[Peace] [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought

Sun Jul 1 17:46:59 UTC 2018

Robert,

Yes precisely, Russia like all other nations has its interests, and that interest is its own survival, if Iran goes under US control, Russia’s survival is in jeopardy.

In respect to Russia, Medea said, “no, we can’t trust Russia” This was in respect to support for Iran, when Prof. Boyle announced China’s decision “not to support US sanctions on Iran.”

As you point out:

"All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That’s all."

I understand your point, but as I keep pointing out, support for Iran is paramount to Russia’s survival. This alone is the reason I believe Russia and China will jointly support Iran, carefully and slowly in respect to “sanctions” rather than with open confrontation.

When the Iranian government appears to be falling, due to those sanctions, with the potential for a US puppet being put in place, they will step in.

 I think we can all agree one of the most dangerous situations has been Russia s protection of Syria from the US insurgency, another necessity, due to Russia’s interests and US intervention and meddling.

As to the US being the most powerful nation in the world, yes our military power, the US empire is dying, and everyone knows that, at least in other parts of the world. There is nothing more dangerous than a cornered beast, or a retreating army.

On Jul 1, 2018, at 09:58, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org<mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>> wrote:

You guys are all totally missing the boat on what Medea said and what she meant.

All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That's all.

Russia is a country that has interests. China is a country that has interests. Every country has interests, as they perceive them.

There is no government in the world, no matter how progressive or militant or opposed to the U.S., that will not take its own interests as they perceive them into account in confronting the U.S. That includes Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, Ecuador under Rafael Correa, Bolivia under Evo Morales. None of them will fight the U.S. every time. They will choose their battles, taking their own interests into account as they perceive them. That's all Medea was saying. Russia went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. China went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. You can't assume that these people are going to resist the U.S. at a particular juncture, even if they say they will, if they perceive it to be in their interests not to.

John Bolton would trade confrontation with Russia for Russian cooperation against Iran in a heartbeat. What price would Putin demand in exchange for what? Who can say that they know that for sure?

Russia was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until Russia sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. The U.S. was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until the U.S. sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. What's the difference?

The U.S. has tremendous power in the international system, particularly when it focuses on one goal - like messing with Iran - at the expense of others - like messing with North Korea. That's what makes the current situation so dangerous with respect to Iran and the Middle East, particularly, right now, Yemen, because that's where the U.S. is "confronting Iran" right now, even though [because?] the Iranian role in Yemen is small.

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org<mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in the Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and China. And, they know it very well.

In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is why they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, interventions, and propaganda.

In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear is likely a goal. A guess on my part.

> On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite appropriate.
>
> Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia.
>
> In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948,
>
> “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction."
>
> Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China.
>
> Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See <https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/>.)
>
> These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules applied.
>
> So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, &  Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the US 1%.
>
> That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before.
>>
>> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.]
>>
>> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies.
>>
>> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow.
>>
>> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Karen—
>>>
>>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media.
>>>
>>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’
>>>
>>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy."
>>>
>>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…”
>>>
>>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers.
>>>
>>> —CGE
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note.
>>>>
>>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube.
>>>>
>>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event.
>>>>
>>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence.
>>>>
>>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato.
>>>>
>>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China.
>>>>
>>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted.
>>>>
>>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected.
>>>>
>>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace mailing list
>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20180701/10da24f9/attachment-0001.html>