Don Trump – Undercover Leftie and why the hate?

Don Trump – Undercover Leftie and why the hate?

gittoplo

 

For years if not decades, socialists and other variations of the left, opposed three following concepts. They marched. They smashed. They howled at the moon. All to no avail.

TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. A brief description of Socialist case against can be found here: https://waronwant.org/what-ttip:

Excerpt: TTIP is a major new deal being negotiated behind closed doors between the EU and USA. It will cost at least 1 million jobs, undermine our most treasured public services, lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ in food, environmental and labour standards and, for the first time, allow US companies to sue the UK government in special courts. TTIP will change our lives forever.

Even our glorious leader JC vowed to kill TTIP: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-promises-to-kill-ttip-will-work-in-parliament-to-stop-trade-deal-a7060896.html

TPP – Trans-Pacific Partnership. Brief case against (and for) was posted here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498715

Excerpt: US opponents have characterised the TPP as a secretive deal that favoured big business and other countries at the expense of American jobs and national sovereignty. Critics on the left also said it had cost US jobs and said the TPP would pave the way for companies to sue governments that change policy on, say, health and education to favour state-provided services. And it was also seen as intensifying competition between countries’ labour forces.

NATO – Cold War relic that still keeps everyone in a bind. Socialist case against found here: http://socialistreview.org.uk/335/natos-bloody-history

Excerpt: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nato has for the first time become directly involved in military action. The alliance had earlier supported the Portuguese in their protracted colonial wars in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau, but had not actively intervened. Now it intervened in the Balkans as part of the US attempt to reshape the post-Cold War world in their interests. Although Nato’s 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 was dressed up as a humanitarian intervention, it was in fact a cynical exercise in great power politics. The Balkans had to fit in with the US’s new world order.

In my earlier articles, I have already written on the matter. Worth looking over it especially the view of George Kennan – father of containment.

Argument:

Trump torpedoed the first two. Casting doubt on their concepts and effect on common people before pulling the trigger. The Left howled and marched. Trump did.

Trump openly questioned NATO’s existence and only backed down after severe pressure from the establishment. I ask my socialist comrades, what three other issues are more important? Nothing gets more macro than this. Why has the rhetoric become more important than deeds. What would be remembered in 20, 50, 100, 300 years’ time? Words, which we know are wind, or real life outcomes?

There is plenty to criticize: Venezuela, Climate Change, Iran etc. etc. but it is important to remember that these are tactical issues which be easily reversed at the end of his tenure and they are micro in nature. Climate change isn’t but 8 years in office vs time continuum make it micro.

We need to condemn where it is deserved but I say we must applaud where it is deserved also. This includes North Korea talks. Keep an open mind comrades and try to see a bigger picture.

British Foreign Policy in XXI Century

gittoplo

XXI century will be an age of Great Power competition. Perhaps, the final one. The age of consensus had been toppled by wave after wave of populism. History has not ended after all despite triumphalism of the global ruling elites, inspired by Fukuyama and the end of the Cold War. Time to re-evaluate UK’s alliances and long held foreign policy views.

Great Powers: USA, China and Russia

 USA: The special relationship is dead. It’s been dead for some time. It had formed when the power level or we can call it prestige of USA and UK were equivalent or thereabouts. A lot has changed since then. USA got stronger, both economically and militarily, and UK got weaker in every aspect. USA values power and strength above all else, therefore it comes as no surprise that US diplomats, including Obama the First enjoyed a good snigger behind the scenes about our unrequited love. Time to admit, although some still prefer to stay in the la la land, that the special relationship had drawn to its close. Reagan/Thatcher tango was truly the last dance. Tony Blair and subsequent PMs proved more yes men than equal partners in decision making processes. UK Must distance itself from the US. UK must stop acquiescing to every US demand. We lose our appeal. We become a given, a banker on a night-out, which hardly adds to our allure. UK must teach US a lesson and make them work hard towards regaining UK as its closest ally. Both are Anglo-Saxon countries with similar culture and outlook. Good place to start is in Venezuela – US new regime change target – and reducing our defence spending below 2%. This should catch US attention.

China: The most complicated relationship to build of them all. China must be cultivated to see UK as a trusted conciliere. China hasn’t got many allies. There might be a military alliance with Russia but it needs allies with large reserves of soft power. UK has done a lot in its history, i.e. Opium wars, to create a lot of bad blood with China. And well deserved it is. But there were positive steps as well, such is the handover of Hong Kong. XXI century would be marked by the stand-off between China and USA. The trajectory of that struggle is still being determined. UK must play the role of an oil mechanic. We must mediate without taking sides. With time, both China and US, will come to view UK as an excellent neutral interlocutor. UK’s role here is to reduce the tension and to accelerate the dawn of the new consensus based on multilateral approach. To make the relationship stronger, UK must recognise Taiwan as part of China, a gesture of enormous significance to Chinese. This will catch their attention. We must work with Chinese tech giants, both in nuclear and building G5 network. We must show that we trust them. It would echo back with interest. This stance would demonstrate to US and the world, UK’s new, independent approach to world affairs. UK needs to rebuild its economy and Chinese investments would be more than welcome. This would create interdependence and much needed goodwill.

Russia: The easiest relationship to build of them all. UK must first of all get out Great Game mindset that belongs to the XIX century. Every time UK’s existence was in danger: Napoleonic wars, WWI and WWII – Russia and UK were on the same side. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Why do we so easily forget?             One important thing to understand about Russia. They are not revanchist and do not plan to take over, no country can anymore, but they would never accept US as the global policeman.  A position widely accepted in the West, not so much so anywhere else. For evidence look no further that pronouncement of Mr Rasmussen, former PM of Denmark and ex-head of NATO. Ordinary Russians are very fond of UK. British cinema, music and culture has captured Russian imagination long ago. Affluent Russians love to come here and Russian corporations like to invest and float their companies in London. My advice, grab it with both hands and build a strong interdependent economic relationship. No eggs in one basket. Do it before, Germany or France, because one of those three will catch the Russian golden goose.

Summary: Look at USA, Russia and China as big multinational corporations. What do they need? They need bankers, lawyers and accountants to make them run better, smoother and more efficiently. We would be that jack of all trades, that will grease the wheels and make the world go round.

Theresa May Triumphant Return from Brussels

gittoplo

It was a triumph. Triumph of mediocrity. After two years of painstaking negotiations May returned with a deal that was roundly denounced by both Brexiteers and Remainers. What did they expect? For someone whose primary focus is on style (think leopard shoes, leather trousers, Frida watch) and not substance, this outcome was hardly surprising. She May be the worst PM of all time and does not mind it one bit. All those fools that praise her resilience and bravery are misguided. It is not her stoicism or bravery, it is her pure shamelessness. There is no other word for it, whichever way one spins it. She lost support of most of her colleagues but they go on terrified of Corbyn government. Prepared to tolerate embarrassment in order to preserve themselves. What a sad state of affairs! I only wish JRM the best of luck. We may disagree on many issues but he believes in this country and understands UK’s strong fundamentals. Here, we are in accord. We need competent opposition.

Where did it all go wrong? There were two moments in time that compromised, or severely damaged, clean Brexit process. Gove’s spectacular betrayal of BoJo and surprising pull out of Andrea Leadsom, who I thought was a shining star and best performer during the Brexit debate. I still remember the shocked demeanour of Ian Duncan Smith when he heard the news. Andrea, oh Andrea! The members would have voted for you. With Leadsom at the helm”No deal is better than a bad deal” would have meant exactly that. EU, being very interested in a deal, would have negotiated in good faith, having realised that brinkmanship won’t work with Brexiteer in charge. Behind closed doors, of course. It didn’t happen and we got Submarine May instead. I could hear champagne corks going off in Brussels. Not a death match after all, but a leisurely safari. Pheeeewww. Noone could blame Juncker for having one too many on that occasion…

Indeed, why would EU give UK a good deal when they would like to punish UK and to prevent others from leaving? One thing must be absolutely clear, this is a position of weakness. Position of damage limitation. If there is no deal on the table, the deal suiting EU far more than UK in financial terms, then so be it. Those of indomitable disposition state exactly that. The transitional effect would be short-term at best. German and French papers write about thousands of EU jobs at risk but we do not like to talk about it here. They are all united there, right? Not really, far from it, in fact. What is unity when essentially two states decided EU policy? As Robert Skidelsky wrote in one his recent articles – there is no theorem for what will happen and we need to look at fundamentals. Chief Economist of the biggest German bank DB concurs:

“The UK will do just as well or better… the UK economy has it in its genes to do well, to be innovative, it doesn’t have this bureaucratic construct that the Europeans struggle with and it’s got flexible exchange rates!”

Why is our establishment so hellbent on putting this great country down? Because in the era of individualism and neoliberalism, they have risen above the nation state… Globalisation – death of nation states and the ascent of rootless wealth.

Bottom line:

Theresa May is shameless enough to plough on and she will. There is clearly no support for her white flag deal in UK Parliament. She is sure to lose the vote on the Withdrawal Deal. I dread to think what will happen if it does. Surely, losing the vote will trigger the avalanche of letters to Mr Brady. She might not lose, like Thatcher, but will all those wounds she must be running out of blood and shame. I predict that she will not survive the winter. Cons will put new leader in charge and the election won’t be called until 2022.

Things could have been so different but for another twist in this saga.

England: World Cup 2018 Post Mortem

gittoplo

Brave young lions crash out. Faith restored in England football team. Performed better than expected. Proud of you lads.

Yes yes, we are all proud but I am sorry, but this does not fully wash with me. I was sad, angry and disappointed. This was a missed opportunity. We choked. We should have won. England were the better team on paper. Had more support on the ground and were fresher with Croatia having had to go through another extra time and penalty shoot out against Russia. We looked the part, having bossed the first half. That was the reality. England were the favourites with all the bookies and we carried the favourites tag with aplomb until things started to go wrong.

Hard to blame players as they can only play as well as their skill and stamina allows them. Blame, unfortunately, has to lay with Gareth. He made big mistakes both with his starting line-up and his subsequent in-game subs. Young, 33 year old, tasked with bombing up the field and getting back to defend? After a long gruelling season and 5 games at the WC it was time to give him some long deserved rest. Rose is a better player and a natural left footer, his appearance energised England. He should have started. Gareth should have been more ambitious and daring. Too easy and safe to stick with the same starting 11. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Not this time. Croatia’s strength lies in midfield. Was it wise to line up Henderson, who is not a natural defensive midfielder? Probably not but we didn’t have much choice.  Lingard, who is not a starter for Man Utd and not a natural central midfielder? Dele Ali, a young player who also doesn’t play in central midfield, clearly wasn’t fully fit the whole tournament and who was anonymous during the whole game? Against the mighty Barcarealesque midriff? No and no. We needed more steel. As soon as the lads tired, the momentum switched. It was lost in midfield. England players resorted to kicking the ball out. The equaliser sucked all courage and confidence out of them. Fine, players react the way they do and we cannot control that. We are not there on the battlefield. So, it is the manager’s job to see the emerging worrying pattern and address the root of the problem. The game was dying for Loftus-Cheek not Rashford, who had another disappointing cameo. His powerful frame, slalom runs, silky passes and through-balls, his ability to hold up the ball and draw fouls were all badly needed from 60th minute onward as Croatian momentum was building. Kane clearly didn’t look fit and was probably nursing an injury but still he should have finished the Croats off in the first half. That double miss would haunt him for the rest of his life. Apart from that, there was not much in it. Croatia are clearly a good side and played without fear abetted by English indecision. Qatar 2022 seems far away and let’s be honest, it would have been much sweeter to win it in Russia.

Special mention goes to the Turkish ref: Cuneyt Cakır. I have been watching him officiate for years and years. As always, he left a very negative mark on the game. Not only has he failed to deal with Croatian foals and aggression but he also failed to penalise their fouls. England should have had more free kicks. One of the worst moments that I will never forget is when his colleague failed to award England a corner when the ball had clearly crossed the line. The linesman was 2 metres away from the incident, staring at it clearly going over the line. Then he proceeded to dismissively shake his head at incensed England players demanding a corner. This was bias. Clear and disgusting. It shouldn’t have mattered given our quality but it was there and it affected the game. Cüneyt Çakır – remove ey and you get the sense of him as a person. I always thought that, from the very first game I have seen with him donkey years ago to yesterday’s carnage. I smashed my sofa in fury when I saw he is to referee the game. It was almost destiny. I harbour very dark thoughts when I look at his face. His face. Just look at it. Cunt.

P.S. Where was Theresa May? Macron was there to support France in the semi-finals. He was there to see them win and they did. Jeremy should have went as well. Missed opportunity for the Labour leader.

Iran Deal Cancelled: Implications

gittoplo

Ever since President Trump has pulled out of the Iran deal, public with a passing interest have been subjected to a cacophony of alarmed voices and opinions. Experts, mass media and even high level officials of various states were in broad agreement. The gist of it came down to a simple statement: How can we trust US to honour any agreements they make? The subsequent parallel was drawn in regards to the North Korea talks. Why would North Korean leader trust US/Trump when he cancelled a similar landmark Iran deal at a whim? There is some truth to it, in a wider sense, as another example comes to mind: 2002 ABM treaty. But we must address each situation separately as Iran and North Korea are unique in their own ways. Only Trump, hitherto on the US side, could have solved North Korean conundrum as it required a unique, bespoke approach which he provided. Each one of his predecessors lacked both in political will and personal charisma to make it happen. Let’s not forget that North Korea is already in possession of nuclear missiles capable of reaching US territory. This deal is happening, no matter what. Kim understands the difference and is not perturbed by the developments concerning the Iran deal. Then there is another aspect to this that plays a crucial role. North Korean neighbours and nominal adversaries are interested in deal becoming a success: South Korea and Japan – key US allies in Asia-Pacific. This is very important and helps to facilitate the process. In regards to Iran, both Israel and Saudi Arabia (key US allies in the Middle East) were not interested and opposed the Iranian deal. They believed and still do that the deal would make Iran stronger economically (the removal of the crippling sanction regime) while not stopping their “insidious” nuclear programme. This doesn’t help and it didn’t in the end. Trump knows that the Iran deal can be reversed and probably would be by the Trump’s successor – problem, broadly, solved, if there ever was one. North Korea, on the other hand, is a once in a lifetime opportunity and only  Trump’s mercurial touch can cut through that Gordian knot. He will grasp with both hands as history beckons. This is why I believe that parallels being drawn are not quite relevant and out place on a grander scheme of things. Just more Trump hysteria. Plus, let us not forget that the reversal of Iran deal was one of Trump’s key pre-election promises. He likes to be seen as a man of his word. This would play out nicely and help him greatly in 2020 campaign. As for European leaders shaking their fists in righteous anger across the ocean, well, they, just like Trump, will fade with time and new faces will emerge who would be keen to start afresh. Important to remember two pearls of wisdom: “universe is flux” and “deal concluded was the necessity of the past, deal broken is the necessity of the present.” Trump embodies both perfectly.

Korea: What else when history is made?

gittoplo

History was made on the 27th of April 2018. The term is thrown around without a second thought nowadays but what happened today will enter the annals of history. Two Korean leaders, North’s Kim Jong-un and South’s Moon Jae-in, have agreed to the following key points:

  • End active hostilities between two nations
  • Connecting and modernising railways and roads across the border
  • Reunion of families that became divided after the war

Important statement of intent was made and initial groundwork for economic cooperation was laid. The emotional aspect, perhaps the most important and delicate of all, was also ticked emphatically. How do you overcome decades of fear and hatred? By endorphin overdose. Most of important of which was stated desire to work towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

What is the geopolitical meaning? Could this lead to reunification?

Kim played a blinder with a very weak hand. It is my belief that he needed a pretext and he has made up his mind some time ago for this step to take place. He understand the needs of his country well and he sees immense potential in the reunification. First of all for himself. By this I do not mean some economic gain. No. Like all power crazed or power hungry, he wants to be remembered by history textbooks. This is a tectonic step towards that goal. Secondly, his popularity in North Korea would skyrocket. He didn’t bend the knee, showed spunk and shook hands with Moon Jae-in as an equal. This is important for the home audience to avoid any lingering bitterness after decades long stand-off. He could not have done it alone. It was almost by a whim of fate that we got the right players at the right time in the right place. Moon Jae-in is another on a cusp of history. He was widely criticised for his pro North Korean stance during his election campaign. He afforded himself to make comments like: “I’m pro-U.S., but now South Korea should adopt diplomacy in which it can discuss a U.S. request and say no to the Americans.” He is not just any typical Asian head of state under the US security umbrella. He’s fearless, thinks outside the box, sees things his way and prepared to act upon it. Where could this rapprochement lead? To the creation of a Super Korean Dragon. Economic power and global connections of the South Korea coupled with North’s military muscle and well educated, hungry for success and opportunity populace. The appearance of an economically strong, tough and independent player in the region. Another inevitable step towards the new balance of power: a multi-polar world.

A couple of passing notes on other geopolitical players is noteworthy. After all, the four way talks involving US (patron of SK) and China (Defender of the North) were agreed and would at some point get under way.

US: President Trump was the catalyst behind this historic episode. The ingredients were right, as described above, but lacked that spark and he provided it. He was bombastic and brinkmanship like when it didn’t matter and showed great reserve when it mattered. He ridiculed and professed love. This is a standard behaviour of someone who revels in chaos and there is a method to his madness. He met a soul mate in Kim. They understood each other without speaking. Trump’s greatest act in this drama was to simply let it happen. It didn’t happen under Obama or any other more desirable predecessor, it happened under a man who was supposed to destroy the world and still causes sleepless nights for the pc cohorts. All I can say: Bravo, Mr President. You certainly are a deal maker!

China: The Chinese used the situation to win a few brownie points with Trump. They detest the man but for the Chinese it is all about an economy – the guarantor of their power and independence. They enjoy a huge trade surplus (2017: mind-boggling $375bn) with US and would like at least keep that trajectory of travel. The thinking in Beijing goes as follows: we aid you with the local L’Enfant terrible but you go easy on us when it comes to trade tariffs and barriers. This might not work and the effect could be negligible but the Chinese, just like the Germans, have no choice. There is a disbalance that needs to be addressed and there is a golden haired child determined to address it.

Kim, meanwhile powered on regardless: “We are brothers and one nation”. Wise words by a man, who was perennially ridiculed by the short-sighted media and small time politicians.

 

Curious Case of Mr Skripal & Douma Chemical Attack

gittoplo

Chemical weapons are back in the headlines. First, we had witnessed a curious case of Mr Skripal and his daughter getting attacked with military grade nerve gas in the sleepy town of Salisbury and then, just this week, there was a claim of a chemical attack in the rebel held town of Douma. Let’s have a brief but detailed look at each.

The case of Mr Skripal is shrouded in Conan Doylesque mystery. We had everything: 1% survival rate claims, members of the public and police getting affected, numerous claims and counterclaims. Boris assuring the public and its allies that the nerve gas was Russian made only for the Porton Down scientist Gary Aitkenhead to repudiate it emphatically. Labour renegade right-wing MPs trying to use the incident to take down their pragmatic leader Jeremy Corbyn who dared to ask questions, who dared to ask for evidence (which was not there). Then came the recorded phone call Yulia had made to her cousin in Russia which surprisingly revealed that both mortally poisoned, according to UK government, Russian citizens are actually rapidly getting better and are due to be released soon. Fake news! – screamed the unbiased mass media. It cannot be verified, pronounced detractors. For the first time, I had noticed doubt in the eyes of Sky News presenters and it was a rare sight to behold indeed. Yulia has promptly left the hospital shortly afterwards, in an implicit confirmation of the authenticity of the phone call, only to be driven to an unknown but secure location. Russia has accused Britain of detaining its citizens and holding them under duress. Of course, we do not know any facts. We still haven’t even seen the victims. The victims that, as we know now, can speak and communicate. Instead we got a suspicious public statement, purportedly by Yulia, full of officialese as pointed out by former British Ambassador Craig Murray. He would know and seems to concur that major obfuscation is taking place. This begs the question: WHY? Some pertinent observations are there: why haven’t we got a public, real-time coverage of the incident, as we’ve had with Mr Litvinenko, whose father blames British Secret Services for his murder? Well, we know why now. The patients were doing much better than the official version led us to believe. Claims that it had to be Russians, because of prior precedent, do not stack up either. If Russia tried to publicly execute Mr Skripal to deter any future defections then surely that aim was already accomplished in 2008 with the public execution of Mr Litvinenko? Or does Russia need to remind potential defectors and double agents every other 10 years of their capabilities? It doesn’t make any sense. Yet, it was enough for PM May to expel a horde of Russian diplomats and persuade its NATO allies to follow suit. Overall, around 30 countries, including Moldova and Montenegro, out of 193 countries in the world, did exactly that in what can be seen as a remarkable, diplomatic tour de force.

Then we had the chemical attack in Douma. Only Russia says there wasn’t. Who to believe: White Helmets or the Russians? Perhaps we should try to listen to our common sense and logic instead. Asad has won the war, he is just tidying up now. President Trump has announced earlier this week that he’s pulling out of Syria. ISIS has been defeated. Where is his Thank You? he asked. But Asad, having won the war and having surrounded the city of Douma, having negotiated the rebel surrender and their safe passage out of the encircled city, decided to use chemical weapons anyway. Most would have thought that he got rid of them in 2013 under strict OCPW supervision but no, he must have left a few barrels in his personal cellar. He must have some serious death wish and no, it is not a movie. Straightaway, Asad was branded as gas killing animal and Russia as his accomplice. As of this moment, US, UK and France are preparing a military response which would, highly likely, involve strikes by new, shiny and smart missiles. Russia promised to shoot down any approaching missiles and their launchpads if any Russian personnel was hurt. Given that Russian soldiers and military advisers can be found pretty much at every Syrian base, there is a high degree of probability that certain mishaps are unavoidable. Just like that we are potentially on the brink of a massive escalation and direct confrontation between Russia and US. Even Tony Blair has emerged from unseen depths, like mythical Jormungandr, to demand blood. Surely, a first sign of Ragnarok?

We live in dangerous times. We no longer require evidence to accuse. There is a clear attempt to make Russia a pariah and rogue state that is guilty of every sin known to man. This is state-sponsored Russophobia and extremely dangerous and short-sighted in nature. Once the Russian establishment fully absorbs the fact that they have been cast in a role of a perennial villain then their attitudes and actions would markedly change for the worse. Competition is one thing, but when nations, claiming to be exceptional, go out of their way to hinder the development of other countries then some sort of military action to resolve the dispute is inevitable and we know what this means. This is not the case of: we are the West, and unless you adhere to our values and standards then you would never be allowed into our gentleman’s club. This is the case of, we would not allow you in and moreover we would do our best to sabotage other gentlemen’s clubs that might arise due to limited access to the former. The times are different and countries like Russia, China, India and quite a few others, in a not so distant future, would demand to be involved in the process of rule-making and not just rule-taking. This is already visible in the defence and arms exports sectors, where big buyers demand that helicopters, tanks and other military hardware is assembled locally. This is just one trend. Others will follow. The current model that the West, and US more specifically, has on the table is no longer appealing to the rising powers and they are prepared to show their teeth. It is in the interests of the West, to open up and show a more sober and fair approach, while we are still ahead and have the competitive advantage.

NATO, Kennan, Hitchens and mistakes of the past

gittoplo

As the scandal over the suspected poisoning of Mr Skripal, KGB double agent, gathers pace it is important to take a pause and reflect on causes and effects of the proceedings.

Watching PM Theresa May and Foreign Secretary take turns painting Russia as the Beast from the East and comparing the incoming World Cup in Russia as being akin to 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany left a very bitter taste. These comparisons and overall approach are not worthy of UK diplomatic service and tradition. It is borderline amateur and criminal. But what do we expect from the incompetent lightweights that populate both sides of the chamber in Westminster? With one exception. Corbyn’s reaction was one of a true statesman who tends to find himself on the right side of history most of the time. It was also curious to see a somewhat lukewarm support from the US and the EU. Both Trump and Juncker have congratulated Putin on his re-election. US president did so against fierce opposition from his own staff. Yes, there were words of solidarity but not much in terms of real action. Not all, of course. Baltic countries and Poland are always first in line when it comes to Russia bashing. After all, they find themselves on the edge of the abyss that is modern day Russia. Do they do it because they love UK? I doubt it. They do it because they have an inherent hatred of Russia (see chequered history between all involved) and because they like the political points they score by placing themselves in the avant-garde of neoliberal and democratic  movement. How do they reconcile these endeavours with recent covert attempts to control state media and courts, God only knows but I digress. I draw the attention of my readers to two outstanding articles that shed much needed light on the issue.

One by prominent blogger and writer Peter Hitchens on why the expansion on NATO imperilled the security of Europe and not made it stronger:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/lemmings-nato-the-russian-threat-and-the-merchants-of-death-.html

It is a very powerful piece that dissects the issue with logic and common sense. And if Mr Hitchens is somewhat of an unknown quantity to you, then I draw your attention to an article that he mentions in his piece, which concerns the supposed Father of the Cold War, George Kennan. My Kennan makes the same point in this excerpt from the article (full article available here http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html) :

”And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia,” said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ”It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”

Having read both or even one, do you still think that it is Russia that is being the aggressor? In alternative universe somewhere, Russia and Europe (with US) have created an economic & security zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as was envisaged by the maitre of French state and politics Charles De Gaulle. The future where misspent defence billions are rightfully spent on education, health and science. Alas, not in our universe. The mind-numbing and self-induced struggle for glory of unknown quality continues.