaganda and literature established Russia as the anti-Nazi that treated its Jews with kindness. Auschwitz was in Poland, run by German Nazis, and who was it that liberated these Jewish prisoners? Yes, it was the Russians. So how are they traditional enemies of the Jews? Only in someone’s imagination, and the one mainly responsible is named below.
 
I think the question should have read “why has Russia been traditionally blamed as an enemy of the Jews?
 
This myth of Russia as an enemy of the Jews was first popularized by Charles Scofield, the author of the commentaries in the Scofield Bible. Scofield’s footnote at the bottom of the first page of Ezekiel 38 (p. 883) started a pernicious myth among English-speaking Christians, particularly Americans, who have a tendency to read the Bible through the prism of Bible “scholars,” and for decades, Scofield was their favourite. Some of them actually believed his notes were inspired by the Almighty. Although Protestants have long criticised the Catholics for insisting that only the priests were qualified to read and understand the Bible, Protestants quickly adopted the same kind of man-centred principles in their doctrines, holding mostly doctrines that some Bible “scholar” or other had invented. In 1909, on said p. 883, Scofield added a note to Ezekiel’s description of the battle of Armageddon, that he could not have written if he had lived through WW II by that time. Quote:
 
“That the primary reference is to the northern (European), headed up by Russia, all agree. ..... “Gog” is the prince, “Magog” is his land.”
 
This gave rise to the belief – which lasted in US Christian circles until far into the 20th Century and beyond, including the present day  – that Gog and Magog – the villains who were to invade Israel in the future – were a man and a place, respectively, in Russia, making Russia an anti-Semitic villain. But Assyrian court records discovered decades after Scofield published his commentaries show that Gog and Magog were places in what is now Turkey. Thus, standard Christian views were forged not by God but by a fallible man and they stuck.
 
Scofield continues (remember, it was 1909 and the Holocaust in the Third Reich had not yet happened):
 
“Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel.”
 
Note that Scofield does not say which of the northern powers he is referring to. Certainly, if he had had even the slightest inkling which ones they were, he would have mentioned them. In mentioning only Russia, he was infecting most of Protestantism with a pernicious fear and distrust of Russia that she in no way deserved.
 
Thus in one footnote, Scofield, through the fruits of his vivid imagination, has set the tone for US-led foreign policy for over a century to come, effectively endorsing a fear and distrust of Russia that extended into Western, particularly American, foreign policy. It is still very much in place.
 
This one man’s notes on Israel and its supposed future enemies has contributed greatly to the phenomenon we call Russophobia, which, BTW, got its start in his homeland, England, where it held sway by the middle of the 19th Century and was no doubt the primary impediment to relations between Europe and Russia. In fact, it seems likely that Scofield’s view of Russia was shaped not by his reading of the scriptures but by good old fashioned English Russophobia that predated his commentaries.
 
To get a snapshot of what Russia’s current views are on Judaism and the Jews, here is my translation of part of an article from the Kremlin site:
 
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/26985
 
“The President of Russia [Putin] declared the need to erect a barrier to xenophobia and religious extremism in society.
 
“Russia is a unique country,” said the head of state, where for centuries Christianity, Judaism and Muslim cultures not only coexisted but were in harmony. According to the President, this fusion is the basis of the strength of the multinational Russian people.”
 
Contrast this with America, where, after many years of human relations based on race and religion-based foreign policy, little if anything has been learned. A president has forged and enforced an immigration policy denying travel to America to people because they are Muslims (but ironically, this is only enforced against Shiites, not the more dangerous Sunnis) and US planes have bombed and killed thousands of Muslims for reasons that no one has ever been able to adequately articulate, except that they were mostly Shiites and the US is partial to Sunnis (due to its alliance with Saudi). As for the Jews and Israel, there are no attempts to actually help Israel, for example. US policies simply give Israel what it thinks it wants, always by military means, thereby actually putting the people of Israel in grave danger. Pulling out of the Iran deal did nothing but infuriate the Iranians and Hezbollah and nothing to promote understanding. US tolerance for the abuse of Palestinians indulges Israel’s prejudices but does not help it learn how to deal with others in a civilized way. In the final analysis, these war-centred policies not only do not help Israel, they actually expose it to the gravest of dangers and therefore, ultimately are in fact anti-Semitic – the opposite of what they purport to be. The latest rumour that the US is preparing a strike on the Tehran nuclear power plant does not help bring peace to Israel, quite the opposite. If this happens, there is a good chance that Iran will strike Tel Aviv, and it may use enough missiles to swarm the Iron Dome air defences in such a way that many missiles will get through and actually destroy a large part of Tel Aviv. They may also strike a US aircraft carrier, but that may not be as much a concern to Trump as his obsession to give Israel what it demands (since I finished writing this, Trump has already called off a promised strike on Iran. Perhaps things are turning around). Everyone knows that if the Iran deal had been kept intact, none of this would be happening. It is a perverse kind of racism (Iranophobia) that threatens Israel and can easily get thousands of them killed. But in the final analysis, it is a matter of doing what they want, not giving them what they need, and though this policy seems, on the surface, like a love of Israel, it is merely an over-indulgence of the religious beliefs of the American “Christian” Zionists and of the Israelis, with little thought given to possible consequences. We are now left to wonder if Israel will go ahead and attack Iran on its own.
 
Russia too deals with Israel and never harshly, but at the same time, refuses to go along with the abuse of Palestinians and sets limits as to what Israel may bomb in Syria.
 
 
In my opinion, the only hope for peace in the Middle East is the possibility that the US will step aside and Russia will serve as an arbiter.
 
END OF QUORA ANSWER
 
Relevant:
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/popular-us-religious-cult-defiles-the-holy-land
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/military-affairs/israel-just-admitted-it-wants-to-drag-the-us-into-war-with-iran
​

In the following, you will find our translation of another analysis by Ivan Danilov, who always shows uncommon insight into the machinations of American Establishment figures, including politicians and intellectuals. Here Danilov examines two editorials from Bloomberg, which are both aimed at preparing the US for a confrontation with both Russia and China simultaneously, or in other words, something that could only turn into an apocalyptic scenario. Though Danilov doesn’t mention by name the Thucydides trap described by Allison Graham, he writes:
 
“...the fact is that the feeling of “American decline” and the death of American hegemony, which no longer even needs resuscitation, but rather the miracle of resurrection from the dead, is both a conclusion and an emotion that can be found throughout the American “press for thinking people.”
 
In his book “Destined for War” Published May 2017, a scant 2 years ago, author Graham Allison reminds us that Thucydides had once written:
 
“It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”
 
The Belferd Centre of the Harvard Kennedy School writes of this theme:
 
“China and the United States are heading toward a war neither wants. The reason is Thucydides’s Trap, a deadly pattern of structural stress that results when a rising power challenges a ruling one.”
 
Danilov recognizes that the Thucydides trap has just doubled in size and in danger to world peace, as we are reminded by two Neocon writers published by Bloomberg, who think the US must prepare for war with both China and Russia at the same time, by building up its armed forces even further, as if spending over twice the amount on armaments as China, the world’s biggest defence spender, were not already an extravaganza that threatens to bankrupt the US and rather than strengthen it, in fact, further weakens an already decrepit economy built solely on debt and Ponzi schemes like the petrodollar agreement with Saudi or the attempt to make America great by the Rube Goldberg scheme of fracking and strong-arming Europe into buying extravagantly priced American LNG instead of the much cheaper pipeline-delivered Russian natural gas. Only the fools who run the US fail to realize that you can’t keep holding a gun to your trading partners’ heads and expect them to keep swallowing this insult without fighting back against the dollar that is used more as a weapon than it is as a currency.
 
Nor is there a clean analogy between the empire building and war making of the US and the ancient empires. The wars of Rome and Greece were focused on confronting real enemies and conquering new lands for their empires. But the US makes war for reasons that are not nearly as clear as this. Geopolitical analysts spend their lives trying to decode the motives of US war makers and go to their graves without fully grasping these motives.
 
Academicians have long sought the true motivation of America’s wars, but their theories do not reveal anything resembling a clear-cut striving to build riches and conquer territory or to benefit their own people in any way for that matter. Of course, the false pretexts are superficially moral-sounding and many ordinary people still fall for the narrative of the US as the saviour of mankind. But people with a modicum of insight who have lived through, for example, the WMD and Gulf of Tonkin lies, know there is something sinister going on behind the scenes and they have drawn their own conclusions, some of which make sense.
 
We have shown at New Silk Strategies that there are two factors in these wars that are provable and not just conspiracy theories because they are supported by facts from the msm, though the facts almost never support the conclusions of editorialists and academic analysts, and these factors are Saudi and Israel. Bloomberg supplied the details of the petrodollar agreement concluded between President Nixon and King Faisal in 1973, whereby the US agreed to use its military to protect the Saudi dictators (please don’t call them royals and don’t call Saudi Arabia a kingdom as long as US media and pols call democratically elected leaders like Bashar al Assad dictators and call Syria a “regime.” But if Syria is a regime and Assad is a dictator, then the Saudis are a double dictatorship and deserve no respect at all, only condemnation, for having supported the Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda for many years and having brought permanent chaos to the Middle East. We have exposed the Saudi role in US wars here, here, here and here. As for the Israeli role, we have described it here and here, and it is described in greater detail elsewhere, for example, by Consortium News. We need only look at a brief excerpt, regarding the debate in Congress over entering the Iraq war:
 
“AIPAC Marching Orders
 
The more serious problem with focusing on the Logan Act, however, is that what Cotton and his Republican colleagues were doing was not negotiating with a foreign government but trying to influence the outcome of negotiations in the interest of a foreign government.” [which was done under the influence of AIPAC].
 
And this heavy hand on US foreign policy got started over 50 years ago.
 
Jewish Press lovingly calls LBJ the first “Jewish president” and the venerable Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes:
 
“It was 33 years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. While a traumatized nation grieved for its youngest president, he was succeeded by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was to become the most pro-Israel president up to that time. A sea change was about to take place in America’s relations with Israel.” And incredibly, LBJ was so blindly pro-Israel that he totally accepted the slaughter of American seaman of the USS Liberty and ever covered for Israel's ignominious role therein.
 
As we see, the Israeli involvement in US wars is an open secret and proving it is not the problem. The problem is to avoid being slandered as an anti-Semite if you dare to utter or print publicly what every historian knows. Fortunately, that is not as big a problem as it may seem because the best evidence that we have of the truth about this fact is the Jewish sources themselves, just as the best sources on Israel are Israeli experts, such as historian Ilan Pappe, author of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” and Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, and there is an increasing number of American Jewish groups that are horrified by the treatment of the Palestinians and no longer identify with Israel. Further, polls show that Evangelical young people are considerably less inclined to go along with “Christian” Zionism than their parents, so the support for Israel that made wars in the Middle East popular among US Christians is dwindling and eventually we can expect the religious support for senseless wars to slowly ebb away. It is noteworthy that Trump had to resort to retirement-age Neocons, notably John Bolton, to fill his cabinet, an indication that Zionism is slowly fading in the US.
 
I have discovered that, in my debates with even the most dyed-in-the-wool Israel defenders and Zionists on Quora, I can placate most of them and end the discussion on a friendly note by doing the following:
 
1—Quote from Israeli or Jewish sources to prove my point
 
2—Tell them that in my honest opinion, the bulk of the blame for the damage done by US wars waged on behalf of Israel and by the IDF’s brutality toward Palestine and the missile attacks by the IAF on Syrian targets must be borne not by Jews, nor by Israel, nor even by Zionists, but by American “Christian” Zionists and their total misinterpretation of both the Old and New Testaments. It is obvious that none of these people had ever heard anyone say this and were disarmed by the obviously non anti-Semitic thrust of my arguments.
 
I then take this opportunity to explain how these “Christians” misinterpret the scriptures, using a limited number of examples. I tell them that their main basis for their belief that God wants them to support Israel and its warlike policies is the prophecy in Ezekiel 37 about the dry bones re-assembling and forming the nation of Israel that was dispersed. Then I mention that, according to verse 24 of that chapter, this resurrected Israel was to have David as its king and to be “obedient to God’s decrees,” whereas a WIN/Gallup poll shows that a full 65% of today’s Israelis have no religion at all and could not possibly be obeying the decrees of the Old Testament God! I tell them that another teaching of “Christian” Zionism comes from a prophecy in II Thessalonians 2:3-4 that the anti-Christ will sit in “the temple of God,” and that therefore, Christians must supposedly support the building of a third temple in Jerusalem so that the anti-Christ may sit there as predicted. However, neither God nor Jesus ever commanded believers, either Jewish or Christian, to help God fulfil His prophecies, and even so, would it not be blasphemy for people calling themselves “Christians” to support the building of a temple so that the anti-Christ would have a place to sit as he persecuted Christians and wreaked chaos on earth?
 
Thus the most devastating wars of recent time have been promoted and started by Christians who thought they were helping God and supporting Israel but were only deceiving themselves and blundering into delicate foreign policy areas that require years of intense study to understand and of which they are totally ignorant. However, as thorough as our investigation of the causes of recent wars has been, none of this research applies directly to earlier wars such as the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
 
Nonetheless, there is a certain commonality between the wars since, say, the signing of the petrodollar agreement between Nixon and King Faisal in the 70s and some of the earlier geopolitical meddling and wars prior to that, and one of the most prominent features is the US support for jihadism in that earlier period. There is little evidence that Israel or Saudi, for example, supported the Vietnam war, although there are small clues. For example, Mondoweiss writes:
 
“...in 2002, my brother shocked me when he said, ‘I demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but my Jewish newspaper said this war could be good for Israel.’ “
 
As for Afghanistan, the CFR writes:
 
“Beginning in the late 1980s, Saudi Arabia—along with the United States, Pakistan, and others  – began supporting the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet occupation.” In fact, interventionist Zbigniew Brzezinski manage to twist Jimmy Carter’s normally pacifist arm into supporting CIA meddling in Afghanistan to weaken the Soviets’ hold on the country.
 
The US’ early involvement in Afghanistan, beginning with the CIA’s support of the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation, is emblematic of how, despite any good intentions there may have been in Washington, the US is consistently on the side of chaos, confrontation and war while the Russians have sought peace, though at times through brief military involvement. Thus Russia lent its support to a non-sectarian secular Afghan government, while the US has never supported a secular government in any conflict in a Muslim country, invariably taking the side of the religious fanatics, supporting radical jihadists with values diametrically opposed to those of the supposedly “Christian” US. It is obvious to any thinking person today that supporting radical Muslims is playing with fire. Osama bin Laden benefitted, whether directly or indirectly, from the US meddling in Afghanistan, which kicked off a long series of US-initiated wars and regime change interventions in various parts of the world, and the leitmotif was always chaos and instability. It never seems to have occurred to the US interventionists that the genie they were letting out of the bottle might never be contained again.
 
Russia, even in Soviet days, always strove to bring stability and to overcome radical Islamic terror through secularization. Yes, this was certainly mostly because the Soviets were militantly atheistic, but the end effect of their actions was to oppose and mitigate radical Islamic terrorism and inhuman treatment of women and minorities. This is, BTW, clearly evident in Syria, where, despite whatever ill effects the Assad family may have had on the Syrians, harmony reigned among religious groups. The first US-backed Syrian Spring uprisings were led by radical Sunni sympathizers of the harsh policies introduced by US-backed “rebels” who wanted strict enforcement of sharia law and of laws that forced women into subservient roles in society. And yet, at home in the US, they supported feminists. Thus there was no rhyme nor reason to their policies, which, with a tad bit of foresight, could have been expected to fail colossally, as they did.
 
Meanwhile, Saudi has been deeply involved in supporting terror groups through private donations while officially supporting the US.
 
The NYT wrote in 2016:
 
“The dual tracks allow Saudi officials plausibly to deny official support for the Taliban, even as they have turned a blind eye to private funding of the Taliban and other hard-line Sunni groups.”
 
“The result is that the Saudis — through private or covert channels — have tacitly supported the Taliban in ways that make the kingdom an indispensable power broker.”
 
Westerners who point out the errors of their countries, especially the US, as I often do, are often accused of being unpatriotic. But it’s like this.
 
If you had a son with a serious case of diabetes, would you allow him to eat sweets all day long? The unthinking “Christian” Zionists believe they are “helping to defend” Israel when they send them tons of lethal weapons every year and reflexively spring to the defence of dangerous Israeli policies that only serve to anger countries like Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. There are politicians like John Bolton in the US who would attack Iran at the drop of a hat claiming this would help Israel, when in fact it could easily lead to the nation’s destruction.
 
I personally see only one path to reconciliation or at least peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Muslim nations not aligned with the US. The US has disqualified itself as an arbiter in the Israel-Arab confrontation because it only sees the arguments of one side in the debate and has no interest in the Arab side at all, only disdain. Which is why it ignores the fact that Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy site as well and the fact that Syrians consider the Golan Heights theirs since it was theirs until it was occupied illegally by Israel. So the US will never be an even-handed arbiter and the Arabs are fully aware of that.
 
The Arab Youth Poll shows that, unlike a few years ago, this group now deems Russia the most trustworthy and the US the least trustworthy of all non-Muslim nations. There are good reasons for this, but the main one is that Russia has shown itself to be even-handed and friendly toward all nations, even those that deem it an enemy, like the US. I believe that if Russia is chosen as the arbiter in the Middle East conflict, it will eventually pacify Iran on one hand and Israel and the US on the other, and will bring a degree of peace to the Middle East that has never been seen before. All the US has to do is step aside.
 
It will never do so voluntarily but events with a life of their own, centred about the US dollar, are inevitably shutting down the hegemon.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
USA: we must prepare for war with China and Russia at the same time
 
June 14, 2019
 
Ivan Danilov
 
An information campaign has begun in the United States to prepare for a new war: the Pentagon is being asked to prepare for war on two fronts - with Russia and with China at the same time.
 
The Bloomberg Business Information Agency has published two comprehensive articles designed to frighten the American reader and the decision makers in Washington. One of these frightening texts was written by a geopolitical specialist, an expert at several very influential NGOs (Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Foreign Policy Research Institute), Johns Hopkins University Professor Hall Brands, and the second was released from the pen of the former US and NATO Commander for Europe, James Stavridis, a retired admiral, and now an expert at the financial company Carlyle Group. Both venerable specialists are trying to present to the audience two very unpleasant theses. The first thesis, which the professor and the admiral promote in tandem with each other, is that the United States and its European allies are definitely not ready for the "Russian-Chinese alliance" that threatens the United States and the America-centric world by the very fact of its existence. The second point is that the United States must begin preparations for a clash with two great powers at the same time, with Professor Brands emphasizing that otherwise there is a chance that Washington will be exposed to a combination such that either Beijing or Moscow will get involved in a war with the United States and tie down all American forces, and the second partner in the Russian-Chinese coalition will simply finish off a defenceless America.
 
This media event could be attributed to the negative attitude of two separate (albeit highly influential) Washington experts who found like-minded pessimists in the team of billionaire Michael Bloomberg (the owner of the Bloomberg agency). But the fact is that the feeling of “American decline” and the death of American hegemony, which no longer even needs resuscitation, but rather the miracle of resurrection from the dead, is both a conclusion and an emotion that can be found in the entire American “press for thinking people.”
 
From the point of view of American propaganda aimed at consumers of cultural and information fast food, everything is ok: Hollywood continues to make films about how bomb democracy is winning everyone over, creators of popular computer games (including those among the Russian youth) teach children to believe in the "White helmets” and deem Russian military pilots as murderers of innocent Syrians, while Russian (including business) publications write articles about how they want Russia to “be like in Ukraine. "
 
However, if you go up a level and read, for example, the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, you can get acquainted with another view on reality:
 
“Looking back, it can be said that the fall seems inevitable. Today, it seems, it’s not the present reality of the eternal conflict within the United States and abroad that needs to be explained, but Washington’s feverish dreams of the end of the last century about the eternal virtuous hegemony of the United States should be explained. However, those who survived know that nothing was predetermined and that history could have turned out differently. Therefore, we decided to carry out a posthumous autopsy of the American leadership of recent decades - those years when the US elites squandered an inheritance and good the name bequeathed to them."
 
If you look at the slightly panicky text of Admiral Stavridis, it is easy to see that he is appealing to the deepest fear of the Washington (and indeed the entire English-speaking) political elite, which was brought up on Halford John Mackinder’s geopolitical theory. “China and Russia want to control World Island,” Admiral Stavridis writes, and from his point of view, this is a big, one might say, existential threat to the United States. The Russian reader is more familiar with another term from Mackinder’s theory, ie, Heartland, which implies the most strategically important part of Eurasia, control over which is considered one of the key factors of world domination. “World Island” is a better bet than the Heartland, for which our Western partners were ready to fight in the last century, because the “World Island” is (very roughly stated) “Heartland” plus all of Europe, plus all of Asia and Africa. Stavridis, listing the points of interaction between Moscow and Beijing, comes to the iron-clad (from his standpoint) conclusion that the ultimate goal of this cooperation is Sino-Russian control over Eurasia and Africa as a whole, which inevitably implies ousting the United States and its allies (if they survive at all) to the "periphery of the world."
 
In response, it is proposed to do everything to bind Europe to the United States and not allow the Sino-Russian alliance to "seduce" European countries. The recipe for opposition from a retired admiral is strikingly diplomatic: "The US and its allies should pay attention to the growing cooperation between Russia and China; focus intelligence gathering on how far this cooperation can go; do everything possible to support a united Europe and strengthen the alliances, partnerships and friendships across the periphery of Asia."
 
Obviously silent on this list of measures is work on sabotaging Russian-Chinese cooperation, but although Admiral Stavridis does not mention this directly, in the very text of the article he deals with propagating typical anti-Chinese theses, starting with statements that Putin "is making the mistake of” collaborating with China and ending with the statement that China “is eyeing Siberia like a dog eyes a steak."
 
It is significant that it has never occurred to any of the American experts concerned with the rapprochement along the Moscow-Beijing line to suggest any options for normalizing relations between Washington and Moscow. Only punitive and coercive measures are discussed, although this applies equally to US-China and US-European relations: only coercive techniques are discussed, and the word "compromise" essentially does not exist in the lexicon of recommended solutions.
 
Professor Brands does not mince words and does not rely on diplomacy, but writes with almost military directness about what to do: “America must work out the right combination of capabilities and concepts to defeat China or Russia before it significantly expands its armed forces. But after this combination is determined, the US will have to create - at considerable cost - a large force that can reliably prevent the aggressor from achieving its goals in the second theatre (military operations. - Ed.), Even if America is fighting in the first. In the foreseeable future, the US will simultaneously participate in a tense and dangerous rivalry with China and Russia. "
 
No need to entertain illusions. In Washington, Russia is perceived as an enemy, and the strengthening of Russian-Chinese friendship and cooperation is perceived as a direct bid for world domination, and the United States will struggle with this “bid,” including by force and diplomatic means. We need to be prepared for this, and protective measures must be taken in advance, without counting on the possibility that common sense and readiness for compromise will prevail in Washington.

1.
 
https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-global-economy-be-affected-if-global-oil-production-was-reduced/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1
 
How would the global economy be affected if global oil production was reduced?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered 11m ago
 
Whenever crude oil production is reduced for whatever reason, the price of crude, and then of petroleum distillates, such as petrol, goes up.
 
Trump keeps saying he is happy when Saudi helps reduce prices by keeping up a brisk crude oil production rate and hence keeping the price low.
 
But Trump is being coy. He pretends he wants low prices for his voters but the fact is, he wants high prices for his cronies in the oil industry. Why? Because US oil producers are generally drilling in shale and to extract this oil, they must use a very expensive process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This process drives up production costs, which means the sale price must be higher to make extraction profitable. And recall that Trump is betting on hydrocarbons to help make America great, so this scheme just has to work or Trump will be in trouble.
 
So if OPEC or Russia decided to extract more than usual, then prices would go down and the US producers would not be happy, and Trump would be in a sour mood. He might even threaten to attack Iran. Again.
 
So he is trying desperately to persuade oil producing countries to keep prices up while pretending he wants lower prices for this voters. All politicians play these kinds of games so it’s not just Trump.
 
So back to to the question of how all this affects the global economy. As we have seen, it is complicated:
 
Reduced production means higher oil prices. Oil producing countries would be affected positively with regard to their profits, but all countries would pay more for their petrol. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
 
So the leaders of the oil producing countries would all have to pretend they were upset that their people – the ones they are pretending to work for – have to pay too much for petrol at the pump but would be warmly thanked by their cronies in the industry – the ones they are really working for.
 
 
2.
 
Why are EU citizens not allowed to seek asylum within EU countries if they have real problems? What is the conspiracy behind this law?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered Mon
 
The EU is supported by a narrative that is far from representative of the true situation. The narrative is that the EU is unified and that all member states have laws protecting the rights of its citizens. But there are problems. For example, if anyone in Germany makes a statement, even a true one, that reflects badly on Israel or is perceived as offensive to a Jew (or other ethnic or religious group), that person can be punished for Volksverhetzung, “incitement of the people.” Fr. Frederick Toben, a British historian who wrote a book denying aspects of the Holocaust, was actually arrested in the UK under this German law and was nearly extradited to Germany where he would have been tried and sentenced to jail. (Let me state here that I am no follower of Toben. I have visited Auschwitz and was shocked at what I saw.)
 
You can read about this law here (pay attention to the reader comments):
 
Why Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany
 
This law exists only — or primarily — in Germany and often leads to the unjust jailing of an innocent researcher who had no intention of offending anyone but who found evidence that the accepted number of 6 million may be exaggerated. (Indeed, controversy still rages over this question).
But if this accused researcher lived in another EU state that does not have this law, he would not be allowed to seek asylum in his own country. The reason is simple: the EU narrative is that all EU countries have harmonized their national laws with EU law in such a way as to produce uniform justice throughout the union and no injustice exists in the legal systems of any EU member states. If one EU country could afford asylum to a person in another EU country who was threatened with jail time for doing something that is perfectly legal in that other country, then this would expose the narrative as untrue. Therefore, the EU has banned such offering of asylum.
 
That is just one of several such examples.
 
3.
 
Is Iran just too big for the US military to occupy (were it so inclined to try)?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered Sun
 
Israeli geopolitical analyst Yakov Kedmi recently stated (Кедми: Для США начать войну в Иране — это значит отдать Тайвань Китаю) that the United States cannot defeat Iran from a purely military point of view due to the vastness of its territory and the inability of the Americans to land there due to the incredible complexity of logistics that the Pentagon is well aware of.
 
I would add to this that Iran has warned of its ability to take out US aircraft carriers with its guided missiles and torpedoes fired from subs. The following article iran has subs and torpedoes discusses Iranian naval assets:
 
The subs have sonar-evading technology and can launch missiles from under water, as well as fire torpedoes and drop marine mines, the TV said. Iran began manufacturing Ghadir subs in 2005. The first was unveiled in 2007 and by 2012, five such submarines were incorporated into Iran's navy.
 
Trump knows that if he presides over the loss of a multimillion dollar carrier, his chances of winning in 2020 are diminished. I doubt he will try it, although the Israelis have admitted they want the US to fight alongside them, as I showed at Quora:
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-Syria-still-a-threat-to-lsrael/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
In case you have forgotten, Netanyahu was one of the ringleaders in dragging the US into the war on Iran. Here you can see him pleading his case before the US Congress:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY
 
Israel has never gone to war against terror but is always willing to shed American blood for its wars.
 
4. 
 
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-view-the-Sino-US-trade-war/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1
 
How do you view the Sino-US trade war?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered Mon
 
It is a disaster and will not end well.
 
Deutsche Bank reported that so far, Trump’s trade war has cost the stock market $5 trillion.
 
The war has put most American soybean farmers out of business, and the Chinese are now seeking or have found new sources in South America, so this is permanent damage to the US economy.
 
The trade war has prompted the Chinese to resort to counter tariffs on gas, and this is a very big item and very costly because special LNG terminals for export to China have been built in the US southern states and now they will probably never be used, or at least not to anywhere near full capacity. A recent article in a Russian site reports that the Russian company Power of Siberia is about to finish laying a pipeline to China and that will be used to buy the amounts of gas that China will no longer buy from the US, and the cost will be less. Of course, this fits in nicely with the Sino-Russian war on the US dollar because none of the settlements in this trade deal will be made in dollars. International trade settlements made in non-dollar currencies tend to reduce the value of the USD. This is a win-win for Russia and China and a major loss to the US.
 
The war on Huawei is especially critical because it is expected to affect US tech companies. For example, there are warnings that whole networks built by Huawei will have to be torn down at a high cost to the US and China both. So far, tech stocks have lost at least $1 trillion.
 
Prior to the war on China, Trump and Congress banned imports from the Russian aluminium company Rusal. The problem was that this company made primary Al products, ie, mostly ingots, which were sold at reasonable prices to US secondary producers which processed them into sheets, tubes, forgings, etc. The US manufacturers warned Congress and Trump not to do ban Rusal products because it would threaten their livelihood. But the US government does not seek to solve real world problems. It only seeks votes and support for its ideology (which currently is focused almost solely on opposing other countries, not on solving internal economic problems — a very dangerous way to run a government). So the government simply ignored these distress calls from US manufacturers and blundered ahead with the ban. A few months later, the US companies sent their balance sheets to Congress showing that they were going bankrupt as a result of the ban. At that point, someone in Congress with a few brain cells left decided the ban had to be lifted. After wreaking havoc with US industry for months, the ban was finally lifted, but the losses left their mark. It is remarkable that, after all these disasters, Trump has never stopped or slowed down his trade wars. He seems incapable of learning lessons.
 
Even before the trade wars started, almost every prominent economist was warning that these tariffs would not benefit the US. Their warnings are coming true.
 
 
5.
 
https://es.quora.com/Qu%C3%A9-dijo-Guaid%C3%B3-Se-est%C3%A1-negociando-la-salida-de-Maduro-o-no-en-Oslo/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1
 
What did Guaidó say? Is he negotiating the ouster of Maduro or not, in Oslo?
 
¿Qué dijo Guaidó? ¿Se está negociando la salida de Maduro o no, en Oslo?
 
Vince Dhimos, jefe de redacción en www.NewSilkStrategies.com (2015-presente)
 
Se ha respondido hace 4 minutos
 
Translation of my response:
 
According to Article 233 of the constitution of Venezuela, the president of the National Assembly does not have the right to assume the presidency. The person entitle to assume the presidency in the absolute absence of the president is the vice president of the Republic. That would be Delcy Rodriguez. Here is a copy of the relevant parts of the constitution.
 
"When there is an absolute absence of the President of the Republic during the first four years of the constitutional term, a new universal and direct election shall be held within the following thirty consecutive days. While the new President is elected and takes office, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President shall be responsible for the Presidency of the Republic. "
 
"If the absolute absence occurs during the last two years of the constitutional term, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President shall assume the Presidency of the Republic until the completion thereof."
 
As we see from the above, Guaidó has no right to negotiate with Maduro because he has no constitutional power whatsoever.
 
Besides, the president of the US has no jurisdiction in Venezuela and has no right to interpret the Venezuelan constitution.
 
Therefore, Trump and the heads of other allied nations have no right to declare that Guaidó is the interim president and they have no right to declare that Maduro is a dictator. Only the people of Venezuela have this right, and they have not declared unanimously that Maduro is a dictator. In fact, no referendum has been held in this issue.

This analysis will never be published in an outlet recognized by the Establishment. We promise.
 
In the following is our translation of a commentary from RIA FAN on the chaos that awaits the Middle East merely because elections are coming up, since Trump needs a military engagement to make him look good. Commentary and notes [in brackets] are by Vince Dhimos. This game is not specific to Trump. Almost every president has used war to gain an edge in an upcoming election or to help weather a scandal. Each one uses this dirty little ploy generally by sometime in the second or third year of his first term. The best and only way the American people could show their power – yes, they have some – would be to refuse to go along with this game and not vote for any president playing it. If the people refused to vote for a president starting a war or a foreign coup, even a small one, in the third year of his first term or during a presidential scandal, that would throw a spanner in the Establishment’s machinations. Guaidó was recognized by Trump as “president” of Venezuela in Trump’s third year of office, the Arab Spring started in the third year of Obama’s first term, and Clinton started the Kosovo war in the midst of the Lewinski scandal. US wars never reflect a military threat to the US, only a political reality in the US, most notably a perceived threat to a president’s career. But the people continue to be led by the nose, showing beyond a doubt that there is absolutely no significant people power – otherwise known as democracy – in America. Not only the Establishment but also the grassroots is owned lock stock and barrel by a small coterie of powerful men who know how to impose their will on everyone to the detriment of America and its economy – by piling on still more unpayable debt.
 
My list of agents other than the people who rule America and meddle in public affairs includes the White House, which acts as a foreign agent, contrary to the people’s interests, in support of Israel lobby AIPAC, which heads the list. Also on the list are the msm and gullible Americans who believe the propaganda spread by the corporate media, as well as the very large group of “Christian” Zionists who believe God wants them to support all policies of the secular, apartheid state of Israel, policies that include massacring unarmed protesters and illegally seizing Palestinian territory and blowing up the homes of Palestinian families. Somehow they think that encouarging Israel to commit crimes and make and provoke powerful enemies is "blessing" Israel.
 
This is never a surprise to a wide-awake observer. But if the American voter public were even half awake, or cared, they would know good and well that it is a sleazy ruse to secure their vote. And if they were aware and had a stitch of moral conscience, they would not vote for a shyster willing to kill innocent civilians from the air just to get votes. And that would be a sign that the public is waking up and growing up at last. But after Dubbya’s immoral and cynical trick of making “enemies” out of nations that are harmless to the US and using the false-flag of non-existent WMDs to invade them and slaught their civilians from the air, all to garner a few extra votes, the nation either didn’t wake up or it didn’t give a rip. The unvarnished truth is that presidents are nothing more than paid assassins in suits. But the real culprits are the voters who watch this charade every presidential first term and never tire of observing the procession of murderers marching through the White House, and who cheerfully shell out a percentage of their income for the pleasure of knowing that their country is the biggest and baddest and no one dares to “mess with us.” They are fully aware that somewhere beyond the blood-stained curtain of the theatre on Pennsylvania Avenue are the lives of whole families tragically snuffed out, homes blown to bits, limbs blown away, minds scarred forever, but the man in the White House is their son of a bitch and ultimately, they’re still ok with it all because the Holy Land is safer now. None of those babies will come back to life and grow up to threaten the Republicans, the Democrats or the Likud.
 
To get an idea of the games played in Washington is, let’s look at a quote from our translation below:
 
“Pro-American forces and armed groups are aggravating the situation in areas of Syria, in particular, in Deir ez-Zor, where Kurdish formations operate.”
 
You know, a thorough analysis of the news is not a matter of even just reading massive amounts of information and mulling what you’ve read. There is more to it than even that. The first time I read that the US was deploying Kurds to Deir ez-Zor, I recalled that the US under Obama had killed 80 or so Syrian troops there “by accident” and that I had done some extra reading on that province and discovered that it was the oil-richest region in Syria. We later learned that, under Trump, an unspecified number of Russian mercenaries were gunned down by heroic American pilots in the province, and later some Syrian troops were shot and killed there “by accident.” So now it was logical to check and see why the Kurds just happened to be there (because if you’re an analyst worth your salt, there’s no such thing as “just happened”). Remember that the excuse the US gave for allying with the Kurds was to give them a homeland. So of course, an alert analyst wants to know if Deir ez-Zor is part of the Kurdish homeland. Right? So I googled up a map of Kurdistan and sure enough, Deir ez-Zor is not part of traditional Kurdistan, the Kurdish home, which is north of there, but the US is expanding its territory to include the most oil rich region, which it intends to steal from Syria. Newer maps, unfortunately, show the Kurdish-controlled region extending far to the south of Kurdistan into Deir ez-Zor. So this is just one of myriad frauds perpetrated by the Pentagon, which is not in the least interested in giving the Kurds a homeland but only in grabbing an oil-rich region to rob the already beaten down Syrians of what is left of their resources.
 
Now the Russians probably could, if they wished, chase the US out of the Deir ez-Zor province and at some point they might. It all depends on whether they decide that the Trump administration is better than whoever might replace him. They probably don’t know that yet. We shall see.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
Syria and the Middle East facing chaos because of election games in the US
 
The actions of Kurdish militants in the east of Syria are provoking the development of a fuel crisis in Syria. According to experts, a new military-political staging under the control of the United States is currently unfolding on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.
 
Despite the country's criticism and President Donald Trump’s displeasure, the Pentagon intends to send 1,500 American soldiers to the Middle East to “contain” Iran. American politicians have reacted to the new "Iranian" initiative with distrust. For example, the senator from Virginia, Dick Black, frankly ridiculed plans for the military.
 
“Every time we send another batch of troops to the Middle East, it ends badly. This has never led to anything good, but only destabilizes the situation even more. We send troops to protect our other troops from attack. Let's get them out completely, and then no one can attack them. We don’t have to worry about it at all,” said Black, caustically commenting on the militarism of the Pentagon, which is convinced that any problem can be solved with sufficient firepower.
 
However, the dissatisfaction of lawmakers is unlikely to stop the Napoleonic plans of the Pentagon and Trump. From unofficial sources it is known that the US President notified Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about an "imminent attack on Iran." [I was unable to find such a report. Russian analysts tend to play up the possibility of a US attack on Iran] It is unlikely that the United States will use Syria as a springboard for an offensive against Iran, since a sufficient number of US bases are located in countries with a [US-] loyal government in the Middle East [Actually, Turkey and Qatar, where the likeliest US bases for such an attack are located, have moved closer to Tehran and are now more supportive of Iran than other reliable allies like Saudi]. The territory of Syria, or rather the northeast of the country, is needed as a raw materials appendage. Concentrated here are the main oil companies that fell into the hands of Americans and pro-American forces. Continuing the occupation of this region will allow the United States to fully control the movement of most of the hydrocarbons produced in Syria, which will be an additional push in the fuel collapse.
 
At the moment it is very difficult to reliably interpret Trump's true plans. Earlier, Washington declared that the occupation of the north-eastern regions of Syria would open the way for the Kurds to create an autonomous state, which would initially enjoy the support of the White House and be focused on American values. Under former US President Barack Obama, this topic was very popular, but Trump made the Kurds understand that he was not even considering this option. The Kurds are in limbo - Washington categorically forbids them to make contact with Damascus, but does not offer any future except as part of the coalition of the "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF) - Arab and Kurdish armed groups that exist exclusively to ensure American interests in the east of Syria.
 
What is happening in the American establishment now looks more like the beginning of a chess game before the upcoming elections. “A small victorious war” in all cases brings political dividends and the goodwill of voters, but it can be a significant risk - and in the future, as the example of Iraq shows, can change the world and the balance of forces in it forever.
 
Trump has spoken many times about the withdrawal of American troops from Syria, but “they are still there,” recalled Boris Dolgov, a senior fellow at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in a conversation with the Federal News Agency. Orientalist suggested that at the moment the Americans intend to maintain all their positions in the Middle East indefinitely.
 
“It is worth noting that Trump’s initial statements about the withdrawal of American troops were repeatedly revised — according to the latest statement by Donald Trump and the Pentagon leadership, the US military will be withdrawn from Syria “for a specific situation and in accordance with the interests of the United States”- no dates, nor are the terms determined,” the expert emphasized. “So far, there is no withdrawal of American troops from Syria, but there is formation by the Americans of new armed groups of ‘moderate opposition,’ ostensibly to fight ISIS.”
 
The FAN interlocutor noted that at the present time the Americans are trying to consolidate more tightly in eastern Syria, where the oil-producing regions are located.
 
“Pro-American forces and armed groups are aggravating the situation in areas of Syria, in particular, in Deir ez-Zor, where Kurdish formations operate. The Kurds began negotiations with Damascus, but the Americans sent controlled forces there,” said Dolgov.
 
The military, which the Pentagon plans to send to the Middle East, is likely to proceed to US bases in Iraq and Jordan. At the moment, the exact plans of the United States are difficult to guess, but if Trump really decides to strike Iran (using the tankers damaged in the Persian Gulf, for example, as an excuse), 1,500 troops will not help him there - the time will come for extensive forces and assets. The question is, how far is Trump willing to go in order to achieve re-election in 2020?
 
“In 2020, there is a presidential election in the USA, and Trump intends to participate – it is already 99% obvious that he will try to run for a second term. Prior to the election, Trump has taken credit for all the successes of the American military in the Middle East, and he took credit for all the successes in the destruction of ISIS.”
 
“In addition, Trump’s active support to Israel - first the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and then recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory - also fits within the framework of the election campaign, since the Israeli lobby in the States is strong enough and it will support Trump in this policy, in exchange for Trump’s support for Israel’s strikes against Syria and Iranian forces. The fact that he continues the policy of allegedly “restraining” Russia also, according to the logic of Trump's supporters, fits into the general logic and helps him in the eyes of his supporters,” said the orientalist.
 
END TRANSLATION

Below is our translation of an analysis from RIA Novosti with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.


QUOTE:

“In this context, two seemingly unrelated stories paradoxically fit together: sanctions against the European clearinghouse created to continue buying oil from Iran, and future sanctions against Gazprom’s European partners participating in the Nord Stream-2 project. In the Iranian case, the US is trying to control which oil EU countries can buy, and in the case of sanctions against Nord Stream 2, Washington will seek to establish control over what gas the European Union can buy.”
 
Remember I had said in my remarks on Trump's war on Huwei that the US is acting just like a colonial master toward its colonial subjects:
 
“I recalled learning during my stay in Taiwan that that country had once been occupied by Japan and that it once served its colonial masters as a source of agricultural products but that the Japanese had made sure, by discouraging higher education, that the Taiwanese colony would not be allowed to develop industry. These examples from Israel and Japan embody the very essence of Neo-Colonialism.
 
“There is an analogy here [in the context of the war on Huawei] with China and its colonial relationship with the US, which was quite happy to have China manufacture low-tech products with cheap labour and later even allowed the country to assemble high-tech instruments and information technology as long as the US masters were in charge of the technology and the Chinese refrained from learning the tricks of the trade. And herein lies the ulterior motive behind the trade wars.”
 
Danilov says the US attitude toward Europe is the same:
 
QUOTE:
 
“...the administration of Donald Trump is not just trying to deprive the European Union of at least some chance of its own energy and financial policy. At the same time, it is seeking to de-industrialize Europe, as well as opening its market for American food products, which, firstly, do not meet European environmental requirements, and secondly, will bring European farmers to mass bankruptcy with their artificial low prices.”
 
According to a European Commission report,
 
“The EU exported over €10.8 billion worth of goods to Iran in 2017. EU exports to Iran are mainly machinery and transport equipment (€5.5 billion, 50.9%), chemicals (€1.9 billion, 18.1%), and manufactured goods (€0.9 billion, 8.9%).”
 
Yes, when Trump exited the trade deal and tried to force Europe to do likewise, he was in fact tending to de-industrialize Europe by depriving them of an important buyer of industrial products. Further, Danilov’s comment about Trump forcing US food imports on Europe are in reference to the latest trade talks between Trump and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, where the latter insisted that US food exports did not meet European standards.
 
And the following could be a sign of things to come:
 
“Even if Trump loses in 2020, (German officials. - Ed.) say that the trust that has buoyed transatlantic friendship for seven decades, may be lost forever. Germany has already started to create new alliances that will protect its interests in a world where the US won’t do this. And some of them don’t like Washington. "In the future, we must take our destiny into our own hands to a much greater degree if we want to be strong," Merkel said at a political rally on Friday in Munich."

 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
The United States threatens Europe with sanctions. Europe is preparing for the last battle
 
May 31, 2019
 
Ivan Danilov
 
Below is our translation of an analysis of Ivan Danilov from RIA Novosti with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
 
The administration of Donald Trump openly threatens to impose sanctions on the European Union for interfering with US foreign policy. On the one hand, one can admire how tough official Washington is to defend its foreign policy interests. On the other hand, there are reasonable doubts that such a policy will be beneficial to the United States in the long term.
 
Relations between Washington and Brussels are far from ideal, and if it comes to real sanctions, then they may well pass the point of no return. Potential anti-European sanctions, which, judging by the statements of officials of the US Treasury Department, include a “disconnect from the American financial system,” may well lead to undesirable diplomatic consequences for the United States. Sooner or later, countries that are under various US sanctions will simply have to cooperate with each other in order to withstand American pressure. The Trump administration works on the principle of "look at successful predecessors and do the opposite." The "divide and conquer" principle is proven by historical experience (from ancient Romans to Machiavelli, Bacon and Napoleon), but the US sanctions policy is now based on the "unite all against us" scheme, which horrifies those mastodons of American diplomacy who still remember how masterfully the United States pitted its opponents among each other in the twentieth century.
 
Such a view may seem biased due to the fact that the shattering of the once “united West” is very beneficial to Russia, but analysts of influential American media are arriving at similar conclusions, looking at the situation not with delight, but with deep spiritual pain. Bloomberg Business Information Agency informs readers:
 
“Even if Trump loses in 2020, (German officials. - Ed.) say that the trust that has buoyed transatlantic friendship for seven decades, may be lost forever. Germany has already started to create new alliances that will protect its interests in a world where the US won’t do this. And some of them don’t like Washington. "In the future, we must take our destiny into our own hands to a much greater degree if we want to be strong," Merkel said at a political rally on Friday in Munich. "
 
It is in this political context that the consequences of the US Treasury’s intentions to impose sanctions against a special structure that the European Union is trying to launch to circumvent the US sanctions against Iran should be considered.
 
The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker sent a letter threatening the leadership of INSTEX, a European clearinghouse created jointly by Germany, France and the UK. As noted by The Washington Post, “the idea of ​​creating INSTEX is that a company supported by three major US allies can tie the hands of the American administration, since any step towards sanctions against INSTEX or companies trading through it will create a conflict between Washington and (the group) Berlin - London - Paris." The Europeans have not played the bet, and the Washington Post has a logical explanation: “The experiment (ie, the mechanism for circumventing the Iran sanctions. Author’s note) Is being watched closely. If expanded, it could jeopardize the global dominance of the US dollar, which is the [currency] most frequently used for international transactions and allows the United States to have some control over the global economy. <...> If INSTEX or other alternatives are successful, international trading systems that bypass the US currency can limit the ability of future US (presidential -.. ed.) administrations to use sanctions as a foreign policy tool.”
 
The leaders of the European Union are squarely confronted by the question: what level of conflict with the US are they ready to go to pursue their own foreign and energy policy? In this context, two seemingly unrelated stories paradoxically fit together: sanctions against the European clearinghouse created to continue buying oil from Iran, and future sanctions against Gazprom’s European partners participating in the Nord Stream 2 project. In the Iranian case, the US is trying to control which oil EU countries can buy, and in the case of sanctions against Nord Stream 2, Washington will seek to establish control over what gas the European Union can buy.
 
Indirectly, both of these attempts to throw an energy noose around the neck of the European Union are connected with another key question (as relates to the future of the USA as a world hegemon): is the euro a regional European currency or is it a full-fledged competitor of the dollar in world trade?
 
It is worth noting that if the problem were confined to the sphere of energy and currency regulation, the chances of forcing Europe to preserve and deepen its status as an American colony would be much greater. However, the administration of Donald Trump is not just trying to deprive the European Union of at least some chance of its own energy and financial policy. At the same time, it is seeking to de-industrialize Europe, as well as opening its market for American food products, which, firstly, do not meet European environmental requirements, and secondly, will bring European farmers to mass bankruptcy with their artificial low prices. In this context, the threat of Trump himself to impose sanctions on German auto makers, as well as punish the European Union as a whole for state support of the Airbus concern, that is, the main competitor of the American company Boeing, which is now experiencing far from the best times [Danilov is referring to the 2 disastrous crashes of Boeing 737s that have grounded these aircraft indefinitely due to charges of negligence] - these are just pin-points of large American operations to transform the European Union into a kind of analogue of Ukraine. That is, to make it a territory that is rapidly losing any signs of belonging to a developed and high-tech world.
 
The leaders of the European Union, even if they are only interested in political self-preservation, and not a place in history, have only one rational way out of the situation: to move closer to those who are under similar pressure from Washington. Fortunately for Berlin and Paris, almost all potential geopolitical partners and possible situational allies are in a similar situation. Moreover, those geopolitical players who have not yet been thrown under Trump’s bus, such as Japan and India, have every chance of finding themselves in his crosshairs soon [India has, for example, weighed the possibility of buying the S-400 air defence system from Russia, against the warnings of Washington]. Judging by the fact that Angela Merkel cancelled her departure from politics, and her government continues to defend Germany’s right to cooperate with Gazprom (on Nord Stream - 2) and Huawei (on building 5G networks in Europe), at least the main central EU forces are preparing to fight the final battle against American geopolitical ambitions. And in this case, any success of Berlin will be very good for Moscow.
 
END TRANSLATION

1.
 
Do you see a good future for the people of the U.S. in future America?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
The $22 trillion debt sort of militates against a happy future and it is also an indicator of how disastrous US policies in general are. It is the tip of the iceberg.
 
I have always thought that the only chance the US has of becoming a civilized country again is if the dollar loses its status as a world reserve currency. The most likely scenario that would make that happen is if the non-aligned countries like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, India, Venezuela, and uneasy allies in Europe etc, continue to use euros, yuan, rubles, rupees, etc in their international trade settlements. The less a currency is used in international trade settlements the more value it loses. No one would benefit if the dollar just simply collapsed, but it needs to be less of a hegemon to make the world more stable and secure.
The US people would eventually realize that the world is multipolar and that this is the way things need to be.

 
2.
 
If North Korea wasn't sanctioned how different would life in North Korea be for its everyday citizens?
 
https://www.quora.com/If-North-Korea-wasnt-sanctioned-how-different-would-life-in-North-Korea-be-for-its-everyday-citizens/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Life would be much better.
 
Sanctions are war without the guns but they do kill. For example, today in Venezuela, there are people who need medical care, and PDVSA was to be their source of payment, but the banks won’t process payments from that company due to Trump’s killer sanctions. These people may die as a result of sanctions, but for the US Establishment and many Americans, US dominance is more important than human life.
 
The story is here in Spanish: Conozca el testimonio de las víctimas del bloqueo de EE.UU. a Venezuela

 
3.  
 
Was the creation of Israel unfair towards the Palestinians?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
No opinion post can answer this because both sides are too angry to answer objectively.
 
What is missing in this debate is details about the Nakba that have been banned from publication for many years.

Most of these details can be found in a book by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. You can obtain this book as a free download:
 
Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine : Ilan Pappe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
The debate must start by informing the people.

 
4.
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-manipulating-the-stock-market/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Is Donald Trump manipulating the stock market?
 
Vince Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Deutsche Bank said that the stock market has lost $5 trillion as a result of Trump’s trade war. Would that come under the category of manipulating?

 
5.
 
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Russia-feel-about-the-Middle-Eastern-countries/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
How does Russia feel about the Middle Eastern countries?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now

Russians love everyone, including the Muslims in the Middle East. But the important thing is how the Middle East feels about Russia. The Arab Youth Poll shows that, whereas young Arabs, just a few years ago, trusted the US more than Russia, have had a change of heart and now, of all the non-Arab countries, they trust Russia the most and the US the very least. This is a trend and it will not stop.

 
6.
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russian-people-and-scientists-consider-Ukraine-an-artificial-country-and-the-outskirts-of-their-empire-and-say-that-Ukraine-has-nothing-to-do-with-Kievan-Rus/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Why do Russian people and scientists consider Ukraine an artificial country and the outskirts of their empire and say that Ukraine has nothing to do with Kievan Rus?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Because after 2014, Ukraine became a vassal of the US, with which it shares no culture, values or ethnicity. As a result of this breakaway from the influence of Russians, its Slavic brothers with which it shares 1000 years of history, the IMF has ranked Ukraine as the poorest country in Europe.

 
7.
 
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-Congressmen-s-children-should-be-required-to-join-the-military-so-that-they-are-more-careful-about-starting-another-war-using-other-peoples-children/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Do you feel Congressmen’s children should be required to join the military so that they are more careful about starting another war using other peoples children?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
​
It would not help a bit.

US officials are so eager for wars to please their masters — the arms manufacturers who give them millions in donations, AIPAC (the Israel lobby), the Saudis (due to their petrodollar agreement signed in 1974 between Nixon and King Faisal to prop up the US dollar), the US “Christian” Zionists, and Satan, — that they would sell their children into slavery to keep their jobs. After all, with few exceptions, they have already sold their souls.
 
8.
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-no-one-talking-about-the-fact-that-Russia-did-interfere-with-the-US-election/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Why is no one talking about the fact that Russia did interfere with the US election?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Because if they go too far in this discussion someone will bring up the fact that the foreign lobby AIPAC not only influences US elections, it actually buys the candidates.

 
9.
 
https://www.quora.com/Do-people-not-want-WORLD-PEACE-and-why-or-why-not/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Do people not want WORLD PEACE and why or why not?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yU0JuE1jTk
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Everyone claims to want world peace, but in the US, where all major wars have originated since WW II, Americans believe US dominance is more important than peace.
 
The reason for this is Israel and its pal Saudi. And the back story explaining their undying support for Israel is:
 
1 - The holocaust. Americans are compassionate to Jews because of their suffering in Hitler's Germany.

 
2 - AIPAC, the Israeli-American lobby, which controls elections. As you know, many politicians, mostly Democrats, have accused Russia of interfering with the US elections. But there is very little evidence to accuse Russia of this, and besides, US candidates and their partisans in media spend far more effort and money campaigning for their candidates of choice than any foreign government possibly could. On the other hand, Israel openly and blatantly interferes in the US elections and no one complains. How do they do that? AIPAC does this in two ways: they give generous donations to candidates who declare themselves pro-Israel and discredit candidates who refuse to pledge support to Israel or who show sympathy for Palestine. This gives Israel almost complete control of US foreign policy and much of its domestic policy. Saudi Arabia also helps Israel to control the US because that country has a petrodollar agreement with America that obliges it to comply with the Saudi dictatorship. Given that both countries hate and fear Iran, they have had an enormous influence on Trump, who seems to be preparing for a conflict with Iran.

 
3. "Christian" Zionism. Non-Americans find it odd that there may be a religious sect that exerts such a huge influence on US foreign policy, but the truth is that about 70-80% of American evangelicals and a high percentage of US Catholics (https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8385/vatican-adviser-says-catholics-must-take-seriously-the-biblical-promises-to-israel) believe that their country should support Israel, and should not care that Israel commits crimes because many of them believe that the Israeli government is guided by God -- even when they violate the Ten Commandments. However, their belief in Israel is not aligned with the Bible. They claim that the resurrected Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 37 is the modern secular state of Israel. However, none of these zealots seem to realize or care that verse 24 of that chapter says that resurrected Israel will be "obedient to God’s decrees." Unfortunately for them, a survey conducted by WIN/Gallup shows that 65% of Israelis do not have any religion. Furthermore, the IDF's constant killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza, for example, is contrary to the decree in the book of Leviticus in the Jewish Torah, which enjoins Jews to love their neighbours as themselves.

 
Clearly, modern Israel is not the Israel prophesied by Ezekiel! This Zionist belief would seem blasphemous to a true Christian who bases his beliefs on the Bible, but such Christians are scarce among US Evangelicals.
 

However, this religious fanaticism has a major influence on the political life of the country and has for decades led to devastating wars and terrible conflicts. The conflict with Iran is the most recent. Trump’s biggest voting bloc was Evangelicals. Both Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are Evangelical Christians who believe Israeli policies are driven by the Almighty.

 
Who could oppose them without incurring His wrath? That is the fear that drives US foreign policy.
 
But to paraphrase Churchill, the most fear-inspiring thing is this fear itself.

 
10.
 
https://www.quora.com/What-are-qualities-do-you-value-in-a-President-of-the-United-States-and-who-do-you-see-those-characteristics-in-today/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
What are qualities do you value in a President of the United States and who do you see those characteristics in today?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered 5m ago
 
No offense intended but a question like this can only be asked by a person who believes that the US is a democracy and that the president has a significant amount of power dedicated to the interests of the American people.
 
I had previously posted a list of the agencies and agents that actually control the US government and they do not include the people as a whole: https://www.quora.com/Is-China-a...
 
The fact that Democrat Senator Schumer agrees wholeheartedly with Trump on his so-far disastrous trade war (which, according to Deutsche Bank, has wiped out $5 trillion from the global stock market) is solid evidence that the control comes not from the people and not from the president or other officials but from another source or sources on a higher level. The president’s only role is that of facilitating the pre-conceived policies of the Establishment. Trump, who appears to be for the people, is an ideal facilitator of Establishment diktats.
 
Generally, what I call Trumponomics is a US phenomenon that is neither left nor right but is generally accepted by the US Establishment (which some call the Deep State and pretend that Trump is a target of it, whereas he is perched at the very pinnacle of it and is its most influential enabler. The Mueller probe was a distraction).
 
What is Trumponomics? It is an ultranationalist economic policy that intends to wipe out all competitors using whatever tactics are available, mostly illegal but that is immaterial to the Establishment. It does not take into account the collateral effects on the US economy and is very much harmful to it. It does not consider that any country competing with the US economically is really an ally and Trump has therefore attacked traditional US allies such as Europe. For example, US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell has pressured Germany to stop buying Russian gas, which is much cheaper than US LNG, and to buy US LNG—complying with this US demand would be suicide for German industry. The US has also insisted that Germany contribute 2% of its GDP to the scam called NATO, even though he had implied in his campaign that he would not support that alliance. I have explained at Quora why NATO is a total scam:
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasn-t...
 
From the above we can conclude that whatever positive personality or intellectual attributes the president may have, all of these characteristics can only benefit the Establishment, not the US people, who are therefore vassals of their government.

 
11.
 
https://www.quora.com/Which-foreign-country-do-Chinese-feel-the-most-affinity-for/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Which foreign country do Chinese feel the most affinity for?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Russia. Xi Jinping has said that Putin is his best friend.

 
12.
 
https://www.quora.com/How-can-Russia-ever-keep-up-with-China-given-how-Chinese-are-willing-to-sacrifice-more-and-work-harder-Isn-t-that-why-the-border-towns-stand-in-such-stark-contrast/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
How can Russia ever keep up with China given how Chinese are willing to sacrifice more and work harder? Isn’t that why the border towns stand in such stark contrast?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
This is a question written from a Western standpoint.
 
Russia has no desire or need to keep up with the Jones’s. The US has been working overtime since the 80s to separate these 2 countries and create animosity between them. Much effort is put into propaganda with this aim. Even social media participate in this kind of propaganda. But as long as the US keeps sanctioning Russia and waging a trade war on China, it will all be for nought.

 
13.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Trumps-opposers-starting-to-think-that-he-is-not-as-bad-as-they-thought-or-do-they-still-stick-with-their-initial-opinion/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Are Trump's opposers starting to think that he is not as bad as they thought, or do they still stick with their initial opinion?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered 1m ago
 
Trump’s most unswerving supporters actually believe he was chosen by God. Eg, his press secretary:
 
'God wanted Trump as president'
 
and Mike Pompeo:
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717
 
“God may have sent Donald Trump to save Israel from Iran.”
 
There you have it. If the US declares war on Iran, it would be God’s fault.
 
This article says half of Trump’s voters think God wanted Trump to be president:
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/p...
 
So these people will not complain a bit even if he buries the US economy. Deutsche Bank says his trade war has cost the global stock market $5 trillion and we know that many US soybean farmers are going out of business as a result of China’s counter-measures.
 
The US Chamber of Commerce has a special page devoted to the billions of dollars lost in different states thanks to the Trump wars:
 
Tariffs are the Wrong Approach
 
But religious zeal always trumps the facts in the US, which is why the US has a ponderous debt load that it will never ever pay down. So the answer to the question is: Trump opponents actually never dreamed he was as bad as this. And their perceptions are not just opinions any more. He has proved them right.

 
14.
 
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-people-in-PRC-who-dislike-their-government/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Are there any people in PRC who dislike their government?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered 1m ago
 
Yes, but unlike in the US, China has a REAL enemy and no one doubts it. They are not likely to give up on the government that gave their GDP an average annualized growth of 9.5% for ten years running.
 
China GDP Annual Growth Rate
 

15.

Feedback from a Zionist (responding to my remarks at #3 above):
 
Jacob Dekel
 
1h ago
 
Not a single true fact in all of this answer. Old-fashioned “Jews control the world” conspiracy theory pamphlet with no backing.

Reply
 
Vince Dhimos
 
Original Author · 1h ago
 
I provided a link to the Chicago Tribune story of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
 
Here is a documentary on AIPAC. There is much more to the story than I recounted: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/...
 
If you want documentation for anything else that I mentioned, do not hesitate to ask.
 
Jacob Dekel
 
1h ago
 
Oh, so you have a proof that Jews control the world. Good for you.
 
Vince Dhimos
 
Original Author · 2m ago
 
I think at one time there was some sort of consensus that if you thought Jews control everything that was anti-Semitism. Yes, that would have fit the definition. My theory is that the culprit in all the Israeli mischief is “Christian” Zionism, and that does not make me anti-Christian, because these zealots are not following the Bible, just each others’ rants. Of course, I don’t talk about Jews but I like to quote their writings. I talk about Zionism, and that cannot be HONESTLY equated with anti-Semitism because there are plenty of Jewish groups and individuals that oppose Israel, including Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, author of this free downloadable book: Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine : Ilan Pappe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
or Gideon Levy, who gave talks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WdyCo_xOdE
 
Would you say that an Israeli historian and a staff writer for Haaretz are anti-Semitic? If not, you have no right to suggest that I am anti-Semitic because a goodly percentage of what I write on the topic of the Nakba and the crimes of Israel is from Jewish sources. My favourite author during my study of German was Franz Kafka. I LIKE Jewish writers.
 

16.
 
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-biggest-fear-regarding-the-United-States-tensions-with-other-countries/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
What is your biggest fear regarding the United States tensions with other countries?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered 1m ago
 
Until recently, my biggest fear was that the extreme anti-Russian propaganda from NATO, the Pentagon, the State Department and the pro-war propaganda in the msm would trigger a real nuclear war.
 
However, I now have a fear that matches that, namely, that Trump’s trade wars will trigger a global economic collapse. Stocks Forgo $5 Trillion on Trade Clashes, Deutsche Bank Says
 

17.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Senate-Republicans-led-by-Mitch-McConnell-blocking-election-security-bills/answer/Vince-Dhimos

Why are the Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocking election security bills?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
I am interested in answering this but do not know of any proof that the Russian government had any significant influence on the US elections. If Russian propaganda influenced enough voters to change the election results, then Americans are not fit to govern themselves.
 
Of course, I have shown at Quora that the US government is not significantly influenced by the people anyway:
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-China-a...

 
19.
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-a-record-1-5th-of-Russians-and-whopping-44-of-young-Russians-say-they-would-leave-Russia-if-they-could-Their-preferred-destinations-are-Germany-and-the-United-States-Would-you-leave-if-you-could/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Why do a record 1/5th of Russians, and whopping 44% of young Russians, say they would leave Russia if they could? Their preferred destinations are Germany and the United States. Would you leave, if you could?
 
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/04/record-number-of-russians-want-to-emigrate-gallup-a65092
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
1/5 is 20%. A poll shows that 35% of Americans would expatriate.

Survey says: 35 percent of Americans would expatriate
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
 
19.
 
Why should China buy energy from the US when the US has cut off technology sales to Huawei; doesn't this show that the US is an unreliable trading partner?
 
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3012315/us-china-trade-war-energy-deal-may-not-be-easy-win-it-appears
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Actually, China has increased its tariff on US LNG from 10 to 25%, and that is essentially the end of what the US hoped would be a big boom for US gas suppliers.
 
China to raise tariff on US LNG to 25% but excludes US crude from list
 
An article in Russian in RIA Novosti (Китай вынес приговор американской газовой отрасли) says that Russia is the big winner here because the new Power of Siberia pipeline is almost finished and when it is up and running, Russia will be able to take up the slack in China.
 
So far China has not imposed restrictions on US crude, but that would be a further thorn in America’s side.
 
China has options: Iran, Venezuela, Russia.

20. 

Glenn is BAAAAACK!

​But getting back to the issue you raised, there is a higher percentage of disgruntled Americans in the US than disgruntled Russians in Russia. Let’s not split hairs, the difference is vast.
Sorry, Vince. That is bullshit.
According to a survey this year by the Russia state statistics agency Rosstat ...
(more)

Reply
 
Vince Dhimos
Original Author · 32m ago
Well, then, Glenn, given your unproven theory, it is up to you to explain why a full 35% of Americans polled say they want to expatriate vs only 20% of Russians. I await your explanation. But please watch your language. There are children reading. Besides, doctors tell us that anger shortens our lifespan. Thank you and God bless!
PS: here are some stats on US poverty levels for you and other readers that may help you compose an explanation: Poverty USA
 

1.  Why are there People in Venezuela who support Maduro if they know what the country is in crisis? Is there a crisis or not?
 
https://es.quora.com/Por-qu%C3%A9-en-Venezuela-hay-gente-que-apoya-a-Maduro-si-se-sabe-que-ese-pa%C3%ADs-est%C3%A1-en-crisis-Es-o-no-es-verdad-la-crisis?__nsrc__=4
 
Translation of question and Vince Dhimos’ answer from Spanish sector of Quora:
 
Look, France is in crisis too, but no one would want the US to invade, right?
 
The EU is in crisis due to the rise of ultra-nationalism, but no one is clamouring for US intervention. White Americans and Europeans, as well as rich Venezuelan oligarchs, are still in colonial mode. The Third World is their colonial empire and they are convinced they are entitled to the souls of its people and the minerals in its soil. That is the real reason Westerners ask questions like this.
 
International surveys show that the US is no longer trusted. The US has a terrible reputation as an arrogant terror regime that bombs and imposes sanctions on numerous countries to force the people to replace their government with people sympathetic to the US. No one likes tyrants and warmongers. Venezuela has a long history of Bolivarian Revolution, which is not extremely democratic but is proud of its sovereignty. The people there also know that China and Russia have no colonial history and are good friends who lend them money and invest in their country's development. Following Putin's advice, Maduro has instructed local banks to float the bolivar against the dollar and this has helped reduce inflation. China has also recently sent a large shipment of medicines. Finally, America has started to buy some of their oil now and things are starting to look a bit better.
 
2. Does China have an interest in occupying Okinawa?
 
https://www.quora.com/Does-China-have-an-interest-in-occupying-Okinawa/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
No. And there is no way they could because Okinawa is occupied by the US armed forces. On the other hand, Okinawans are really fed up with the noise of the US aircraft, the frequent bad behaviour of the service men and the danger from crashing Ospreys. I wouldn’t doubt there are some who would trade for the Chinese.
 
I know this because I used to view NHK on cable to practice Japanese and almost the only thing they presented about Okinawa on the news was related to the Okinawans’ discontent with the US armed forces.
 
The problem is, the Chinese are leery of the Japanese due to mistreatment during WW II and they would have a hard time occupying due to friction.
 
 
3. What can the US do politically if Chinese decided to stop exporting rare earth metals to the US?
 
What can the U.S. do politically if China decided to stop exporting rare earth metals to the U.S?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Fortunately, there are options. The US used to refine its own rare earth metals but stopped for environmenta reasons. This is no doubt why China has not decided to stop the supply yet. After all, they would risk losing the market forever.
 
 
 
 
4. Is the stock market likely to crash due to Donald Trump’s trade wars?
 
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-stock-market-likely-to-crash-due-to-Donald-Trumps-trade-wars/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
It almost seems as if Trump wants to crash the stock market, quite honestly.
 
His new plan for tariffs on Mexico has cost the stock market 350 points so far and his trade war with Huawei has cost the tech stock market $1 trillion. In all, according to Deutsche Bank as of May 31, the stock market has lost $5 trillion thanks to Trump’s trade wars.
 
This is only the beginning. Hold onto your hats.
 
 
 
 
5. Is the US really a country ruled by law?
 
Is the United States really a country ruled by law?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
Internally, the US still seems to be controlled by laws, although some of the laws are not constitutional. For example, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress has the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof. However, in 1913, the Congress abrogated this provision and gave this right to a group of bankers, who call themselves the Federal Reserve Board.
 
In the latter part of the 20th Century, presidents started declaring and waging war without consulting Congress. This too is a violation of the Constitution so presidents are now declaring war whenever they so desire. That is a form of lawlessness and very dangerous.
 
The eavesdropping on citizens’ phone conversations also has no foundation in law and I think it is a gross violation of human rights.
 
But externally, it’s actually much worse. The US has completely ceased to guide itself by international law. Trump’s trade war, for example, his arresting of a CEO official in Canada, his sanctions on various countries, all this is a violation of international law and WTO rules, and Trump is not the only one. He is only the worst example, but others have transgressed as well. The Iran-Contra affair was another example of illegal shenanigans by government. The CIA is extra-legal and extra-constitutional. No one can control it. Its first sleazy affair may have been the overthrow of Iran’s legitimately elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 (and Americans still can’t figure out why Iran is mad at them?!). Yet the public must pay its operatives to violate the law, for example, by toppling governments.
 
The extradition of Julian Assange is also one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice imaginable. Assange was not even charged with a crime when the US first demanded he be held in the UK. There is no law in the US when it comes to foreign affairs.
 
So I would have to say that the US is becoming increasingly lawless and while most Americans seem oblivious to this roguish behaviour (some even think it is part of making America great!), they will pay for it eventually.
 
6. The US-China trade war could cost the US stock market more than several trillion dollars in upcoming months. Do you think it would be a wise decision to sell half my stocks?
https://www.quora.com/US-China-trade-war-could-cost-U-S-stock-market-more-than-several-trillion-dollars-in-upcoming-months-do-you-think-it-would-be-a-wise-decision-to-sell-half-of-my-stocks/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
Answered just now
 
I do not give advice because I would feel bad if I was wrong. But if I were holding US stocks today, I would get rid of them. I feel that Russia is the most stable economy on earth right now (as shown here: http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/economics-and-finance/russia-the-most-stable-and-healthy-of-all-industrial-economies) and would investigate that stock market or bond market.
 
Again, that is not advice, just telling you what I would do.
 
7. If you could decide America’s defence budget how much would you spend?
 
https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-decide-Americas-defence-budget-how-much-would-you-spend/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
The US has already overspent and yet is behind Russia in terms of development of new arms. I would not spend one dime on aircraft carriers because any aircraft carrier complete with crew and aircraft burden can be sent to the bottom of the sea within a few minutes of a Russian or Chinese decision. Iran also has missiles that are accurate enough to sink any aircraft carrier. I would spend on subs, torpedoes, hypersonic missile development and anti-air defences. I would place several batteries at important sensitive sites. And I would not spend over 20% more than the Russians. Yes, the defence industry would come after me with their long knives and try to sabotage my next campaign, but after all, I would be in the employ of the American people, not those vultures.
 
But your question ignores one point: diplomacy. This is the missing ingredient in the US, where armaments are no longer the deciding factor in dealing with other countries. When the US stopped using diplomacy, that was when the Russian arms developers went into overdrive. The problem is, US policy is not written by technical or even remotely competent people. It is written by politicians based on political considerations, and that spells disaster. No politician in the US cares about national security. They are all concerned with one thing: votes and keeping the real rulers of America happy, ie, Israel, Saudi, the arms manufacturers who donate millions to candidates, the FED, which wants more and more spending, and generally everyone but the American people.
 
8. Is Boris Johnson an appropriate choice for prime minister? (sorry, I lost the link)
 
Foreign Minister Boris Johnson was very typical of high ranking British politicians including prime ministers and was similar to Theresa May in that he was a devout Russophobe. When the former Russian spy Sergey Skripal and his daughter Julia were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury, England, Boris immediately proclaimed that the Russians were to blame for their poisoning. Like May, he did not await the results of an investigation. He just immediately concluded that the Russians were guilty because blaming the Russians is what patriotic British pols do. In other words, he is the ideal British politician. A real gentleman who is not afraid to jump to conclusions for his country's security!
Of course, he is no Sherlock Holmes, but then you can't be all things to all people.
 
9. What are war crimes?
 
This question is a translation from the German sector of Quora. The following is my translated answer, with additions made after posting.
 
https://de.quora.com/Was-sind-Kriegsverbrechen/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
War crimes are crimes that are committed by a combatant in a war that are essentially defined according to definitions applicable in ordinary civilian criminal court but are adjudicated in a military tribunal, with one very important exception, namely, there is no punishment if they are committed by Americans or American allies.
 
For example, the Nuremberg trials were held after WW II under the control of the US and Germans were held accountable for war crimes such as murder. Some were even hanged.
 
Later, when American soldiers were found to have committed a massacre at Song Mai in Vietnam, the responsible persons were not tried or convicted. All returnees from the war were feted as heroes in the US.

This paragraph was added after my answer was posted at Quora:
​
Now the case of Bradley/ Chelsea Manning is perhaps the most bizarre example of how US war crimes not only are not prosecuted but whistle-blowers who expose them can be tried and jailed for doing so. Manning’s case is also an example of just about everything that is wrong with America. For example, it illustrates what I had written about American “democracy,” namely that it does not exist and that the US is ruled by around a dozen agencies that make and implement most of the important decisions. One of Manning’s best-known deeds was the leakage of secret video footage of the murder of a group of men, including well-known journalists, in Baghdad by a US helicopter crew. This video is linked at the top of this page. It was considered a crime to leak this footage, and as far as the US government is concerned, it is no doubt a crime to view it. I invite everyone to do so so that you can see how far the US government has sunk and why a poll shows that the US is no longer trusted even among its allies and another international poll shows that the US is deemed as the country most likely to cause a war. It is hard to understand what makes Washington tick. Satanism would seem like the best explanation.

 and A Trump fan questioned Vince Dhimos’ response at Quora
 
 
If you have not yet read my post, you can find a similar one here: http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/economics-and-finance/chinese-economist-looks-at-impact-of-trump-trade-war-on-us-economy
 
 
Or you can read it here in Spanish (use Google Translate if necessary): https://es.quora.com/Por-qu%C3%A9-Trump-comenz%C3%B3-una-guerra-con-China/answer/Vince-Dhimos

The following is my translation:
 
 
Trump fan:
 
 
If [Trump] is such a failure, why has the US economy improved like never before and the unemployment rate is one of the lowest in many years? How can we believe you?
 
 
Vince:
 
During his campaign, Trump complained that the job numbers published by the government were fake because the unemployment reports did not include the number of people who had stopped seeking work. He was right. This system is, of course, misleading and it always makes the government look better than it is. However, this system has not changed, so it is still misleading. Yet now that Trump is president, he wants us to believe the government numbers that he himself called fake. He could have tried to change this misleading reporting system – as his supporters were led to expect – but instead, he is capitalizing on this fake system to make himself look good.
 
 
Look, when Trump became president, the US debt was $20 trillion. Now it is $22 trillion. This debt – not the employment rate – is the best indicator of US economic health and shows that the American economy is very very sick and it will get worse because many of the salaries of the new jobs are paid by the government, and the source of the money is just debt, not real money. It means nothing. The Trump government solves economic problems by providing subsidies and by giving companies very low taxes, ie, costing the tax payer billions. But subsidies and tax breaks for companies, while they make Trump look good to voters, do not reflect a healthy economy because they are paid by the tax payer, not by productive work. Trump paid millions of dollars to the oil companies in the form of tax rebates (a disguised form of subsidy) because his idea of making America great by selling shale oil was not profitable since it required the expensive process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Thus it failed ignominiously but he made himself and the failed shale oil industry look good by robbing the tax payer! Then his trade war with China destroyed the American soybean farmers and his "solution" to this problem was to subsidize the farmers. But this was obviously not a real economic solution. It was a political solution to his re-election problem. The tax payer was robbed to solve a problem caused by a senseless trade war. These solutions are all band-aids.
 
 
Before he was elected, Trump declared bankruptcy 6 times and lost nothing because he had invested other people's money. He is bankrupting America and will not lose because he has spent the tax payer’s money. He will win, the country will lose.

Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
 
 
https://www.quora.com/China-is-about-to-become-the-dominant-economy-on-the-planet-over-the-next-10-years-At-the-same-time-the-USA-will-drop-to-3rd-The-numbers-say-so-Given-that-why-would-the-USA-want-to-provoke-a-trade-war-now/answer/Vince-Dhimos

China is about to become the dominant economy on the planet over the next 10 years. At the same time, the USA will drop to 3rd. The numbers say so. Given that, why would the USA want to provoke a trade war?
 
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered just now
 
 
Trump promised his voters to make America “great again” (although he forgot to say when it was great before, as I wondered here). The thing about America is that many people, especially conservatives, long for a time when they can be proud of their country, and the last election period was a time when many of them felt the overwhelming need to be great, or more correctly, to feel great – more so than be happy and prosperous. The very same phenomenon was observed in the Reagan years. The US had been through some rough times. Those days, Vietnam had been a major psychological letdown for some who believed that greatness in America can be achieved solely or primarily by military means. The national anthem mentions bombs bursting in air and the bomb is a security blanket to many Americans, who long to see their government bomb more, at last figuratively speaking. That is, they want to see the US in a position to push others around because they feel they have been pushed around. They blame it all on the globlists, but could not define globalism any more than they can define MAGA. They like sound bytes and greatness sounds, well, great to them. But sound bytes don’t solve problems.
 
 
This will all seem absolutely bonkers to most non-Americans, and you know what? It is. It is a form of collective insanity. Hyperpatriotism is imbibed with the mother’s milk in America and is further reinforced by the neocon Establishment. Therefore, since it is extrememly difficult to pick oneself up above the level of one’s surrounding culture, almost like picking oneself up by one’s own boot-strops, probably nothing can ever stop the US from continuing this trend of military worship (which goes hand in hand with the cult of Israel worship) and the expectation of being no.1. It will probably only be stopped once the US dollar drops below a certain level of usage in world trade settlements that strips the dollar of its global reserve status and denies the US the ability to keep waging useless senseless wars indefinitely and slap sanctions on people until the rest of the world dies of starvation.
 
 
So why a trade war? Trump is the consummate con man, and when he told people that China was eating their lunch, they believed him. In fact, the US-China relationship was benign, designed by Xi to be win-win, and disrupting it will cause untold pain. But in order to capture the votes of these mentally challenged people who desperately need the pacifier of national pride, he needed to create enemies: Obama, Hillary, Bush, Iran and now China (not that Hillary was no enemy because she was the ultimate Neocon warmonger).
 
 
It is all politics and has nothing whatsoever to do with economics, as evidenced by the fact that the trade wars have cost the tech stock market $1.1 trillion so far and have put most US soybean farmers out of business. But that does not bother Trump. Only one thing bothers him and that is the prospect of losing the next election. Now if he wanted to make the US richer, he could invest in the Chinese One-Belt One Road project, because that is a win-win, whereas the US Establishment is ideologically bound to the idea of being the sole and big winner. Yet the US has no answer to match the Belt and Road, just Steve Bannon’s neocolonial idea of stopping it. It is psychologically incapable of investing in a Chinese project even if it were to pay big dividends. Because the US, both the grassroots and the oligarchy, is stuck in a neo-colonial mindset from which there is no apparent escape. Obama, who was also controlled by the same Establishment, refused to join the Chinese Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) even though almost every single US ally joined the venture seeing the obvious gains from the biggest infrastructure project in history. His reasoning was based on the phony excuse that the AIIB did not offer “social safeguards.” In other words, it did not strongarm its lendees into celebrating cross dressers in the military and the like. Social change is the American way and this ideology is far more important to the elites than raising the poor out of poverty and restoring the disappearing middle class. So the US Establishment is incapable of investing in things that just make money and help people. The investment must be ideologically correct and must necessarily hurt the imagined adversary. The ideology differs slightly between, say, Steve Bannon and Chuck Schumer, but the net result is the same: China is hurt and that’s what counts.
 
 
Sadly, though, while Trump complains a lot about political correctness and his fans think he is non PC, they couldn’t be more wrong. He is every bit as politically correct as his political adversaries. His political correctness, however, is rightwing while the PC he opposes is the leftwing PC. It is all ideology, and ideology does not solve problems, it creates them. All political correctness is a mental strait jacket but the US public has not figured that out yet. Now in this Trump era, the zombies think only leftwing PC is a problem. Their strait jacket, however, is neither the Left nor the Right, it is their own minds wrapped in knots by a web of tangled sound bytes. So the reason for the trade war is politics, pure politics, and it seems to be hurting the stock market, with the tech stocks losing a trillion as I said above and the farmers losing their shirt. It is all about impressions, and the naive souls who support Trump actually believe that impoverishing the US is somehow helping restore what they see as lost sovereignty. In their eyes, the US is now freer because they’ve gotten the Chinese monkey off their back. But the real monkey on their back is, has been and always will be the Establishment that controls their own benumbed minds. Trump is at the very top of that Establishment, even though he purports to be a victim of the Deep State.
 
 
But Trump has no plan. He never does.  As CEO of different companies acquired with other people’s money, he declared bankruptcy 6 times and lost nothing. He could be making the US his 7th bankruptcy and the rest of the world his 8th. If he stays true to pattern, then he will emerge unscathed and only his investors – his voters – will lose.
 
 
And yet, who can blame him? They asked for it. Or rather, they begged for it.

by Vince Dhimos
 
The following is mostly a translation from my response to a question at the Spanish-language sector of Quora. https://es.quora.com/Qu%C3%A9-efecto-tiene-la-ayuda-de-los-Estados-Unidos-en-Israel/answer/Vince-Dhimos

BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
Ronald Reagan's famously said: The most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


Since a group of Zionist settlers in Arab lands requested the UN to recognize these Arab lands as a Jewish state in 1948, the United States was at their side. The government of the United States put pressure on some countries that were not sure of granting statehood to the group.


Some Arab states were concerned because Arabs living in this region had been forcibly removed and they therefore strongly opposed the recognition of "Israel." Two Jewish terrorist gangs, Stern and Irgun, as well as a paramilitary group, the Hagana, had massacred entire families in Deir Yassin to scare families throughout the region into abandoning their homes and fleeing. I had written about this previously (http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/ls-right-to-existarabs-right-to-die).


The British Mandate was very supportive of the Zionists and early settlers but that was part of the problem. They allowed the Jews to have lethal weapons but forbade the native Arabs to have them to defend themselves. This was a violation of the Balfour agreement that promised equality for everyone in these territories. This blatant unfairness would come back to bite the British, who tried to set limits to the number of Jews allowed to enter the Mandate. The limits were challenged when Jewish terrorists bombed a ship full of Jews from Europe that exceeded the limit, and dozens of Jews were drowned when the ship started to capsize. By the time the British officials tried to clamp down further, it was too late. The Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel that housed British officials, causing major damage and killing guests. They also bombed an officers’ club and hanged 2 British officials. Then they started bombing British embassies around Europe. Thus, the British lost their zeal to help establish the Jewish state and finally withdrew from the scene.


This "state" was founded in the most unusual way, first of all by use of terror to expel the Arabs (and many Arabs feared that if Israel gained statehood, terror and murder would spread to the surrounding areas.)  Never before, in the history of the UN, had a group made up mainly of people from other regions entered another region (Palestine) where they were present as a minority and tried to establish a state by displacing the original majority inhabitants of the land by force and then asking the international community to recognize their ethnicity as the ruling class, and it was only successful due to the intervention of the United States and because the Jews had just lived a horrible experience known as the holocaust and everyone felt sorry for them. But the situation would be tantamount to a few radical Native American groups starting a campaign to reclaim their land, winning the support of a European nation using slick propaganda such as films showing the unfair treatment of the Amerindians at Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears, for example, and then going to towns all over America and terrorizing residential areas by slaughtering whole families to force them to flee and subsequently, applying for statehood at the UN and being given the right to “return” to their native lands and obtain the rights of a state. The main reason that the Arabs could not fight back was that the story of the Jewish terrorism was not widely publicized beyond the Middle East and no one could have guessed that the early Zionists would have been so brutal.


The fears of the Arabs turned out to be justified. Even today, the Israeli army continues to shoot and kill or maim unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
 

The problem is not due so much to Jews or Israelis. The reason Israel gained recognition is that the Americans generously supported the would-be state of Israel unconditionally and continues to do so today, overlooking all the reports of criminal wrongdoing, which it attributes to Arab prejudice and propaganda and condemning the Arabs for being Muslim and hence terrorists.
 

Consequently, as of today, the UN has issued more warnings and condemnations against Israel for human rights violations than against any other country! But for the UN to enforce its decisions, the United States would have to cooperate. However, the great model of democracy refuses to make its protégé behave like a civilized nation.
Every time the UN tries to condemn Israel for its crimes, the United States defends it and votes against all the resolutions against it. In addition, it gives Israel $4.5 billion a year and sends its best weapons to protect it. Even so, most resolutions against Israel are passed.
 

And how does Israel show its gratitude for this generosity?

 
The best example of Israeli "gratitude" was seen during the Arab-Israeli war in 1967, when a group of Israeli warplanes attacked a US spy ship, the USS Liberty, in broad daylight in international waters of the Mediterranean. The Israelis shot and killed 34 sailors aboard the Liberty and wounded 174. The official excuse given by the Israelis was that the pilots did not know that the ship was American and they had mistaken it for an Egyptian ship. But this was clearly a lie because some Israeli planes overflew the ship before the attack and could clearly see the American flag flying on it and the Roman letters prominently displayed on its side.

 
The most likely reason for the unprovoked attack was that the Israelis knew that the American ship was commissioned to gather information and feared that the Americans had intercepted Israeli messages that were supposed to be secret.
 

Here's a clue to why Israel never changes its behaviour (source: http://lagranfarsa11s.blogspot.com/2009/05/ataque-al-uss-liberty.html)

 
QUOTE FROM the source cited above (my translation from Spanish):


The Johnson administration did not publicly rebut the motive adduced by the Hebrew authorities, and said that it was indeed a disastrous mistake. But the internal documents obtained by the "Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library" showed that this explanation was not believed.

 
Even so, both governments issued reports concluding that it was a tragic error, caused by an identification failure. These conclusions accentuated the controversy and some veterans and intelligence officials who were involved in the incident, submitted their complaints, since it was the only incident of this kind in American history not investigated by Congress.

 
In May 1968, Israel paid $3,323,500 to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack, in March 1969 paid $ 3,566,457 as compensation for the injured, and on December 18, 1980, the amount paid was $ 6,000,000 for the victims and material damage caused to the USS Liberty.

 
On December 17, 1987, the issue was officially closed by both governments

 
END QUOTE
 

The Chicago Tribune also carried the story: https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html).

 
A Jewish editorialist once published an editorial in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, accusing the United States of destroying Israel by approving its wrongdoing. He said that the US is like an indulgent father who pampers his son by giving him unlimited freedom and by never disciplining him. He says the US is in fact destroying Israel with its lenient behaviour because Israel has very few friends left, has many enemies and would one day pay for its sins.

 
So, why is the United States the only country that supports Israel's treacherous and ungrateful misbehaviour and allows it to behave in ways that can lead to wars?

 
There are 3 main reasons:

 
1 - The holocaust. Americans are compassionate to Jews because of their suffering in Hitler's Germany.

 
2 - AIPAC, the Israeli-American lobby, which controls elections. As you know, many politicians, mostly Democrats, have accused Russia of interfering with the US elections. But there is very little evidence to accuse Russia of this, and besides, US candidates and their partisans in media spend far more effort and money campaigning for their candidates of choice than any foreign government possibly could. On the other hand, Israel openly and blatantly interferes in the US elections and no one complains. How do they do that? AIPAC does this in two ways: they give generous donations to candidates who declare themselves pro-Israel and discredit candidates who refuse to pledge support to Israel or who show sympathy for Palestine. This gives Israel almost complete control of US foreign policy and much of its domestic policy. Saudi Arabia also helps Israel to control the US because that country has a petrodollar agreement with America that obliges it to comply with the Saudi dictatorship. Given that both countries hate and fear Iran, they have had an enormous influence on Trump, who seems to be preparing for a conflict with Iran.

 
3. "Christian" Zionism. Non-Americans find it odd that there may be a religious sect that exerts such a huge influence on US foreign policy, but the truth is that about 70-80% of American evangelicals believe that their country should support Israel, and should not care that Israel commits crimes because many of them believe that the Israeli government is guided by God -- even when they violate the Ten Commandments. However, their belief in Israel is not aligned with the Bible. They claim that the resurrected Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 37 is the modern secular state of Israel. However, none of these zealots seem to realize or care that verse 24 of that chapter says that resurrected Israel will be "obedient to God’s decrees." Unfortunately for them, a survey conducted by WIN/Gallup shows that 65% of Israelis do not have any religion. Furthermore, the IDF's constant killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza, for example, is contrary to the decree in the book of Leviticus in the Jewish Torah, which enjoins Jews to love their neighbours as themselves.

 
Clearly, modern Israel is not the Israel prophesied by Ezekiel! This Zionist belief would seem blasphemous to a true Christian who bases his beliefs on the Bible, but such Christians are scarce among US Evangelicals.
 

END TRANSLATION
 

However, this religious fanaticism has a major influence on the political life of the country and has for decades led to devastating wars and terrible conflicts. The conflict with Iran is the most recent. Trump’s biggest voting bloc was Evangelicals. Both Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are Evangelical Christians who believe Israeli policies are driven by the Almighty.

 
Who could oppose them without incurring His wrath? That is the fear that drives US foreign policy.

1.
 
Vince Dhimos answered a question in the French-language sector of Quora. The following is a translation.
 
What must be included to make Donald Trump's peace plan in the Middle East a success?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief and Political Analyst (2015-present)
 
Without American approval, the Arabs would have continued to live peacefully on their land in Palestine. It was the United States that endorsed at the United Nations the creation of a new state whose founders had driven out the Palestinians with terrorism and murder. The US also pressured other countries to do the same. The Arabs have no reason to trust the Americans.
 
I wrote about it in Quora [NSS link substituted in this version]:
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/economics-and-finance/quora-why-did-trump-start-a-war-with-china
 
The United States has approved the creation of Israel at the UN and has pressured other countries to do the same, but only because of a religious fanaticism called "Christian" Zionism. Trump's administration is infested with religious fanatics (such as Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo) and their decisions and policies are biased against Muslims. They believe that God wants them to support Israel despite the ongoing killing of unarmed protesters in Gaza by the Israeli army. Their religious prejudices lead to serious disasters and wars in the Middle East (for example, Netanyahu had lobbied the US Congress to invade Iraq). No international politics should ever be adopted on the basis of religious fanaticism. Tragically, America remains the most powerful country in the world but leads the rest of the world in its perverse bias, based on ignorance. There can be nothing more dangerous than a belligerent world power acting out of ignorance or religious zealotry. The current situation in America is eerily similar to that which led to the peasant uprisings in Germany in the sixteenth century - for example under the leadership of Thomas Müntzer - which caused catastrophic damage and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
 
The Arabs will never trust the United States as an arbiter of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because American politicians have deep prejudices against Muslims (thanks in large part to Israeli propaganda) and still favour Israel unreasonably and irrationally.
Only Russia can effectively serve as an arbiter because the country bases its actions on reason and pragmatism and has many years of experience in negotiating respectfully with Russian Muslims.
 
20% of Israelis were born in Russia and Putin has a special interest in their well-being. However, because of his close ties with Arab leaders, he also understands their problems. Therefore, Russia is likely the most unbiased nation with regard to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and the only country that could be trusted by both sides. The United States has no role to play in the Middle East.
 
Answer requested by Harry C Basher (ハ リ ー バ ッ ッ ャ ャ ー) (PS: Harry answers in several languages at Quora, including Japanese. Hats off to Harry Basher!)
 
2.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-trade-war-with-the-United-States-strengthen-China-and-weaken-the-United-States/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
How does a trade war with the United States strengthen China and weaken the United States?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
The trade war is not good for either county, and has badly damaged the tech stock market, which has lost $1 trillion so far as a result of the wars.
 
The US has lost in that many farmers are going bankrupt due to the Chinese retaliatory tariffs. The shame of it is that the soybean market is probably lost forever because the Chinese have lost the trust they had in the US as a trading partner and, for example, are looking for substitute markets for soybeans in South America. The Chinese have also stopped buying US LNG, which really hurts the US because there are several companies that build special export terminals in the southern states and these will probably never be used now, thanks to Trump, Russia is the big winner because the Power of Siberia pipeline will be finished soon and supply virtually unlimited amounts of gas to gas-hungry China. The irony of this is that Trump’s ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, has been trying unsuccessfully to persuade Germany to buy US LNG instead of the much cheaper pipeline-delivered Russian gas. So now, thanks to these stupid trade wars, not only does the US not get to sell LNG to Germany, but it also loses the lucrative Chinese LNG market. It almost looks as if Trump has a secret wish to bankrupt the US!
 
When all the smoke clears, it will be clear to many voters, even the most loyal to Trump, that his trade wars did not work. It will therefore be hard for him to get enough votes for re-election in 2020, especially since his military policies were also failures, including his Iran threats that could start a war.
 
Probably the best result of these trade wars has been the object lesson to the whole world: how NOT to protect a national economy.
 
 
3.
 
Why has there been an escalation in relations between the USA and Iran?
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-has-there-been-an-escalation-in-relations-between-the-USA-and-Iran/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Why has there been an escalation in relations between the USA and Iran?
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/us-troops-mideast-pentagon-plans/index.html
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
The US is provoking Iran to show solidarity with the homicidal state of Israel, which is a US ally mostly because of “Christian” Zionists, who make up a large majority of Evangelicals and a small majority of Catholics.
 
This is explained at Quora:
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasn-t...
 
The US likes to provoke national leaders and then wait for them to issue some sort of a threat so that the US can deepen the crisis and possibly wage war.
 
After the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal unilaterally — the initial provocation — and then slapped secondary sanctions on all states buying their oil and metals (which is, of course, a violation of international law), Iran said it retained the right to back out of some of the provisions of the agreement, including the provision to refrain from enriching the by-products of their nuclear power plants. This means obtaining fuel that could be used in a nuclear weapon. Note that in most countries, in commercial law, if one or more parties to an agreement abrogates one or more provisions of an agreement, any party that is disadvantaged as a result normally has the right to withdraw from one or more of the provisions or even cancel the agreement. Also note that the US left Iran with no incentive to comply with the broken agreement, which clearly indicates that the US is not interested in preventing them from developing nukes – ie, an effort to enhance Israeli security – but only in building a case for war. Let’s be clear: By unilaterally backing out of the Iran Deal – which Trump claimed was the worst deal ever (but of course, without explaining what was wrong with it) – Trump put the world back to the years before the deal when Iran had a free hand to develop a nuclear bomb. They now are somewhat freer of the constraints of this deal and, unless Europe decides to support them using its new special purpose vehicle, a SWIFT replacement called INSTEX, to bypass US sanctions, it will quite likely start enriching its nuclear fuel. This means that backing out of the deal was considerably more dangerous to Israeli and US security than staying in it. And Europe’s failure to follow through with INSTEX was a betrayal. Whether Americans will understand this, or whether they will continue letting Trump do their thinking for them – is hard to say.
 
Here is why I say “Christian” Zionism is extremely dangerous: Vince Dhimos's answer to Why is the official history of Israel as presented by Israeli government highly distorted, to say the least, compared to what actually happened?
 
The US is most definitely the most dangerous regime on the planet and the motivation for its wars is largely religious fanaticism. The last instance of a major conflict arising as a result of “Christian” zealotry was the Peasant Revolts in Germany in the 16th Century. The peasants involved, led in particular by Thomas Münzer, lost the war when 300,000 of them were slaughtered by mercenaries hired by the nobility. Münzer was executed. They had felt invincible, believing God would protect them.
 
What they failed to understand is that God never protects fools from themselves.
 
Relevant:
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/israels-right-to-existarabs-right-to-die
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism
​
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism-part-ii           
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism-part-iii
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/jesus-message-to-christian-zionists
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/vince-on-quora-why-does-the-us-show-unwavering-support-for-israel-and-not-palestine

I answered another question on Quora. It is getting a little difficult to answer these. Yesterday I went to my inbox to look for Quora questions to answer and found them interspersed among over 20 emails from Quora reporting that this or that Quora member had upvoted one or another of my answers. It isn’t just that the answers provide details from hard-to-find sources. I stick my neck waaaay out to express opinions that are all but banned in the Western press. People are hungry for this information and for my unvarnished opinions, which they are not finding anywhere else. (Perhaps if I had any sense, I would stick to writing recipes and stories about cute puppies.)
 
All of this is further clear-cut evidence that something is terribly wrong with the Western press and Western Establishment in general, and I am referring to both Left and Right. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats with regard to foreign policy. Both sides of the aisle wholeheartedly endorse the war du jour and are eager to increase the body count. We are doing precisely what the Bible warned about:
 
 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
 
And yet many people calling themselves “Christian conservatives” support this sin of tacitly endorsing crimes of their government and then standing idly by as the msm cover up, or even excuse, these crimes. People calling themselves “Christians” refuse to protest the actions of a government that, while representing people calling themselves Christians, implements policies that they know, in their hearts, Jesus would condemn. Yet because it is their government doing these evil things, they can hide behind this fact and just pretend it never happened. They can say “it wasn’t my doing.” But something else is also not their doing: raising one finger to stop it or protesting. In fact they wholeheartedly stand behind a president who endorses the jailing of truth tellers like Assange, Snowden and Manning. BTW, even if it is, strictly speaking, illegal to leak US secrets, since these are mostly secrets about US crimes or misdeeds, then the government’s message is this: it is, of course, not necessarily legal for your government to commit crimes, but it is much more of a crime for an individual to expose these crimes because your government is more important than the individual. And if the world knew the truth about the US government, we would lose the trust of the world community. (What Washington refuses to admit is that international polls show the world community rating the US dead last in trustworthiness. Jailing these whistle-blowers will only drive the last nail in the coffin of US prestige).
 
Besides, if these US “Christians” are Evangelicals, the majority of them support Zionism, foolishly believing it is their duty to defend a secular state called Israel, based on the shaky belief that the homicidal apartheid state of modern Israel is the resurrected Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 37. What they refuse to do is open their eyes and read verse 24, proving modern Israel is not Ezekiel’s Israel at all. That verse says this prophesied Israel represented by the reassembled dry bones will be “obedient to God’s decrees.” But Leviticus, part of the Jews’ own Torah, commands them to love their neighbours as themselves. Israel could not have been settled without the involvement of terrorist gangs, as described here. And you can’t claim to be obeying this decree and shoot unarmed protesters including women and children, as is now common practice in Israel. Further, a WIN/Gallup poll shows 65% of Israelis have no religious beliefs at all and therefore cannot be “obeying God’s decrees.” (I need to point out that young American Jews support Israel at a much lower rate, while supporting Palestine at a much higher rate, than US Evangelicals and are therefore, though not necessarily believers, closer than Evangelicals to obeying God’s decree to love one’s neighbour as oneself!).
 
The trouble is, most American Evangelicals are so complacent that if their pastor says they must support Israel to get to heaven, then they don’t bother doing any further research; fearing for their afterlife, they just believe it and teach their kids this same Satanic doctrine. Meanwhile, Middle Easterners look at these foolish “Christians” and thank Allah they do not subscribe to this Satanic religion. The thing is, true Christianity itself is, of course, not Satanic at all. Yet many American Christians have been swept into this false doctrine of “Christian” Zionism and therefore actually have no right to call themselves followers of Christ. They are sullying the name of their Saviour. No wonder Middle Easterners are sceptical of Christianity.
 
VINCE ON QUORA
 
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-the-United-States-Of-America-is-still-the-greatest-country-in-the-world-or-has-it-lost-its-touch-of-what-once-was/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Do you believe the United States Of America is still the greatest country in the world or has it lost its touch of what once was?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 

Your use of the word “still” indicates you think it was great at one time. “Make America great again” carries this same message.
 
But you know I have always wanted to ask Mr. Trump when America was great before. I really want to know. Was it great when the Amerindians were driven from their homes to give the white man elbow room? Was it great at Wounded Knee? Was it great at the Trail of Tears? Was it great when the US Army went to the Okefenokee to exterminate the original inhabitants of Florida? Was it great when it rounded up the redskins to herd them onto the very least-inhabitable land in America that was later called reserves? Was it great when great American leaders like Washington kept slaves to do all their drudgery against their will? Yes, we know that slavery was just a custom in those days and that many Americans forgive Washington on that basis, but the question is, was America great at that time?
 
Was America great when it decided, along with Britain, to carpet bomb Dresden and burn the residents alive? Or when it dropped its great bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes, there are a million and one excuses for this, but was America truly great when it was carrying out this atrocity?
 
Was it great when, after realizing it would not win the Korean war, it decided to take revenge on the residents who had stoically defended their homes, killing about 14% of North Koreans with aerial bombs for no justifiable reason at all?
 
Was the US great when, lacking legitimate justification, it used the false-flag Gulf of Tonkin incident to invade Vietnam and kill 2 million civilians, 1.1 million fighters on both sides and about 60,000 US soldiers, and when US soldiers massacred dozens of peaceful Vietnamese villagers at Song My and elsewhere? This report shows atrocities were not the exception.  Was it great when it cooked up a story about WMDs and invaded Iraq, killing over a hundred thousand innocent civilians who had done nothing to harm a hair on the head of a single American?
 
Was America great when it pretended to be waging war in terror but allowed hundreds of US-supplied white Toyota trucks full of ISIS fighters to enter Syria and mingle with the civilians in towns like Aleppo and Raqqa where they could only be subdued at the expense of thousands of civilian lives, and this same “great” country then blamed this slaughter all on Assad, who was really just defending his country from terrorists, many of whom were called “moderates” and sponsored by this great country of America and its allies?
 
Was it great when it rewarded the homicidal Zionists for their atrocities by promoting nationhood for Israel at the expense of the Arabs it ethnically cleansed and drove out by massacring whole families (documented here at Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the...)
 
Was the US great when it jailed Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning for telling the world the truth about unsavoury and illegal actions in Iraq, including the summary executions of 10 Iraqis, including one child and one woman? Was America great when it forced the extradition of Julian Assange to stand trial for telling the truth about US misdeeds? Do Americans believe that government crimes are excusable if they are well covered? If Americans agree that telling the truth about American misdeeds is evil and quashing it is good, are they a great people?
 
I guess if greatness is defined as something independent of morality and virtue, then this use of military might was a sign of greatness. Having great weapons and using them to subjugate leaders who dare to declare independence of the great America could certainly be considered greatness by the amoral and immoral psychopaths in Washington.
 
But on the other hand, if America has an ounce of decency and virtue and wants to call itself a Christian nation, shouldn’t it confess its crimes and stop the killing? And stop supporting the murders by Israel? Trump had promised to stop interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. His followers thought that was his intention and was part of the greatness they expected him to deliver.
 
But is Trump being great in Venezuela, threatening to invade because the people elected a president he doesn’t like? In Iran, threatening to destroy the whole country? In Israel? In the camps housing refugees of Israel atrocities, to which he cut off funding? In China, whose economy he is trying to ruin, allowing its people to starve while putting US farmers out of business?
 
Tell you what. Somebody let me know when the US is great again because I have not seen a sign of it yet and, at least for now, am tired of waiting.

https://fr.quora.com/Pourquoi-lIran-soutient-il-le-gouvernement-Assad/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos answered a question on Quora in French.
 
Translation: Why does Iran support Assad’s government?
 
Both Iran and Syria are targets of the US and Israel and both are part of the Shiite triangle -- although Syria is Sunni in its majority, its leadership is Alawite (a Shiite sect distinguished by its tolerance and mild manners) and Assad is firmly in control of the government, mostly because he respects all religions and sects (typical for Alawites) and has been able to defeat the terrorists, who are mostly backed by Saudi Arabia and the US, although the US falsely claims that it fights terror. After all, it was not until Russia entered the war in 2015 that the terrorists were forced to start ceding their territory back to government control, clear-cut proof that there was no truly sincere war on terror on the part of the West.
 
Iran is also an ally of Iraq, a Shiite-majority country which is now very friendly with Syria, and Iran’s ally Hezbollah was instrumental in defeating the Israeli aggressor in the war of 2006. Hezbollah is falsely portrayed by the US as a terror group, but in fact it is a legitimate and respected political party in Lebanon and without it, the terrorists would have continued to spread all over the Middle East. The fact is, almost everything Americans “know” about Iran and Hezbollah is based on false propaganda of the US Establishment. And let’s be clear: Trump is part of this Establishment. Although part of the Establishment is anti-Trump, and he and his followers call this part the Deep State, this Establishment is firmly controlled by the Israel lobby AIPAC, and he has pledged to them his support for Israel, which means he supports the atrocities against the Palestinians and Netanyahu’s ambition to expel them from the territories to which they are legitimately entitled. If you read this brief history of the settling and founding of Israel, you will understand what their ultimate goal is and how they conquered Palestine by terror. The first organized terrorist group in the Middle East was the Irgun, a Jewish group that ruthlessly slaughtered Arabs to clear the land for themselves.
 
It is obvious to most Syrians that the real enemy of peace in the Middle East is Israel (and its ally the US), and this fact rallies the people around Assad. These countries, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, are aware that their common enemy is Israel, which is supported by the US and Saudi Arabia, and they are therefore forming an increasingly tight alliance to ensure their mutual survival. After all, the Iraqi war was fought in large part because of Netanyahu’s propaganda message to the US Congress.
 
With the help of Russia, the balance of power has now shifted against the terrorists supported by Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia. All that remains is for Putin to establish control in Lebanon to protect that small country from Israel. This will be the last great effort, whether military or political, that must be won to bring peace to the Middle East. Putin wants to achieve peace without firing a shot, maintaining a harmonious balance between Israel and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. The Russians have a legitimate interest in a peaceful Israel because there are 900,000 Israelis who were either born in Russia or are descendants of Russian-born Jews. 20% of Israelis were born in Russia.
 
The main impediment is the US.

Below is our translation of an article from RIA Novosti with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
 
Here is just one of many examples of how US tariffs are hurting the US economy. In the case of natural gas, it is an example of how US tariffs wind up inadvertently helping the Russian economy and simultaneously hurting the US.  
 
The psychopaths at RAND Corporation get paid big money to sit around thinking of ways to sabotage Russia’s economy, and this idea it once promoted of having the US sell its energy products to the world while shrinking Russia’s share has been a spectacular fail all the way around. (See Manlio Dinucci's exposé on RAND’s latest plan to destroy Russia).
 
It makes you wonder why no one ever gets paid just to think up ways to boost America through cooperation with Russia and China. I think that until the US starts thinking along those lines, it will keep taking giant steps toward the dustbin of history. I suspect that at no time in history has a country done so little to lift itself up and so much to shoot itself in the foot as now in America. With governments like Washington’s, America needs no enemies.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
China passes sentence on US gas industry
 
MOSCOW, May 20 - RIA Novosti, Alexander Lesnykh. From June 1, China will increase import duties on US liquefied natural gas from ten to 25 percent, according to the State Customs Committee Tariff Committee. Why this could turn into a catastrophe for the US gas industry and what Russia will gain from a new round of trade war – from RIA Novosti.
 
Total failure
 
Chinese import duties are a response to Washington’s aggressive actions. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump accused Beijing of disrupting trade negotiations and announced an increase in tariffs on the importation of goods from China totalling $200 billion.
 
Donald J. Trump [on Twitter]
✔
@realDonaldTrump
 For 10 months, it has been 25% on the 50th, and 10% on the 200th on the USA. These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results. The 10% will go up to 25% on Friday. 325 Billion dollars ....
May 5, 2019
 
Trump also promised to extend these measures in general to all Chinese imports. Beijing responded immediately: starting June 1, additional duties on US goods worth $60 billion, including LNG, are being introduced.
 
Note that the Chinese LNG market is the largest and fastest growing in the world, and therefore the most desired by all exporters of fuel, including the United States. “This year, China’s LNG market will grow by about a quarter,” said Carlos Torres-Diaz, head of the gas market research department at RystadEnergy.
 
It is precisely in light of this that most of the projects for construction of gas liquefaction terminals in the USA were started. [my highlighting] So, recently Cameron LNG plant with three production lines with a total capacity of 13.5 million tons per year opened in the state of Louisiana.
 
But because of the trade war, the Americans exported only 300,000 tons of gas to China in four months, compared to 1.4 million tons in the same period last year, Vygon Consulting experts say. And because of the new duties, the deliveries will have to be stopped completely. [idem]
 
Meanwhile, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), five lines with a total capacity of 57 million tons of LNG per year are currently being built in the United States. Projects of five more lines received approval and are waiting for final investment decisions. Now their prospects are very much in question. [This damage to US LNG companies is not being taken into consideration by most analysts and certainly not by Trump. Like the damage to soybean and pig farmers of the original round of tariffs.]
 
Without China Europe is no help either
 
New Chinese duties are forcing Americans to turn to Europe. It is no coincidence that last week two senators urgently submitted to the US parliament a bill on sanctions against the owners of ships, are used for laying the Nord Stream 2 [project for Russian-gas pipelines to Europe] pipes, as well as those who provide financial or technical support to the project. Washington has long demanded that Europeans switch from Russian pipeline gas to American LNG.
 
The loss of the Chinese market can disrupt the American plans for European expansion. As analysts of Rystad Energy calculated, Russia is now supplying gas to Europe at an average price of five dollars per million British fuel units (MMBtu). The break-even point for deliveries of American LNG to Europe is at this same level. In other words, for Americans to sell their gas at the price of Russia means to work without profit.
 
Washington expected to solve this problem by using parallel deliveries to Asia, where LNG prices are traditionally higher than European ones. But now, without China, the expansion of exports to Europe is extremely unprofitable for the American gas industry.
 
From Russia with love
 
Russia gains the most from the new round of the US-China trade war. Domestic companies have good chances to gain market share to which the Americans aspired.
 
By December 1, the Power of Siberia gas pipeline with a capacity of 38 billion cubic meters of gas per year should be launched. The next step is the construction of another gas pipeline to China through Altai [province in Western Siberia].
 
“Deliveries of Russian pipeline gas to China via the western route may become the most promising and significant gas transmission corridor,” said Gazprom’s head Alexei Miller at the end of April.
 
“China continues to steadily increase gas consumption - by 15% in 2017 and by 18% in 2018,” he pointed out. “Import is increasing more actively: last year, by 32%, to 125.7 billion cubic meters. As a result, the PRC for the first time topped the list of the largest importers of natural gas in the world. The demand for natural gas in China will continue to grow, and we are ready to provide it with reliable supplies for the long term."
 
END TRANSLATION

The latest propaganda effort by the Saudi-Israel-US coalition is aimed at turning the entire world against Iran. Can you believe it? Those bad Houthis actually tried to damage Islam’s holiest of holies, the city all Muslims -- including Iran and the Houthis it supports -- face in prayer. That’s like stomping on Bibles in a Christian country.
 
I read it first in Haaretz. No, I am not subscribed to the newspaper. But when Israel wants the US to read about something outrageous that the Iranians or their allies supposedly did, they generously offer the relevant article free of charge. I read it through and, being a geopolitical code cracker, my first thought was “the Houthis didn't do this.” Every Muslim, whether Sunni (as in Saudi) or Shia (as in Iran), strives to make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime. Every Muslim respects, reveres and honours Mecca and would never do anything to sully this holiest of cities. The Houthis are Muslims. They belong to a Shia sect, Zaidi, and we know that the Saudi and Gulf state Sunnis consider all Shiites heretics and want them either dead or gone from the Middle East (their reason for wanting Assad to be overthrown by the Saudi-funded and –armed terrorists including the ones euphemistically called “rebels” by Saudi pals in Washington). Which is why the Saudis make up ridiculous stories accusing the Houthis of attacking Mecca with their missiles.
 
I scoured the Haaretz article for a Houthi statement that they were not targeting Mecca, but after all, Israel is a de facto ally of Saudi because the enemy of my enemy is my pal. I did not find such a statement denying the targeting of Mecca, and didn’t really expect to find it in Haaretz. So I dug up other articles on the subject and found that other sites did of course, report that the Houthis denied targeting Mecca. Reuters, for instance.
 
Then to make sure that the Houthis do in fact claim responsibility for some of their attacks, I dug up a France24 article showing that they do:
 
QUOTE:
 
“The Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen carried out several air strikes on the Houthi-held capital Sanaa on Thursday after the Iranian-aligned movement claimed responsibility for drone attacks on Saudi oil installations.”
 
So what about those attacks on oil tankers? My gut told me Iran would not be involved in this because the country is extremely environmentally sensitive, strictly enforcing its domestic environmental laws and doing research aimed at preserving the environment (as frequently reported in Tehran Times, eg, here, here, here, and this is only the latest issue of the publication). I immediately thought of Mossad, the Israeli “intelligence” agency, which has a long history of false flag operations.
 
Now we need to be careful here, of course, because many sloppy “researchers” will immediately jump to conclusions about supposed Mossad false flags and the internet is awash with their unproved theories (which may, however, be true). Therefore, I present below only those false flag events for which ample corroboration is provided or which have been proved.
 
In one report by Global Research, an actual ex-agent outs some of the false flag information:
 
“Former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky told ABC public radio that the spy agency had used Australian passports for previous operations before last month’s assassination of a top Hamas commander in Dubai that has been blamed on Israel.”
 
Haaretz
 
“Newly released British documents contain a claim by an unnamed contact that the Shin Bet security service collaborated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to hijack the June 1976 flight from Israel that was diverted to Entebbe, Uganda, the BBC reported Friday.”
 
Foreign Policy
 
“False Flag
A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.”
 
And then as I expected, while Iran and its allies do indeed claim responsibility for attacks on Saudi assets when they perpetrate them, as reported, for example, by AP here:
 
“...Iran-aligned rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s attack on the Saudi pipeline.”
 
Israel has already admitted to perpetrating prior false flag events:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/historys-dire-warning-beware-false-flag-trigger-for-long-sought-war-with-iran/258478/
 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/iran-denies-accusation-attacks-oil-tankers-uae-coast-190514181857002.html
 
So I am going to say that the Houthis absolutely did not target Mecca because they are theologically incapable of doing this and also because they deny it – whereas they do claim responsibility for their deeds, and that Iran absolutely did not attack those oil tankers in the Gulf because Iran is very environmentally conscious – after all, it is the Persian Gulf and the oil spill would have impacted their own environment. I guarantee that the Iranians had nothing to do with this attack. My prime suspect is Israel who wanted the attack to look like it was Iran so that Trump would have an excuse to fire his missiles and kill thousands of innocent civilians. After all, he is an American president and is controlled not by the constituents but by the unsavory agents listed here. Israel is near the top of the list, and Israel has already admitted it wants to drag the US into its war against Iran.
 
It wouldn’t be the first false flag perpetrated by Israel country. And it won’t be the last.
 
Relevant:
 
Israel just admitted it wants to drag the US into its war on Iran.
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/military-affairs/israel-just-admitted-it-wants-to-drag-the-us-into-war-with-iran

 In the following is our translation of an analysis by Ivan Danilov from RIA Novosti with commentary and notes in [brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
 
We recall Trump’s threat to Assad over a “chemical attack” that turned out never to have happened. He seemed prepared to launch an air attack like the ones that killed over a 100,000 Iraqis in the Bush era. Then there was North Korea: “we will destroy your country.” It was a scary time. Then there was the threat to invade Venezuela. It kept the whole world up at night. Then once the Russians showed up, it was all but forgotten. It was like the boy who cried wolf.
 
So what is different about this threat to Iran? Well, for one thing, Trump had blasted Iran throughout his campaign. I suspected he was already building up to a war even then. Yet there was euphoria over his potential as a “peace” candidate because he lambasted GW Bush for his warlike stance and in one memorable moment, said to Jeb “you just want to kill people.” Surely Trump was different? Either that or a con artist.
 
But it has long been my observation that there is no such thing as a “different” president ever in the US. I identified a group of agents that run America (and I would like to call them foreign agents because, while they are ensconced in the US Establishment and are household names, they are alien to American sentiments and ideals), independently of presidents and of the US people. Which is why there can be no talk of “democracy” in the US. No American has the right to call the US a democracy. They all should know better by now. Yet very few do. People love to be lied to.
 
Americans remind me of Jeremiah: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love to have it so. These words were not about the Hebrews. And they’re not about Americans. They’re about people, just people, everywhere. People want to be ruled but have never grasped the idea of ruling themselves. It’s too hard, it makes my head hurt. It takes an expert to make decisions that affect my life, especially on foreign policy. What do I know? What the people don’t realize is that the folks they hired to know things know nothing and could care less because their constituents can be conned indefinitely. Lincoln was wrong. You can fool essentially all the people all the time. The “leaders” are supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia, the bankers, the arms manufacturers, Big Business, everyone but the poor American sucker who dutifully pulls the levers that hire them, in the steadfast belief that they the voters are good citizens, and that the chosen ones, whether Candidate A or Candidate B, can all be counted on to further bankrupt the nation and make it hopelessly insecure on behalf of Saudi, Israel and the arms manufacturers, and universally distrusted. But who cares? My people love to have it so.
 
I showed yesterday that the Israeli leadership now brazenly admits it wants to drag the US into its war on Iran. And the American public will be a pushover because 80% of US Evangelicals believe that the murderous, apartheid secular state calling itself Israel was given its land by God (the cult of “Christian” Zionism) and did not receive it by terrorizing the Arabs who once lived there in peace, by slaughtering whole families, moms, dads and kids, and thus scaring the survivors away. Your pastor didn’t mention the Nakba, did he? But he might mention the Holocaust and take you on a Holy Land tour next year that will make him a nice profit and will keep you safely away from Palestine. He knows the truth could make you free and we can’t have that.
 
Bush’s war on Iraq was as much for Israel and Saudi as for anything else. Trump’s upcoming war is for Israel too, but <shhh> you’re supposed to believe Trump is different.
 
You know what? If you really want to vote for a presidential candidate who is different, wait until a candidate declares in his campaign: I will not make your sons and daughter fight a war for Israel or Saudi Arabia.
 
Now that would be different. Unfortunately, that candidate would lose the election.
 
At any rate, if a catastrophic war scenario develops, as Russian analyst Ivan Danilov seems to expect, perhaps Trump voters will remember how they voted for this “different” candidate who seemed assured of bringing peace at last. But most likely, as in the case of GW Bush, they will not remember.
 
My people love to have it so. Jeremiah 5:31
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
US prepares to send "500 missiles a day" to Iran and advertises our air defence
 
May 17, 2019
 
Ivan Danilov
 
Donald Trump's entourage is approaching one of its main foreign policy goals: the war with Iran, and leaks about how the Washington hawks are going to win this war are published in the American media. Judging by the plans that Newsweek and the New York Times openly write about, history has taught little to the most radical part of the presidential administration [note that, like many US journalists, government-connected journalists in Russia almost never directly criticize Trump, always suggesting that his advisers are to blame. In reality, Trump is just as radical as they are]. Many in the White House really believe that a lightning-fast and victorious war, virtually inviting an American loss, can be organized against Iran, and a positive result is expected to be obtained not just quickly, but literally in a matter of days.
 
There are two logical explanations for this over-optimism. Explanation one: supporters of the solution by force of the “Iran issue” are confident that Iran is so weak that its surrender can be ensured with just one blow, after which the Iranian leadership will simply be unable to retain power. The second explanation is more probable: supporters of violent action against Iran are well aware that there will be no “lightning victory,” but it is important for them to convince Trump at any cost to start a war, and for this you need to actively lie that it will be quick and easy.
 
It is indicative that the traditional American "pre-war scheme," which uses a gradual intensification of media and diplomatic hysteria based on releases of "intelligence information" about the growing threat to the future victim of American aggression, is no longer operative. Despite all the efforts of the American media and the intelligence community, even representatives of American allies who helped them to bathe Serbia, Libya and Iraq in blood, say that the American "information" about the Iranian threat is not confirmed. If even the British Guardian, referring to a briefing by its local leader of the “operation against ISIS,*” criticizes the American preparations for war with Iran, this means that on the information and diplomatic front, Washington is not doing the right thing. “A senior British general (working. - Ed.) In the US-led coalition against ISIS*, said that the threat from Iranian forces in Iraq or Syria is not increasing. This directly contradicts the US claims used to justify the military build-up in the region,” writes the Guardian.
 
The American magazine Newsweek describes the views of the American war hawks on how Iran will be forced to surrender: "A source at the Pentagon said that options suggest a powerful campaign of rocket attacks in an attempt to bring Tehran to the negotiating table with Washington." It depends on an escalation of strength. But, regardless of Iran’s bravado, when you get 500 rockets a day, it hurts you a lot, which is the goal. When your opponent is weak, you get more," said one official familiar with the plans."
 
At the same time, although the interlocutors of Newsweek argue that the current actions (with the transfer of not only missiles but 120,000 American soldiers to the Persian Gulf zone, "in case of escalation") are not at all a signal of imminent war, common sense and the historical experience of the last 30 years indicate that Washington is clearly preparing for a scenario of force. And it will be the initiator of the transition to the "hot" phase of the conflict.
 
The most influential (and often very well-informed) American publication The New York Times reports that the White House is consciously trying to bring the situation to a real armed conflict: "One American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that new intelligence about the increased threat from Iran does not merit the planning of the war carried out by Bolton (presidential adviser on national security. – author’s comment). The official also said that the ultimate goal of the campaign of economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration last year, was to draw Iran into armed conflict with the United States. "
 
One would traditionally assume that the interests of the Trump administration are oil interests, especially since military interventions against oil-exporting countries are a long-standing American practice. However, in this case, the reasons should rather be sought on a political plane. The US president came to power not only because of the wave of popular discontent with the Obama administration’s economic policies, but also because of the very clear obligations that he assumed in terms of a radical solution to the “Iranian problem.” These promises played an important role in the support that Trump received from the American military-industrial lobby and from other players behind the scenes of American politics [Danilov, like all government-approved Russian authors, avoids direct reference to Israeli involvement in misdeeds. Hence “other players”]. Now, apparently, the time has come to pay the bills - even despite the fact that in economic terms any military intervention against Iran will become a source of very serious problems of not only an economic, but also a military nature. And regardless of the fact that unreasonably optimistic Pentagon planners think and argue otherwise.
 
Meanwhile, a war with Iran would inevitably lead to an increase in oil prices. And not only because of the reduction of Iranian exports, but also because navigation in the Persian Gulf would be at risk. In addition, within the framework of an “asymmetric response” to American aggression, key elements of Saudi Arabia’s oil (both processing and pipeline) infrastructure may find themselves attacked by pro-Iranian forces.
 
Perhaps the prospect of a real energy crisis in the pre-election period (which will greatly influence prices in the United States) will really stop Donald Trump’s administration. But if Washington believes it is possible to resolve the Iranian issue quickly and solely with massive missile strikes, then it is quite possible that economic risks will not be taken into account.
 
And there’s more
 
No matter how the situation develops further, Washington can now be thanked for very effectively conducting an advertising campaign for Russian air defence systems. After all, watching the American preparations for the bombing of Iran and Washington’s reaction to the appearance of the S-300 in Venezuela, many countries are beginning to think that Russian "insurance" against the excesses of American foreign policy should be bought urgently and at any cost.
 
END TRANSLATION
 
More about the world’s most dangerous cult:
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism-part-ii           
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-worlds-most-dangerous-cult-its-not-wahhabism-part-iii

Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
 
Did the United States first normalize economic relations with China for any reasons other than economic advantage?
 
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-United-States-first-normalize-economic-relations-with-China-for-any-reasons-other-than-economic-advantage/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
BEGIN QUORA ANSWER

I think the answer is yes. The ulterior motive was to use China as a counterweight against Russia and drive a wedge between the two nations. It was an epic fail.
 
Nixon was the first to come up with the idea of normalizing relations and trade with China. He did some rather strange things that were all conceptually inter-related: First he took the US off the gold standard, which was almost inevitable because too many countries were demanding gold instead of dollars. Then to deal with the crisis that this caused, he signed an agreement with Saudi King Faisal that created the petrodollar. It was effective in keeping the dollar afloat but immoral because it caused the US to engage in savage wars that pleased the Saudis but did not in any way benefit the US. (details here: https://www.quora.com/What-were-...). He then came up with the idea of free trade with China. It was the perfect complement to the petrodollar agreement because it would enable the US to use the free dollars printed thanks to the Saudis to buy cheap goods from China.This idea went into effect in the 80s after he was impeached and left office. The idea was sold as a way to reach the “world’s biggest market.” When China finally was awarded this status, the US people were told the Chinese would be buying billions of dollars worth of goods from the US. A good trade balance was expected by naive and gullible people. It was a negative balance from the start and that never changed. The architects of the plan had to know this. During the debate over Most Favored Nation status in the 80s, there was mention that China would become a counterweight to Russia as a result. Never happened either. I suspect that this idea of containing Russia using China as a counterweight was one of the ulterior motives of this deal. It was a bust all the way around.
 
This policy of free trade with China was also deeply immoral because China insisted that the US cut relations with Taiwan, forcing the US to betray one of its best friends and allies.
 
The consequences of these two deeply immoral acts, ie, signing the petrodollar agreement that traded immoral wars for a stable dollar, and betraying Taiwan for short-term economic gain, were a lesson that America experienced but never learned. It continues to discard virtue for short term gains and just plunges deeper and deeper into debt, war and irrelevance.
 
A poll among young people in the Middle East shows that this group now trusts Russia and mistrusts the US (ASIA – AFRICA Arab youth are less optimistic, drawn to Putin, and increasingly distant from the US). An international poll shows people everywhere saying that the US is the biggest threat to world peace on earth. It was taken in the Obama era but would rank the US even lower today (A new poll says these nations are the top 4 threats to world peace. Guess who's number one).
 
The nation has sold its soul by adopting a purely transactional view of the world and shoving virtue aside. The US is reaping its reward and shows no signs of repentance.
 
There is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof are the ways of death.
 

​END QUORA ANSWER
 
Relevant:
 
US support for murder, war based on misreading of the Bible
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/vince-on-quora-why-does-the-us-show-unwavering-support-for-israel-and-not-palestine
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/military-affairs/israel-just-admitted-it-wants-to-drag-the-us-into-war-with-iran
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/arguments-supporting-israeli-atrocities-are-crumbling
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/israels-right-to-existarabs-right-to-die
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/how-american-evangelicals-are-preventing-the-second-coming-sending-guns-not-gospel-to-israel
 
http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/us-evangelical-christians-are-the-staunchest-supporters-of-israels-crimes