Kermit Heartsong - Ukraine - ZBIG's Grand Chess Board & How The West Was Checkmated

The final point in Mr. Talbot’s quote is quite interesting, however, in that he feels it necessary to emphasize how good these leaders were for Russia, though all evidence is to the contrary.

What Mr. Talbot considered a “promising track” for the Russian state after the fall of the Soviet Union was, instead, economic implosion, abject ruination, and the carving up, plundering, and privatizing of Russian resources, all of which, it is estimated, led to the deaths of millions of Russians (Strelkov 2014).

One of the leaders that Mr. Talbot hails, Boris Yeltsin, is universally despised by the Russian people for the hardship his polices leveled and for literally giving away the family jewels (oil, gas, industry, and banking). Mikhail Gorbachev, on the other hand, is believed to have simply capitulated to the West, which led to the “destruction and dismemberment” of the USSR. As Dmitry Orlov (2014) notes, the Russian people refer to Gorbachev as Mishka mécheny as (‘Mickey the marked — marked by the devil, that is’). Is it possible that Mr. Talbot is being a bit disingenuous about this promising track “for Russia itself?”

In the balance of the article Mr. Talbot makes several interesting points that appear to march in lockstep with the West. Mr. Talbot believes:

•The Russians and the Chinese fixate on what they see as American “hegemonism” as the great danger. That is not the danger.

•The danger for both Russia and China is a future in which they isolate themselves (see $400 billion gas contract, BRICS bank, BRICS investment fund, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, CTSO).

•Putin is looking to the past for a model for the future. That is unwise in the extreme, for Russians — and for the rest of us (see Grand Chessboard Theory).

It is important to note that Mr. Talbot was President Clinton’s right hand man during the time when President Clinton was offering, “more shit for Yeltsin’s face,” which translated to more orders for Yeltsin to parcel off all Russian assets to US Oligarchs and multinationals and to impoverish the Russian people.

On August 28, 2014, a Washington Post article claimed that, “Russian soldiers, tanks and heavy artillery began rolling into southeastern Ukraine (in earnest this time)” (Gowen and Gearen 2014). And though the “US officials” considered the “escalation” a de facto Russian invasion, “President Obama stopped short of using the term invasion at a news conference.”

The evidence for the invasion was a satellite image dated August 21, 2014, that showed Russian self-propelled artillery units at an “undisclosed” location inside Ukraine. Why an “undisclosed location”? Certainly, if they were Russian artillery units, the Russians knew where they were. Then it became clear: the current administration has learned not to tie their “evidence” to specific geographic locations that can subsequently be verified (in contrast to Rumsfield’s allegations of WMD in the area around Tikrit, Baghdad).

However, the evidence would later be disproved (again) by the OSCE, who has been monitoring the border between Russia and Ukraine since the end of July (2014). The OSCE’s monitoring chief, Paul Picard, confirmed, “that since the beginning of its observer mission at the end of July to present, it had not recorded any movement of military equipment or units from Russia into Ukrainian territory” (Cunningham 2014). Journalist Finian Cunningham writes:

Tellingly, the OSCE assessment nullifying Washington and NATO claims of Russian invasion and infiltration of Ukraine was given negligible reportage in the Western media, which persists with the anti-Russian narrative that seems to operate on the basis of not letting the facts intrude on a convenient storyline. (Cunningham 2014)

In an article written by Dmitry Orlov, “How Can You Tell Whether Russia Has Invaded Ukraine?” it became quite clear of what the evidence would be for a Russian invasion. With this caveat, “If Russia invaded on Thursday morning, this is what the situation would look like by Saturday afternoon (Orlov 2014),” Orlov lays out that evidence:

•Ukrainian artillery would sit destroyed, smoldering, and very quiet (after having been pinpointed by the Russian Military and silenced).

•Battalions of Russian soldiers, their attendant armored vehicles — tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, and hospitals would be plainly visible and photos taken of them easy to upload to social media (with verifiable time stamps, etc.).

•The Ukrainian military would vanish into thin air, with nothing left but more abandoned military hardware.

•There would be Russian checkpoints everywhere, where war criminals would be promptly scooped up.

•Most of Ukraine’s borders would be under Russian control and backed up with artillery systems, tank battalions and air defense systems.

•There would be a no-fly zone imposed over the Ukraine and the cancellation of civilian flights, which would provide for a lot of nervous US State Department staffers, CIA and Mossad agents, and Western NGO people stuck in airports across the country.

•The current Ukrainian leadership would follow the lead of the Ukrainian soldiers and thereby vanish into thin air.

•The various refugees, now numbering at close to 1 million would start returning to their homes from Russia (not Europe).

• There would be Russian tanks on the Maidan and the various National Socialists (read Nazis) on the run.

•There would be intense diplomatic and military maneuvering around the world in the US and NATO.

After reading through Dmitry’s list, it seemed like “common sense”. And the world wouldn’t be continually subjected to evidence-free assertions, mountains of secret never-to-see-the-light-of-day evidence, video game excerpts of troop movements, children’s illustrations on satellite overlays, and “common sense” social media.

Perhaps the various intelligence personnel or more accurately, the careerists within these organizations who apparently do not hold to the line that politicians and mainstream media pundits hold, would themselves be relieved. As ex-CIA agent, Philip Giraldi (2014) states in the article, “Does the CIA Believe Obama?”:

Within the intelligence community memories of Iraq and the prefabricated judgments made regarding Syria's alleged use of sarin gas last year are still fresh among both analysts and information collectors, requiring the political leadership to make its case unambiguously. Intelligence work makes one naturally cynical, but the rank and file are now becoming generally suspicious of and even hostile to what is going on. (Giraldi 2014)

It would appear that the pragmatists, those who hold to a policy of realpolitik within the intelligence community (past and present), see the Administration’s and thus NATO’s policy with regard to the Ukraine and confronting Russia as “bordering on the incomprehensible” (Giraldi 2014).

It does strike one as disturbing that the West — US and its NATO allies — having serially invaded (under false pretexts), destroyed, and murdered hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent civilians across Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, directly and indirectly, in the past decade alone. Yet now they are incensed over a Russian invasion that remains unverifiable, forensically-evidence and fact free, and hush-hush.

There appears to be a pattern building across the various topics as relates to Western propaganda or psychological projection.

Putin is Mad, Channeling Hitler…

a thug and Living in Another World

When figures from the Western elite talk of “Russian aggression” what they really mean is that Russia is checking Western aggression. When Putin is compared to Hitler — it is because he is standing in the way of the real heirs of Adolf Hitler, the war lobby in the West, who like the mustachioed one, have an insatiable appetite for attacking and threatening to attack independent sovereign states.