While the U.S. media focused on the tragic police killings in Dallas and the European press the Euro2016 matches and NATO's summit in Warsaw, some subtle unofficial diplomacy was underway last week in Moscow.
Carter Page, an adviser to the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign and a former manager in the Moscow offices of Merrill Lynch, gave a speech at the New Economic School in the Russian capital. To the consternation of The Washington Post, Page called for dialogue and mutual respect rather than continued Cold War 2.0 confrontation with Russia:
The full video of Page's speech as well as a short summary clip were published on Youtube by the Orthodox Christian nationalist think tank Katehon. This organization is run by Alexander Dugin, the controversial Eurasianist ideologue banned from entering the U.S. by the anti-Russia sanctions imposed after Moscow's reunification with Crimea. Katehon appears to be connected to the channel Tsargrad TV, where Dugin is a frequent commentator, via the same patron in the form of 'God's oligarch' Konstantin Malofeev, a major donor to the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In a series of YouTube videos, Dugin (who has never met or spoken with Trump, and there's no indication he spoke with Page either while the former ML investment banker was in Moscow) has praised Trump and defeated Democratic socialist candidate Bernie Sanders. Dugin also recently declared in a June 10, 2016 video that the Washington Establishment is willing to take tensions to the brink of war with Moscow via some sort of nasty 'October surprise' in order to hurt the 'soft on Russia' Donald and help Hillary's email scandal and perjury-weakened candidacy:
Summarizing the attitudes of many in Moscow towards Page's speech and its overtones of a Trump Administration seeking detente with Russia, PolitRussia commentator Ruslan Ostashko had this to say:
What Ostashko is saying is basically this: unlike the Obama Administration or Hillary's arrogant advisers, Trump's people recognize that Russia is both too big to ignore and that U.S.-led efforts to punish and isolate it have failed. Page's NES remarks, focused as they were on Eurasian integration and Russia's growing ties to China and Kazahkstan and the other 'Stans, were an acknowledgement of these facts that the anti-Russian fanatics in D.C. prefer to ignore. But for those neocons and their fellow travelers among the presstitutes angered about Page's statements and where he said them, the worst was yet to come.
A few days after Page's unofficial diplomatic stop in Moscow, the Trump camp has revealed that The Donald is seriously considering retired Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn for the vice presidential slot on his ticket. Adding fuel to the fire of speculation that Trump will pick Flynn are Flynn's remarks saying that he's prepared to serve the country in a different capacity than wearing the uniform, and his op-ed published over the weekend ripping the Obama Administration in The New York Post titled, "The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis".
In an essay that would seem to be standard boilerplate on many conservative websites over the last few years, Flynn contends that the Obama Administration is not serious about fighting America's enemies, and adds an interesting paragraph, perhaps to deflect the allegations that he personally is 'soft' on the Russians because he has appeared a few times on RT and was a guest of the Russian government funded network at its 10th anniversary gala, where he spoke with Vladimir Putin face to face:
It is of course, Flynn's sitting at a table with Putin at a moment that much of the D.C. Establishment regards the Russian President as a dangerous enemy if not a demon in human form that has caused so much controversy about Flynn's prospective vice presidential candidacy. We don't know what Flynn and Putin discussed or whether they spoke for more than a few moments, but its the optics and not the substance of what was said that counts in politics. Behind the criticisms however, of individuals like John R. Schindler the ex-NSA analyst who has made many of the same arguments about naming America's enemy as radical Islam that Flynn has, is another grievance -- and a fear of being found out regarding the half-assed to utterly fraudulent nature of the so-called 'war on terror'.
Ex-spooks like Schindler cannot forgive Flynn or his supporters inside the DIA for revealing the truth about the origins of the Islamic State, and stating on Al-Jazeera that the Obama White House made a deliberate decision early on as the super terrorist group was rising to turn a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia and Qatar's support for it. The ludicrous notion put forward by pro-Syria jihadi neocon 'analysts' of ISIS like Michael D. Weiss or his cohort at the Henry Jackson Society which used to employ Weiss Kyle W. Orton that the Islamic State took off without any state sponsors is of course laughable to anyone who understands the Middle East or military logistics.
Setting aside ISIS-paid salaries supposedly funded by taxation, extortion, and now curtailed oil smuggling, the sheer amount of ammunition alone that Daesh must be using to defend its territory from attacks on all sides and the fantasy that all of its weaponry was captured from Iraqi or Syrian government stocks is ridiculous.
Yet the same neocons like Michael D. Weiss who get paid by RFE/RL to insist that every T-64 or T-72 tank found in the Donbass must've come from Russia rather than being captured by the rebels from the Ukrainian Army insist ISIS tanks all come from abandoned Syrian Arab Army stocks. The same Weiss who says every other fighter in the Donbass is a 'Russian invader' not an eastern Ukraine native and that all competently executed rebel offensives against Kiev's troops are done by Russian Army regulars dismisses as absurd the idea that 'ex' Saudi soldiers still drawing a paycheck from the Kingdom while growing out their beards and leading the platoons of Daesh. Or that Turkish special forces out of uniform have in the past, spearheaded or at least overseen ISIS attacks on YPG Kurds.
Of course a certain amount of this massive lying by omission going on is not so much ideological zeal as in Michael D. Weiss case, as go-along-to-get-along and fear of what admitting the truth about Daesh will mean for America's global standing and what's left of U.S. influence in the Mideast. Since individuals like John R. Schindler have been persuaded that the U.S. cannot dispense with its alliance with Saudi Arabia or at least that admitting Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS would validate the hated Russian enemy's Narrative, they keep quiet about what many intelligent officers in CENTCOM figured out a long time ago as they observed truckloads of arms on drone and satellite feeds rolling from Turkey into the Islamic State's territory, while oil tankers full of stolen crude headed north into Anatolia. Simply put, many of the men and women in our military particularly the junior officers with brains know damn well that ISIS arose from state sponsors in the Sunni Gulf states, and that until the recent suicide attacks inside Turkey a NATO member state was openly aiding and abetting the terrorist Caliphate.
Nonetheless, we should note overstate the case here. As with Carter Page's remarks in Moscow where he urged a questioner about the state of American democracy to 'read between the lines', a great deal of the anger at Flynn is not over what he says but from where he says it. At no point has Flynn ever stated that the U.S. was directly involved in creating ISIS. But the fact that his remarks were made on Al-Jazeera and later RT, and the implication that the neocons and neoliberals in Washington cared far more about toppling Assad than the rise of the vicious terrorist 'Caliphate', was not lost on the neocons. Adding Flynn to the ticket would only ensure that neocon attacks on Trump's perceived softness on Russia would meet returning fire about the neocons and Hillary being Saudi-firsters, if not bought and paid for by Riyadh and Doha policies in Syria.
Israel will likely be left out of these traded accusations of foreign influence, given the Zionist casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson's support for Trump. But Trump surrogates may still bring up the fact that Israel has quietly supported Jabhat al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, and basically state that under a President Trump that support must stop or else even the sacred cow of Israel could face adverse publicity if not further consequences. In the meantime, Trump's surrogates like Roger Stone can let alternative and mainstream media listeners connect the dots between the tens if not hundreds of millions donated by the Saudis and other Sunni Gulf Arabs to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's Muslim Brotherhood family aide Huma Abedin, and HRC's staunch advocacy for removing or bombing Assad which Riyadh has demanded for years.
In short, neocons accuse Flynn or Page of being 'fellow travelers' if not traitors because the Page has acknowledged business interests in Russia, while Flynn wants to cooperate with the Russians against Islamic terrorism led by Daesh. But there's nothing at all treasonous about the CIA continuing to send TOW missiles to supposedly vetted 'moderate' Syrian rebels who turn those weapons over to America's enemies Al-Qaeda in Syria if not ISIS. Nor is there anything dishonorable if not traitorous about Hillary leaving top secret emails on her bathroom server open to hacking from any competent intelligence agency in the world, Russia's included, because the 'intent' was supposedly lacking to expose the nation's secrets. But at what point does the charge of divided or bought loyalties come back on those who see nothing wrong with American servicemen dying for the interests of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in Syria while those governments buy the Clinton Foundation if not the State and Defense Departments? At what point does the Establishment ever pay a price for being globalist and selling out not only American jobs and industry but also national security to the highest bidder?
Once again, as with his remarks about 'getting along with Putin' and 'wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?', Trump is rhetorically raising a middle digit to the 'Cold War 2.0 or hot war' mentality of a foreign policy Establishment that has basically been taken over by a neocon if not overtly Russophobic mentality in the last decade. Having Flynn and his decades of military experience stepping into the traditional vice presidential role of attack dog would also remind the public of how few neocons and #ImWithHillary #NeverTrump ers who claim to still be Republicans ever served in the military.
While Flynn's status as a self-described infrequent voter and registered Democrat may ultimately preclude him from being named the GOP vice presidential nominee, the fact that Trump is seriously considering him for the job points to the emergence of something many of us have speculated about here at RogueMoney and in other alternative media outlets for some time: the emergence of a counter-Establishment. That is, the so-called 'white hats' of people in the military, intelligence and even finance communities working against the neoconservative and neo-liberal drive in Washington for ever increasing mass surveillance, chaos, war, and escalating superpower tensions.
Regardless of what label you choose to use for them, Flynn's rise to the position of Trump adviser if not veep and the prominence of realist and Eurasian-integration aware voices The Donald's campaign like Carter Page demonstrates that reality must seep into the fantasy-land American politics has become sooner or later. One hopes for the sake of world peace and the U.S. and Europe being able to stagger out of the inevitable fiat crash landing that's coming, that Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton this November.
The alternative is a much more violent transition to a new global order, with greater humiliations for the United States as Washington's attempts to impose its will on Assad government-supporting Russian forces in Syria fail, and longtime allies like France or Germany opt out of an aggressive NATO assault on Russian-backed exclaves like Transnistria or the breakaway Donbass statelets.
Even if the scenarios of thermonuclear war or short of that conventional defeats at the hands of the combined Russians and Chinese are avoided, a low intensity civil war over the ongoing globalist-aided Islamic immivasion of the EU if not widespread racially charged violence here in the U.S. are likely with a Hillary Clinton presidency. Declining respect for the rule of law, open contempt for lawless federal officials and greater divisions along racial, class and ideological lines are inevitable with a Clinton victory. Even the hard-won and broad societal respect for the United States military painstakingly build back up after the debacle of Vietnam might not survive, should Clinton pair social engineering or posse comitatus violations at home with military aggression against Russia, China or Iran abroad.
Wouldn't it be far better for Washington to control our borders, restore sanity and the rule of law to domestic governance and foreign affairs, before it's too late?