Category: Russia
Number of Russians who regret collapse of USSR hits 10-year high
| December 26, 2017 | 8:10 pm | Russia, USSR | Comments closed

https://www.rt.com/politics/414254-share-of-russians-who-regret/

Number of Russians who regret collapse of USSR hits 10-year high

Number of Russians who regret collapse of USSR hits 10-year high
The number of Russians who regret the collapse of the Soviet Union has reached its highest level since 2009, with almost an equal share saying the event could have been avoided.

A public opinion poll conducted by the independent Levada Center in late November this year found that 58 percent of Russians now regret the collapse of the USSR. Twenty-five percent said they felt no regret about this, while 16 percent could not describe their feelings in one word.

When researchers asked those who regret the end of the USSR what the primary reasons were behind their sentiments, 54 percent said that they missed a single economic system, 36 percent said they had lost the feeling of belonging to a real superpower, 34 percent complained about the decrease of mutual trust among ordinary people, and 26 percent said that the collapse had destroyed the ties between friends and relatives.

The same research showed that 52 percent of Russians think that the collapse of the USSR could have been avoided, 29 percent said that the event was absolutely inevitable, and 19 percent did not have a fixed opinion on the matter.

The share of those who regret the demise of the Soviet Union has risen continuously over the past decade, but in 2009 it was even higher than today – at 60 percent. The all-time high 75 percent was recorded in 2000.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly addressed the issue of the collapse of the USSR in his speeches. In an address to the Russian parliament in 2005 he called the event the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and a cause of major disruption for the Russian people. In September 2016, Putin said that the Communist Party should have transformed the Soviet Union into a democratic state rather than see it break into separate nations.

At the same time, Putin has always emphasized that he and other Russian officials have no plans to revive the USSR, and has expressed anger that people cannot accept this. He has also accused Western governments of deliberately confusing modern Russia with the USSR and harming the interests of ordinary people on the pretense of preventing an imaginary threat.

Is Putin incorruptible? U.S. insider’s view of the Russian president’s character and his country’s transformation
| August 9, 2017 | 7:58 pm | Analysis, Russia, Vladimir Putin | Comments closed

https://www.sott.net/article/278407-Is-Putin-incorruptible-US-insiders-view-of-the-Russian-presidents-character-and-his-countrys-transformation

Image

Friends and colleagues,

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.

Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?”

It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man. He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s – – I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article. Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials. I’ve been in country long enough to ponder Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders. As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him – – I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens). I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated – – and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances. If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992…

Image

Sharon Tennison

It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg. For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit. He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question. I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes. This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door. Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!” I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight – – it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

1994

Image

Putin as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg in the early 90s.

U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help. I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador. I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the “good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before – – but Jack overruled). Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin. On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered – – he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo. Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent – – he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.” Further, I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions“. It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: “What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.” This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous. After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen – – good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal: They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

Image

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!” She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education). He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said, “Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career. My next question was, “What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?” Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied, “If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change – – some will be in prison in a couple of years.” I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked, “So what do you think of your new president?” None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”. Next question, “So, how much did it cost you?” To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said, “We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.'”

Late 2000

Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests – – his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful. When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital. She did – – although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media. Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered: “When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why? Without hesitating the answer came back: “‘The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.” I questioned WHY? The answer: “I could never find out why – – maybe because he was KGB.” I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was, “That would have made no difference, he was our guy.”

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied, “No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food. Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country – – certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia

Image

Modern Russia, thriving

In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail – – the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China). Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place – – and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow. We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared. It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR” – – because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison

About the author

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of
The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

MESSAGE OF TRADE UNIONS AGAINST THE IMPERIALIST WAR
| April 30, 2017 | 3:50 pm | class struggle, Imperialism, PAME, Russia, Syria, Ukraine | Comments closed

Sunday, April 30, 2017

MESSAGE OF TRADE UNIONS AGAINST THE IMPERIALIST WAR

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/message-of-trade-unions-against.html
MESSAGE OF TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE UNIONISTS.
AGAINST THE IMPERIALIST WAR.
With the workers of all countries, for a world without exploitation, wars, and refugees.
This 1st of May we are in the eye of the imperialist storm. The outbreaks of armed conflicts are spreading through from Ukraine to the Black Sea, the Balkans, the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa.
Powerful forces are involved in the competitions, such as the United States, the EU, Russia with the active participations of the governments of our countries in for the control of oil, natural gas, the roads of energy transfer, markets, in the interest of the monopoly groups.
The war in Syria, which has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and turned millions of others into refugees, is the result of intra-imperialist competitions, a multiform imperialist intervention. It shows how capitalism, which increases the wealth for a “handful” of exploiters, at the same time, it creates crisis, social problems, war, refugees, with devastating consequences for millions of workers.
The imperialists divide the world with the blood of the people; they create nationalist rivalries among the peoples.
The Balkans have experienced the bloody and destructive dissolution of countries by imperialist war, the change of borders.
NATO army and fleet spread over from the Baltic to the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, the Mediterranean, defending the interests of this “alliance of wolves”, the interests of its monopolies in the area against their competitors.
The all-out attack which condemns the working classes in every country in unemployment, poverty and misery, is the one side of the coin of class policy.
The other side is the unfair imperialist war, which they wage in the interests of large monopoly groups.
Faced with the possibility of a widespread military conflict in our region, we build a wall of protection for the working class of our countries, for our people, in joint action and solidarity between the peoples and with the Trade Unions in the first line of this fight.
We fight for all of our rights, demanding the satisfaction of the contemporary needs of working-class families. We are fighting against exploitation and against our exploiters.
This fight is inextricably connected with the fight against any participation of our countries in the war prepared by our exploiters with their power, their governments and their alliances with USA – NATO – EU, against the workers in other countries.
The bourgeoisie promotes their class interest for profits as “national interest” both in times of “peace” and war.
We will not bleed for their profits; we will not become meat in their cannons.
There is nothing to divide among the working classes of other countries, among other people. On the contrary, we are united by the common interest of fighting for a life without riches and poverty, without bosses, this is the life that belongs to us.
That is why we are fighting for:
  • No involvement in the imperialist interventions and wars outside the borders. No involvement in the slaughterhouses of NATO and the EU.
  • Closure of all foreign military bases. NATO Out from the Aegean Sea and the Balkans.
  • No involvement in any capitalist political-military alliance.
  • Against the change of borders and the change of treaties that guarantee them.
  • Against the abolition of trade unions rights and other freedoms.
  • We say no to war expenditure for military action outside the borders, we demand funding to satisfy the needs of the working class, of workers’ families.
  • Against nationalism, racism, chauvinism.
  • Solidarity with refugees, migrants, solidarity to all people.
We Do Not Stand Behind The Foreign And Hostile To Us Flag Of The Capitalists And Their Allies. We Raise The Flag Of The Interests Of The Working Class.
We Are Fighting Against The Unjust Wars, To Eliminate What Causes Them.
Solidarity Is The Weapon Of Peoples.
Currently signed by:
PAME- Greece
Nakliyat Is – Turkey
Sosyal Is – Turkey
Birlesik Metal Is – Turkey
Autonomous Trade Union of Employees in Agriculture, Food, Tobacco Industry – Serbia 
SLOGA – Serbia
GFTU –Syria
WUCP – Palestine
Left Bloc – Austria
Cyprus – KTOEOS
USB – Italy
SGB – Italy
The split in the US oligarchy about Russia and its significance
| April 10, 2017 | 8:39 pm | Analysis, class struggle, Donald Trump, Imperialism, political struggle, Russia, Syria | Comments closed

by Darrell Rankin

The split in the US oligarchy about Russia and its
significance
Lenin commented that nothing is firm or fixed about
imperialists’ views on war or the right level of
aggression.
He also wrote that imperialism would continue to slide
increasingly towards reaction and militarism, an inevitable outcome of
capitalism’s ever-deepening general crisis.
If we consider that war is merely a continuation of foreign
policy by other (violent) means, this helps to explain the hesitation and lack
of conviction often felt by bourgeois politicians when they believe war could
backfire.
For example, Hitler and his entourage were not of one mind when
to invade Russia. They all thought it was a great idea, but they differed on the
timing to a degree, their disputes kept out of the public eye by means of
threats and backstabbing.
Today, the ferocity of anti-Russian views in the US oligarchy
is such that Trump’s hand is being forced, but not to the degree Clinton wants.
Trump may have thought that an extra $50 billion for the military
industry was enough for his back to be safe from pointy objects for a while.
But it appears not.
The casualties on the Trump side continue to mount from ongoing
investigations into Russia’s role in defeating Clinton and general control of
the Trump administration.
Clinton, who timed her emergence from seclusion perfectly,
demanded completely to obliterate the Syrian air
force.
Trump carried out a so-called “proportionate” strike that
damaged (not destroyed) six Syrian aircraft.
The Trump entourage’s conflict with the faction that wants war
now with Russia (the Clinton Dems and McCain Reps) is sure to Continue.
This a significant split. There are two important reasons why
it is important.
First, we have to recognize that Clinton’s intention to impose
a no-fly zone over Syria would have brought Russian forces into direct,
unannounced conflict with US forces.
There are reports that Trump gave Russia (and thereby Syria) a
heads-up phone call before launching yesterday’s cruise missile strikes.
One understandable casualty of Trump’s missile attack is the
US-Russian exchange of information about US flights over Syrian airspace.
Now, all US flights will be deemed hostile, intrusive and
Unapproved, just like Israeli overflights.
Will US overflights be subject to the same ‘shoot on sight’
rule as Israeli jets? I would say that depends on the target and level of
aggression by US imperialism, which will probably get worse, especially if Trump
continues to prove he dislikes being called a coward, baby-killer and traitor by
the pro-war faction.
Both Syria and Russia could and should realize that restraint
can still help avoid war in the absence of an overflight
agreement.
Still, the danger of war between Russia and the U.S. is higher
because of the ferocity of the pro-war faction.
That intensifying conflict brings me to my second point, the
Importance of what happens ‘on the streets,’ among the popular forces in the
United States who are regularly ignored over Trifling matters such as a world
war.
Trump’s definite restraint compared to the pro-war faction
gives the popular forces in the US time – a breathing space – to mobilize
against war with Russia, a war that would be directed as much against them as
against Russia and the international working class.
They could offer the idea that it is not cowardly to ask for
evidence and follow diplomacy to resolve disputes.
It is necessary and extremely important that the anti-war
sentiments be galvanized and moved into action on the streets.
A powerful and definitely strong clique of the oligarchy
believes war with Russia is necessary and an exceedingly good idea.
We cannot dismiss the importance of popular movements –
especially unions – working to deepen the split in the oligarchy on that
issue.
The strongest united front effort would be one that does not
hide the role of unions and popular forces, emphasizing their leading role in
staying the hand of the most bellicose elements of US
imperialism.
Immoral Outrage Against The Syrians
By A. Shaw
Aircraft of US imperialists recently attacked the Iraq city of Mosul, slaughtering over 200 people.
So far, the imperialists have not identified the type of bombs and missiles they drop on Mosul.
There is no doubt that US imperialists are responsible for the mass murder in Mosul.
The shameless US imperialists themselves admit they are guilty.
Why is it that there is so little moral outrage against the US atrocity in Mosul.
There is something like a limited coalescence of immoral outrage of the reactionary, centrist, and liberal sectors of the working and middle classes in the USA over the recent chemical attack in Syria in which 100 people were killed, many of the victims were children.
There’s no evidence that either the Russian or Syrian governments are guilty of the chemical attack.
The cappie [capitalist] press in the USA publishes the lies of self-professed terrorists, who enjoy cutting peoples heads off, as if these lies are irreproachable and incontrovertible.
The cappie media and the reactionary bourgeois regime in Washington  have unjustly accused the Russians and Syrians.
The USAs — or the US people — should not become as two-face as the cappie media and bourgeois regime over the USAs.
Periodically, some of the insane, terrorist groups fighting the Syrian Government stage chemical attacks killing children in order to drag US imperialists deeper into the war against the Syrian people.
Trump is a dirty politician
| March 25, 2017 | 5:00 pm | A. Shaw, Analysis, Donald Trump, political struggle, Russia | Comments closed

By A. Shaw

“The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.  It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.  Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment, ” the Federal Election Commission says on its website.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) statement of the law, cited above, applies to “ANY FOREIGN NATIONAL.”

In the current investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign for treason or high crime, two Russian banks — SBV Bank and ALFA Bank — appear to be foreign nationals relevant to the investigation.

The FEC statement of the law also deals with ” funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”

The FBI is the lead agency investigating the treason or high crime case against Trump and his campaign.

Since Oct. 2016, the FBI has conducted electronic surveillance of the relationship between a Russian computer firm, located in Trump Tower, and the two Russian banks mentioned above.  The FBI has further watched the relationship between this Russian computer firm in Trump Tower and high-ranking individuals in the Trump campaign, including among others, Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Ivanka Trump, and Roger Stone. The FBI watched the relationship between these five above-named individuals involved in the campaign and financial vehicles connected to the Trump campaign, such as PACs and SUPER-PACs.

Money flowed from the Russian banks to the Trump campaign.

The money flowed “directly and indirectly.”

A presidential campaign is a “federal election.”

The phrase “in connection with” includes a wide range of relationships between the things connected.

“Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment” the FEC statement says.

Article II, Section Four of the US Constitution says “The president … shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason … or other high crimes and misdemeanours.”

Fixing an US election in collusion with a foreign country is treason or, at least, a high crime.

There is now probable cause to impeach Trump, the so-called president.

СССР 1953 год похороны Сталина ☭ Великое прощание ☆ Документальная хроника ☭ Советский Союз.
| March 11, 2017 | 8:03 pm | J. Stalin, Russia, USSR | Comments closed