Basics of International Relations

I usually complain about the naivety of majority of Western citizens because they easily believe even the most ridiculous "justifications" given to us by politicians or the MSM. In my discussions on politics, I often use moral arguments against the Western policy, its unfairness and hypocrisy. So, when I watched this lecture by Prof. Mearsheimer (one of my favorite sources of information and analysis on international politics), I thought that I should avoid the moral arguments and rely only on logic.
Anyway, the lecture does not change my view that the anti-Russia hysteria and propaganda are dangerous and unfair. But the lecture shows that the current policy is also illogical, stupid, even idiotic, as Prof. Mearsheimer says...

The New Allegations Against Syria Using Chemical Weapons

We had it before: red lines against the use of chemical weapons, certainty that the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is responsible, and calls to punish him, or at least remove him from power, as if peace and democracy will flourish when we remove him...
Just like with many other issues before, we don't need evidence, we have to believe what the USA or other Western leaders are telling us. Even if there is no logic in any of the allegations, the Western mean-stream media (MSM) does an excellent job in convincing us that what they tell us is the truth. No matter how many times we have been lied to by, e.g CIA or pundits with obvious agenda and history of lies, we have to believe them because "they know", or they "have seen the evidence".
I am tired of arguing on issue after issue, in conversation after conversation, that we need evidence and we need proof before making judgments or rush into actions. I am tired of asking where the USA/Western actions lead us?
The hold of the MSM on the public opinion is so strong, that whenever I try to give another perspective, I find myself looking like a "conspiracy theorist" or an idiot. No matter how uninformed the other person is, or how well informed I feel on any issue, the reality is that the propaganda does its job - people form an opinion and accept the MSM "logic". Whatever argument or perspective I try to give, people fall in line behind the Western policies, and do not realize how all reasons for defending "our (Western) side" are loosing their meaning when we commit evil or illegal acts, such as wars...
OK, enough complaining. For those who can read, I will give a few links on the most recent use of chemical weapons in Syria. A good place to start is this article, which gives some historical background, summarizes the theories about the incident, and discusses the logic behind them. And here is an article that questions the legality of USA's rush into action. Isn't that the job of the MSM to ask these questions? Instead of asking these questions, the MSM proclaimed that Trump just became president after firing the 59 Tomahawks into Syria!
Why peace activist and anyone who questions the system and those in power have to go to the alternative media? What was the purpose of a free media? Why is the Western MSM so uniform on foreign policy issues? Why aren't we disturbed that the MSM acts as a propaganda outlet for those in power - justifying their illegal actions, instead of questioning them? Why is the European media so much in sink with the USA media giants? Why is Swedish media presenting so one-sided picture of the Syrian conflict, relying on information from the "moderate rebels", and ignoring or disbelieving the only Scandinavian peace activist that went to Syria?
When we listen to the Western MSM, pundits, or politicians, they often point to the the 2013 use of chemical weapons as the previous incident in which Obama showed weakness because he did not enforce his "red line". I have not met anyone, who knew that this incident was later proven to be a "false flag attack", i.e. an incident committed by the so-called "moderate rebels" on civilians in their territory in order to blame Assad and get the West involved in the conflict. Back then, the MSM did precisely what it does now - blamed Assad without proof, relying on people that wanted regime change in Syria for decades, and they repeated it so many times that it is the accepted "fact" nowadays. Back then, I relied on alternative, but reliable sources, like this one, and was saying to everyone that the truth might be different, but how can people believe me and disbelieve their favorite newspaper or TV news show?
Am I a "conspiracy theorist" for relying on alternative media? Yes, a lot of the alternative media promotes conspiracy theories, but that's why we have brains - to think and process the information we get. That's why I trust Consortiumnew.com instead of PropOrNot.
Can anyone read the sources I cite and call me a "conspiracy theorist"? How can any reasonable person read the articles I give above, compare them to any "analysis" or "report" on the same issues in the Western MSM and tell me that I rely on "fake news" websites, "conspiracy theories", or "Russian propaganda". I actually wonder how can any sane person continue to rely on the MSM after reading any of my sources? The articles I suggest are examples of serious journalism, or professional analysis, relying of facts, and presenting various points of view. The MSM on the other hand, are full of propaganda and bias. I wonder, how can people continue to rely on NYT, WaPo, and the rest, after being lied so many times?
For those who have the stomach for "Russian propaganda", here is Chris Hedges interview on RT, with Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, who publish on Alternet - a site I've never heard before, but which we should follow, if we don't want to be blinded by the MSM.
I don't know what more to say. I am trying to read less news because I want to preserve my sanity, but whenever I go to the news, I keep my critical attitude because I have no doubt that we are living in very dangerous times and we are subjected to propaganda beyond anything I've seen during the Communist era.

Remembering Saddam Hussein

The CIA analyst, John Nixon, who interrogated Saddam Hussein has written a book about the ex-Iraqi dictator. Most of us do not have time to read books, especially about irrelevant dead dictators, but I strongly recommend watching the interview with this man whose job in CIA was to study and analyze Saddam (the 2nd part of the interview is here).
It is worth remembering how the MSM portrayed Saddam before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq. According to our free Western media, Saddam (just like Milošević and Gaddafi) was an evil dictator, who was torturing and killing his own people. He even gassed his own people (just like Bashar al-Assad more recently), and he was compared to Hitler (just like Vladimir Putin and all of the previously mentioned "evil dictators").
Remember everything you heard or read about Saddam and listen to the guy whose job was to analyze Saddam, and who interrogated him until he was executed. That should help you understand and interpret the current news, if you haven't yet realize that the goal of the MSM is not to inform you, but to brainwash you. Every time you hear about a new "Hitler", or any "evidence" against that new "Hitler", you should remember Saddam and... be skeptical!
If anyone could somehow strip all the spin and propaganda from the numerous articles and "news" about these "evil dictators", it should be obvious that these dictators do not come even close to the worst dictatorships in the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia), which happen to be friendly with USA, and therefore, cannot be criticized. If there is anything common for these three Middle Eastern dictators, it is that they were secular, in the case of the two dead ones, socialist leaders, who despite their efforts did not manage to (always) please the USA and ended up as "enemies" of the Empire.
I am not saying that Saddam, Gaddafi, and al-Assad, were/are not dictators. Yes, they were/are dictators, but they were/are not the worst ones, and therefore, we should not rush to remove them. Even if we ignore all the lies and manipulations designed to fool us that Iraq, Libya, and Syria were supporting or harboring terrorist, let's ask ourselves how can a criminal act, such as war (in fact, war is "the supreme international crime", according to Article 39 of the United Nations Charter), can be used to correct the crimes of a dictator? How can a crime be corrected by committing the supreme crime?
What the "regime change" adventures in Iraq, Libya, and Siria, did achieve? We destroyed three peaceful, secular, multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic countries and turned them into failed states that are now breeding grounds for terrorists. Congratulations!

The Hysteria About the "Russian Hack"

The Western media has gone mad in the last few months on the issue of the so-called "Russian hacking". They are constantly presenting the "Russian hacking" as a fact, as if there is no doubt that the Russians did it. One cannot escape the conclusion that the Western media follows Goebbels's motto that "if you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it; and the bigger the lie, the better."
Whenever one tries to see the logic in the Western media, it comes down to convincing us that "Russians did it because the US government institutions said so". We are asked to believe these institutions, who have been manipulating us for decades to accept various wars and other crimes as "just and necessary". We must believe the MSM, but we should not believe the so-called "fake news", even if they come from sources that have proven to be correct.
The blaming of Russia, or its President Putin, was a convenient way to avoid the discussion on the real scandal, which was the way the "establishment" stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. We have information published by WikiLeaks, the truthfulness of which nobody disputes, and instead of discussing that, we are forced to discuss the "Russian hack" and whether that was "an act of war". Can you comprehend what is happening: we have a real, proven, scandalous problem in the US political system, but instead of that, we have to discuss a "problem" that does not have any factual basis!?!?
This is insulting to me and I cannot understand how can so many intelligent people accept this insult to their intelligence?
I don't have the time and the energy to go through all arguments and facts. You can find plenty of that in independent or opposing media:

• Robert Parry's latest article in Consortiumnews.com
• US Intelligence Veterans Disputing the Russia Hacking Claims 
• Pulizer prize winner Glenn Greenwald writes in The Intercept or watch his interviews on DemocracyNow on 2017-01-05 (starting at 33'40'') and 2017-01-06 (starting at 14'10'')
• And if you dare to listen to the "enemy propaganda", here is what they said on 4th, 6th, and 9th of January. 

Where should I stand when I hear more common sense coming from the "enemy"?

An American friend tells me that I am biased. That there are many good and decent people working in the MSM. Sure, most of these journalist were not born evil or manipulative, but their careers depend on whether their positions are aligned with the editorial policy. When a journalist works in NYT, WaPo, or any other MSM outlet, s/he must follow that policy or risk their career. Of course, that applies to the Russian, Chinese, German, or Swedish journalist working in their respective medias. Yes, they all do propaganda - that's their job, but we have to use our critical thinking before deciding what to believe. 

In recent years, on many war-an-peace issues, I am given the choice to believe the uniform "Russia/Putin-is-responsible-for-all-evil-in-this-world" point of view, promoted by the MSM, which has been shown to be wrong or deceptive in the past. On the other hand I have independent media, like WikiLeaks, Consortiumnews.com, The Intercept, DemocracyNow and others that have never let me down. Who should I believe?

Am I biased, if my independent sources that give me fact-based point of view, appear to be in agreement with the "Russian propaganda"?

List of documentaries

There are plenty of good documentaries that can open the eyes of everyone. Surely, I have not seen all of them and I am open to suggestions to add to this list anything that helps us see through the manipulations and propaganda that we are subjected to. Whenever, I see a documentary (old or new) that is worth adding to this list, I will do it.

• The Coming War on China - this is a must see documentary by John Pilger, an Australian journalist, based in UK, who shows who threatens the peace and stability in the World. The documentary was released in December 2016. You can watch it here. A good question for all of us is why are we so misinformed after reading or watching the free Western media? Pilger tried to answer this question already 10 years ago. 
• Inequality for All -  is a 2013 documentary film directed by Jacob Kornbluth. It examines the widening income inequality in the United States. The film is presented by Robert Reich - an American economist, author and professor, who was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. I watched on Netflix and you can do the same if you want a better quality.
• Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret - is a 2014 documentary film produced and directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn. The film explores the impact of animal agriculture on the environment, and investigates the policies of environmental organizations on this issue. At the time I watched it, it was available on Netflix. 

Is Putin the villain we are told he is?

I am sick and tired from the anti-Putin (and anti-Russian) propaganda conducted by our “free” Western media. This propaganda is so massive that it is almost impossible to find people in my circle of friends and colleagues who are not convinced that Putin is an evil dictator, who endangers the World peace! People are so convinced by this propaganda that I am afraid to contradict them.

Here is in short what I think of Putin: apart from Mikhail Gorbachev, Putin is the most modern, and in terms of values and actions – the most pro-Western, Russian leader in the last century! It maybe even in the entire Russian history, but I am not so familiar with the tsarist history (before 1917 Russia was a monarchy).

Every time I dare to express my opinion in front of other people, it is in reaction to some nasty remark against Russia or its President. I usually ask how do they reached their opinions about Putin? Is it just accepting what every influential politician and journalist is telling them, or is it because they have evidence that Putin is the villain they say he is? I usually tell them that years ago I started to doubt what I was hearing/reading about Putin because it sounded not well-founded and contradicted what was said about Putin in earlier years. For a long time, I would fact-check every anti-Putin article that I came across with, and in each occasion, I found that there was no evidence for the accusations or Putin’s words were taken out of context. After doing this for a long time (probably about a year) I made up my mind, i.e. I decided that it was all a propaganda, and I stopped wasting my time – whenever I read something about Putin, I knew that the truth was most likely the opposite…

So far, nobody, absolutely no one, has shown me anti-Putin article based on reliable sources and proven facts. Almost all anti-Putin articles are written by propagandists, or journalists – not by serious scholars or experts on Russia or Russian politics. Unfortunately, by now there is so much dirt and misinformation created by the leading Western media, that every new publication can refer to any number of previously published rubbish. There is so much of it, that the propaganda has become the accepted truth. No wonder people cannot believe me. How can I possibly know more than the editors of New York Times, BBC, or Dagens Nyheter?!

I do not know Putin as a person. He maybe a villain, but before I accept this I would like to see a proof. So far I have not seen any. It is much easier to judge Putin as a president, because his words and actions can be seen by anyone. I dare say that I have read/listened a lot of Putin’s words, as well as his actions. And on that front too, my judgement is largely positive. In my opinion he is more modest, straightforward, and trustworthy than any of the big names on the Western political arena! Unfortunately, this too is difficult to see, because the actions of President Putin are not visible to most people in the West – what they see is the caricature of Putin that is given to them by the Western media.

For those of you, willing to question the prevailing wisdom in our “free” and “democratic” world, here are a few trustworthy sources on Putin and Russia:

• An article by a true journalist Robert Parry: The Existential Madness of Putin-Bashing
• An article by Natylie Baldwin: Russia’s Very Different Reality
• A book by the British scholar Richard Sakwa: Putin: Russia's Choice
• An audio discussion with the greatest American expert on Russia - Stephen F. Cohen:  The Imperative of De-Demonizing Vladimir Putin
• And Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews (the link is from the Swedish SVT Play and most likely will not work from outside Sweden)

Is Russia the aggressor of our time?

When we listen to Western main-stream media (MSM) it looks like Russia, not the USA, is endangering the World peace. This is an amazing testimony to the power of MSM to manipulate our thinking and perceptions because if we look at the facts, this is a laughable representation of the situation in the World.

Of course, if we look back in history, Russia or the Soviet Union did occupy other regions or countries, but we could blame for that Russian tsars or Soviet dictators (the most notorious of whom happen to be Georgian) – not the regular Russian people. Moreover, too often Russia was actually the victim, not the aggressor.

If we look at the history since the end of the Soviet Union, there are only two cases where Russia could be called aggressor: Georgia and Ukraine. What the MSM does not say is that Russia’s aggressive actions were provoked by the NATO expansion. If we look at the Russian actions without what led to these actions, Russia looks like an aggressor, but if we look at the whole picture, it looks like Russia is defending its national security interests – something that any of the Western powers that criticize Russia, would do when their security interests are at stake.

I have not heard of single evidence that Russia wants to conquer or occupy any of the ex-Soviet states or Eastern Europe, but that’s what we are repeatedly told and the propaganda musts be working because if we conduct a survey in USA or EU, we will most likely find that most people think that "Putin’s aggressions" are motivated by his desire to re-create the Soviet Union.

If we look at Russia’s actions since the end of the Soviet Union, we see that it wanted to be part of Europe, to be part of a “common European security” (even to be a member of NATO), but the West always slammed the door in front of the Russians. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how would you feel when you try to act friendly and are treated as an enemy! I am even amazed that Russians (and most of all Putin) could swallow so many insults and still speak fondly of Europe and the USA.

If we look from outside our Western bubble, we do not see evidence that Russia wants to occupy any of its neighbours. I have not read or heard anything in the Russian doctrines, media, and even in the attitudes of regular Russians towards their Western neighbors that supports the idea that Russia wants to conquer them. Somehow, we forget that Russia voluntarily left half of Europe and started a transition from a communist system to a democratic one. The small Baltic countries would not exist today as independent states, if Russia did not let them. Russian leadership nowadays is quite smart and knows very well that occupation is costly, while selling oil and gas is profitable...

So, let’s look at some facts:

1. Russia’s military budget is less than 10 % of that of the USA, and even smaller, if we consider the combined NATO budget. You can hear the most recent budget numbers from Putin himself, in his answer to John Simpson from BBC, but for anyone who does not believe Putin, there is plenty of information on the Internet.
2. Almost all “peace-loving” Western democracies (including the Scandinavian countries!) have larger per capita military expenditures than Russia.
3. We all know the economic might of USA, but let’s ignore that and look at the facts in Europe: Russia has an economy smaller than Italy and 140 million citizens vs. EU with 500 million.
4. USA bases are all over the World and expanding. According to the Pentagon, there were 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries (N.B. stated in 2011), but other sources give a larger number. In contrast, Russia (under Putin) voluntarily removed its military bases from Cuba and Vietnam, and according to Putin, Russia now has only two oversees bases, which are in countries that asked for that in order to fight terrorism. If Putin lied, I am pretty sure we would have heard about that on the MSM. Speaking of military bases, this picture says a lot:
   
5. There was an American pledge that NATO will not move eastward after the unification of Germany. Now some American pundits are denying that and others are saying that (i) it was only a verbal promise, not in writing, and thus, not binding; and others are saying that (ii) it was a promise given to the Soviet Union, which does not exists anymore. These excuses reveal the morality the US leadership, but they also explain why the Russians feel cheated. Whatever one may think of the NATO eastward expansion, there is no doubt that establishing NATO bases in East Europe violates the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. NATO is trying to go around it by saying that these are “rotational”, not permanent armed forces, but that’s a laughable excuse. 
6. USA keeps nukes in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In contrast, Russia does not. By the way, NPT was the treaty that was used to sanction Iraq for its “weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program”. And the same was used to justify the sanctions against Iran for its “nuclear program”. I have no doubt the same treaty will be used as a "legal" justification to attack Iran some day in future, if the USA decides to do so…

It’s amazing how far from the reality the media can bring us! Considering the above facts, how can we – modern, educated, well-informed citizens of the free World, believe what the media is telling us?!? The contrast between facts and popular believe is so huge, that only brainwashing can explain it.