Washington’s Anti-Russia Campaign
• D.C. leads charge to neuter world’s largest Christian nation.
By Richard Walker —
A new Gallup poll showing Americans see Russia as this nation’s public enemy number one has confirmed the extent to which Washington and its closest ally, Britain, have manipulated public opinion in America.
The poll confirmed that a majority of Americans placed Russia ahead of North Korea, China and Iran as posing the greatest threat to the West.
Washington and Britain were not present at the recent talks in Minsk to negotiate a ceasefire deal with Russia over the conflict in East Ukraine. The basic reason is they do not wish to see a resolve to the fighting. In Britain and in the United States there is a daily drumbeat of negative stories about Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin. Some of the headlines have been about Russian bombers flying close to British air space. Others have warned Russia is planning to invade the Baltic States and Moldova. This kind of media coverage has created a public perception that Putin is another Josef Stalin and is drawing the world into another Cold War.
The absence of Washington and London from the Minsk talks, chaired by Moscow and Berlin, was evidence of a growing Western alliance aimed at weakening Russia. Both London and Washington have, unlike many European nations, been clamoring for tougher sanctions to damage Russia’s economy. President Barack Hussein Obama has consistently spoken of Putin in a derogatory fashion (34:30), something mature leaders tend not to do. It may well be Obama has a personal resentment of Putin because the Russian leader outmaneuvered him over the conflict in Syria. He also enabled Obama to keep the Iran nuclear talks on track.
This narrative, however, has not reached the American public. Instead, there has been a media campaign of scare stories about Putin. The Ukraine conflict, too, has been reported, without reliance on facts. For example, there has been no focus on the alliance between Washington and big corporate giants, especially in the agriculture sector, that are determined to get control of Ukraine’s tens of millions of acres of the most fertile land in Europe. In fact, Ukraine has between 30%-40% of all the arable land in Europe. Massive tracts of land have already been bought up by Western agribusiness giants, many of them, like Monsanto and DuPont, connected to the growing of genetically modified crops. In fact, after the contrived revolution in Ukraine, orchestrated by slash-and-burn speculator George Soros and Washington in 2013, a deal was reached between the European Union and the new Ukrainian government to explore the use of bio-engineering in crop production.
Forgotten in the latest Gallup poll is the fact that big oil giants, which have a major influence on Washington’s foreign policy, would like to see Russia crushed because they have no financial stake in Russia’s energy sector. Then there are the Cold War “warriors” in Washington who still adhere to the belief that the task of “democratizing” Russia is not complete and it may take a Cold War and the humiliation of Russia to get the job done.
Putin fully understands what is going on. In his op-ed for The New York Times on September 11, 2013, he had this to say to the American public: “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.’”
In a March 18, 2014 address to State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin, Putin lamented the fact Russia has made overtures to the West but they had been rebuffed. Perhaps it was because the fix was in to punish and weaken Russia. He said the following: “Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We constantly propose cooperation on every critical question, want to strengthen the level of trust, want our relations to be equal, open and honest. But we have not seen reciprocal steps.”
Those were hardly the words of America’s public enemy number one.
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.
Putin Named Man of the Year by History Magazine
By Paul Angel
Without truth in history, the world is condemned to war after war, misery after misery. This cycle of history is otherwise unstoppable. Governments don’t want truth in history. Armaments makers don’t want truth in history. Brainwashed politicians don’t want truth in history. Mainstream historians who have based their careers on the falsehoods of war propaganda don’t want truth in history. Do they care that our military hospitals are filled with maimed and broken soldiers who so bravely fought in far-off lands against enemies created by our ludicrous foreign policies? The answer is obvious. What our leaders want is a half understanding of history so that the masses are easily controlled and whipped into a belligerent frenzy. Nothing works so well to accomplish this goal as war fever, a completely curable syndrome. The remedy? A good dose of the truth.
Herman Goering, at the Nuremberg War Trials, said: “Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship. . . . It works the same in any country.”
And so it is today. America must always have a slavering, bestial enemy at our doorstep to defeat—another “Hitler” on the threshold. Today, our leaders have created that bogeyman. His name is Vladimir Putin. And we believe Putin could in fact be the last hope for the world. A man who could be the savior—not the destroyer—of the West.
And this is why THE BARNES REVIEW is proudly declaring that Vladimir Putin is TBR’s “Man of the Year” for 2015. How ironic it is that Putin, born, bred and forged in the Zionist-inspired Soviet Union, could have ever received our vote. But such is the world today. We pray also that our leaders come to understand that further provocation against Russia could lead to a war that would surely sentence the United States to eternal ruination.
Paul Angel is the managing editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. Willis Carto, the publisher of TBR, has made Vladimir Putin his “man of the year” in the March/April edition. That issue is currently at the printer being prepared for mailing. To reserve an advance copy of that issue, send $10 to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call TBR toll free at 1-877-773-9077 to charge your copy. Send just $46 for a one year subscription. (Outside U.S. email [email protected] for foreign prices.)
The Real Peace Prize President
By Pete Papaherakles —
Russian nationalist leader Vladimir Putin has been brutally demonized by the Western mainstream media as being an aggressor and an invader, but it is clear that the opposite is true. The peace deal in Ukraine he recently brokered with France and Germany again proves that Putin has exercised great restraint to Western provocations and has come through as a true peace president.
The West’s propaganda machine has been spinning the narrative that President Barack Hussein Obama is the peace president by awarding him a Nobel Peace prize shortly after he became president, although he did nothing to deserve it. Since then, however, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, destroyed Libya, financed the war in Syria and the war in Ukraine and is now looking to attack Iraq again, not to mention meddling in Pakistan, Yemen and Egypt.
Obama’s wars and interventions, which have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and millions of displaced refugees, have purportedly been done under the auspices of fighting for democracy and human rights. But it doesn’t take a genius to see through the hypocrisy and deception. The military-industrial-banking complex and the Zionist-Anglo-American empire are reaping billions in profits as they work to consolidate power in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. So far, though, the only one who has been standing in their way has been Putin.
The reason Syria was not turned into a smoldering heap of ash in 2013 was due to Putin’s strong leadership in exposing that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was framed and did not gas his own people.
Now, with Ukraine, Putin once again shows true leadership. Even after being relentlessly provoked by sanctions and false accusations, Putin has kept his composure and managed to broker a peace deal with France, Germany and Ukraine even while the Obama administration was looking to escalate the war and sell more arms to Kiev.
German magazine National Zeitung recently reported that Putin has been reaching out to nationalists in Europe to set up seminars for many new European political parties, supporters and leaders. He is actively seeking out parties like the National Front in France, the British Independent Party, the Hungarian Jobbik Party and the Italian Lega Nord, among others.
“Russia stands for traditional family values, national sovereignty and a multi-polar world,” reported National Zeitung. “This is a new defining moment opposing world government as promoted by the U.S. and its ‘friends.’”
For that reason, AMERICAN FREE PRESS proposes that Obama be stripped of his Nobel prize and that the coveted international medal be given to the peace president who really deserves it: Vladimir Putin.
Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.
Russia, Not the United States, Has Vital Interests in Ukraine
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Hopefully, the recent truce between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko, brokered in Minsk by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, will hold. For nothing good, but much evil, could come of broadening and lengthening this war that has cost the lives of 5,400 Ukrainians.
The longer it goes on, the greater the casualties, the more land Ukraine will lose and the greater the likelihood Kiev will end up an amputated and bankrupt republic, a dependency the size of France on the doorstep of Europe.
Had no truce been achieved, 8,000 Ukrainian troops trapped in the Debaltseve pocket could have been forced to surrender or be wiped out, causing a regime crisis in Kiev. U.S. weapons could have begun flowing in, setting the stage for a collision between Russia and the United States.
One understands Russia’s vital interest in retaining its Black Sea naval base in Crimea and keeping Ukraine out of NATO. And one sees the vital interest of Ukraine in not losing the Donbass. But what is America’s vital interest here?
Merkel says a great principle is at stake, that in post-Cold War Europe, borders are not to be changed by force. That is idealistic, but is it realistic?
At the Cold War’s end, Yugoslavia split into seven nations, the USSR into 15. Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, even Slovenia briefly had to fight to break free. So, too, did the statelets of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in breaking from Georgia, and Transnistria from Moldova.
Inside Russia there are still minorities such as the Chechens who wish to break free. And in many of the new nations like Ukraine, there are ethnic Russians who want to go home.
Indeed, a spirit of secessionism pervades the continent of Europe.
But while London permitted the Scottish secessionists a vote, Madrid refuses to concede that right to the Basques or Catalans. And some of these ethnic minorities may one day fight to break free, as the Irish did a century ago.
Yet of all of the secessionist movements from the Atlantic to the Urals, none imperils a vital interest of the United States. None is really our business. And none justifies a war with Russia.
Indeed, what is it about this generation of Americans that makes us such compulsive meddlers in the affairs of nations we could not find on a map? Consider if you will our particular affliction: Putin paranoia.
Forty years ago, this writer was in Moscow with Richard Nixon on his last summit with Leonid Brezhnev. It was not a contentious affair, though the USSR was then the command center of an immense empire that stretched from Berlin to the
And when we are warned that Putin wishes to restore that USSR of 1974 and to reassemble that Soviet Empire of yesterday, have we really considered what that would require of him?
To restore the USSR, Putin would have to recapture Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, an area the size of the United States.
To resurrect the Soviet Empire, Putin would have to invade and occupy Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and then overrun Germany to the Elbe River.
How far along is Putin in re-establishing the empire of the czars and commissars? He has reannexed Crimea, which is roughly the size of Vermont, and which the Romanovs acquired in the 18th century.
Yet almost daily we hear the din from Capitol Hill, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!”
That there is bad blood between America and Putin is undeniable. And, indeed, Putin has his quarrels with us as well.
In his eyes, we took advantage of the dissolution of the USSR to move NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics. We used our color-coded revolutions to dump over pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
Yet beyond our mutual distrust, or even contempt, is there not common ground between us?
During the Cold War, Russia was in thrall to an ideology hostile to all we believed in. She had rulers who commanded a world empire. Yet we had presidents who could do business with Moscow.
If we could negotiate with neo-Stalinist issues as grave as the Berlin Wall and ballistic missiles in Cuba, why cannot we sit down with Putin and discuss less earthshaking matters, such as whose flag should fly over Luhansk and Donetsk?
Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate and the author of the new book THE GREATEST COMEBACK: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.