FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "President Barack Obama has been trying, mostly in secret, to craft a new foreign policy that relies heavily on cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to tamp down confrontations in hotspots such as Iran and Syria."

A woman addresses Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops who formed a battle line during the clashes. (photo: Gleb Garanich/Reuters)
A woman addresses Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops who formed a battle line during the clashes. (photo: Gleb Garanich/Reuters)


What Neocons Want From Ukraine Crisis, Part II

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

04 March 14

 

resident Barack Obama has been trying, mostly in secret, to craft a new foreign policy that relies heavily on cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to tamp down confrontations in hotspots such as Iran and Syria. But Obama’s timidity about publicly explaining this strategy has left it open to attack from powerful elements of Official Washington, including well-placed neocons and people in his own administration.

The gravest threat to this Obama-Putin collaboration has now emerged in Ukraine, where a coalition of U.S. neocon operatives and neocon holdovers within the State Department fanned the flames of unrest in Ukraine, contributing to the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych and now to a military intervention by Russian troops in the Crimea, a region in southern Ukraine that historically was part of Russia.

Though I’m told the Ukraine crisis caught Obama and Putin by surprise, the neocon determination to drive a wedge between the two leaders has been apparent for months, especially after Putin brokered a deal to head off U.S. military strikes against Syria last summer and helped get Iran to negotiate concessions on its nuclear program, both moves upsetting the neocons who had favored heightened confrontations.

Putin also is reported to have verbally dressed down Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan over what Putin considered their provocative actions regarding the Syrian civil war. So, by disrupting neocon plans and offending Netanyahu and Bandar, the Russian president found himself squarely in the crosshairs of some very powerful people.

If not for Putin, the neocons – along with Israel and Saudi Arabia – had hoped that Obama would launch military strikes on Syria and Iran that could open the door to more “regime change” across the Middle East, a dream at the center of neocon geopolitical strategy since the 1990s. This neocon strategy took shape after the display of U.S. high-tech warfare against Iraq in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union later that year. U.S. neocons began believing in a new paradigm of a uni-polar world where U.S. edicts were law.

The neocons felt this paradigm shift also meant that Israel would no longer need to put up with frustrating negotiations with the Palestinians. Rather than haggling over a two-state solution, U.S. neocons simply pressed for “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries that were assisting the Palestinians or Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Iraq was first on the neocon hit list, but next came Syria and Iran. The overriding idea was that once the regimes assisting the Palestinians and Hezbollah were removed or neutralized, then Israel could dictate peace terms to the Palestinians who would have no choice but to accept what was on the table.

U.S. neocons working on Netanyahu’s campaign team in 1996, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, even formalized their bold new plan, which they outlined in a strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper argued that only “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary “clean break” from the diplomatic standoffs that had followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In 1998, the neocon Project for the New American Century called for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but President Bill Clinton refused to go along. The situation changed, however, when President George W. Bush took office and after the 9/11 attacks. Suddenly, the neocons had a Commander in Chief who agreed with the need to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — and a stunned and angry U.S. public could be easily persuaded. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

So, Bush invaded Iraq, ousting Hussein but failing to subdue the country. The U.S. death toll of nearly 4,500 soldiers and the staggering costs, estimated to exceed $1 trillion, made the American people and even Bush unwilling to fulfill the full-scale neocon vision, which was expressed in one of their favorite jokes of 2003 about where to attack next, Iran or Syria, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran!”

Though hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney pushed the neocon/Israeli case for having the U.S. military bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities – with the hope that the attacks also might spark a “regime change” in Tehran – Bush decided that he couldn’t risk the move, especially after the U.S. intelligence community assessed in 2007 that Iran had stopped work on a bomb four years earlier.

The Rise of Obama

The neocons were dealt another setback in 2008 when Barack Obama defeated a neocon favorite, Sen. John McCain. But Obama then made one of the fateful decisions of his presidency, deciding to staff key foreign-policy positions with “a team of rivals,” i.e. keeping Republican operative Robert Gates at the Defense Department and recruiting Hillary Clinton, a neocon-lite, to head the State Department.

Obama also retained Bush’s high command, most significantly the media-darling Gen. David Petraeus. That meant that Obama didn’t take control over his own foreign policy.

Gates and Petraeus were themselves deeply influenced by the neocons, particularly Frederick Kagan, who had been a major advocate for the 2007 “surge” escalation in Iraq, which was hailed by the U.S. mainstream media as a great “success” but never achieved its principal goal of a unified Iraq. At the cost of nearly 1,000 U.S. dead, it only bought time for an orderly withdrawal that spared Bush and the neocons the embarrassment of an obvious defeat.

So, instead of a major personnel shakeup in the wake of the catastrophic Iraq War, Obama presided over what looked more like continuity with the Bush war policies, albeit with a firmer commitment to draw down troops in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan.

From the start, however, Obama was opposed by key elements of his own administration, especially at State and Defense, and by the still-influential neocons of Official Washington. According to various accounts, including Gates’s new memoir Duty, Obama was maneuvered into supporting a troop “surge” in Afghanistan, as advocated by neocon Frederick Kagan and pushed by Gates, Petraeus and Clinton.

Gates wrote that Kagan persuaded him to recommend the Afghan “surge” and that Obama grudgingly went along although Gates concluded that Obama didn’t believe in the “mission” and wanted to reverse course more quickly than Gates, Petraeus and their side wanted.

Faced with this resistance from his own bureaucracy, Obama began to rely on a small inner circle built around Vice President Joe Biden and a few White House advisers with the analytical support of some CIA officials, including CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Obama also found a surprising ally in Putin after he regained the Russian presidency in 2012. A Putin adviser told me that the Russian president personally liked Obama and genuinely wanted to help him resolve dangerous disputes, especially crises with Iran and Syria.

In other words, what evolved out of Obama’s early “team of rivals” misjudgment was an extraordinary presidential foreign policy style, in which Obama developed and implemented much of his approach to the world outside the view of his secretaries of State and Defense (except when Panetta moved briefly to the Pentagon).

Even after the eventual departures of Gates in 2011, Petraeus as CIA director after a sex scandal in late 2012, and Clinton in early 2013, Obama’s peculiar approach didn’t particularly change. I’m told that he has a distant relationship with Secretary of State John Kerry, who never joined Obama’s inner foreign policy circle.

Though Obama’s taciturn protectiveness of his “real” foreign policy may be understandable given the continued neocon “tough-guy-ism” that dominates Official Washington, Obama’s freelancing approach gave space to hawkish elements of his own administration.

For instance, Secretary of State Kerry came close to announcing a U.S. war against Syria in a bellicose speech on Aug. 30, 2013, only to see Obama pull the rug out from under him as the President worked with Putin to defuse the crisis sparked by a disputed chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How War on Syria Lost Its Way.”]

Similarly, Obama and Putin hammered out the structure for an interim deal with Iran on how to constrain its nuclear program. But when Kerry was sent to seal that agreement in Geneva, he instead inserted new demands from the French (who were carrying water for the Saudis) and nearly screwed it all up. After getting called on the carpet by the White House, Kerry returned to Geneva and finalized the arrangements.[See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Saudi-Israel Defeat on Iran Deal.”]

Unorthodox Foreign Policy

Obama’s unorthodox foreign policy – essentially working in tandem with the Russian president and sometimes at odds with his own foreign policy bureaucracy – has forced Obama into faux outrage when he’s faced with some perceived affront from Russia, such as its agreement to give temporary asylum to National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

For the record, Obama had to express strong disapproval of Snowden’s asylum, though in many ways Putin was doing Obama a favor by sparing Obama from having to prosecute Snowden with the attendant complications for U.S. national security and the damaging political repercussions from Obama’s liberal base.

Putin’s unforced errors also complicated the relationship, such as when he defended Russian hostility toward gays and cracked down on dissent before the Sochi Olympics. Putin became an easy target for U.S. commentators and comedians.

But Obama’s hesitancy to explain the degree of his strategic cooperation with Putin has enabled Official Washington’s still influential neocons, including holdovers within the State Department bureaucracy, to drive more substantive wedges between Obama and Putin. The neocons came to recognize that the Obama-Putin tandem had become a major impediment to their strategic vision.

Without doubt, the neocons’ most dramatic – and potentially most dangerous – counter-move has been Ukraine, where they have lent their political and financial support to opposition forces who sought to break Ukraine away from its Russian neighbor.

Though this crisis also stems from the historical division of Ukraine – between its more European-oriented west and the Russian-ethnic east and south – neocon operatives, with financing from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. sources, played key roles in destabilizing and overthrowing the democratically elected president.

NED, a $100 million-a-year agency created by the Reagan administration in 1983 to promote political action and psychological warfare against targeted states, lists 65 projects that it supports financially inside Ukraine, including training activists, supporting “journalists” and promoting business groups, effectively creating a full-service structure primed and ready to destabilize a government in the name of promoting “democracy.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Shadow US Foreign Policy.”]

State Department neocons also put their shoulders into shoving Ukraine away from Russia. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan and the sister-in-law of the Gates-Petraeus adviser Frederick Kagan, advocated strenuously for Ukraine’s reorientation toward Europe.

Last December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves,” by which she meant into the West’s orbit and away from Russia’s.

But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine’s economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych’s decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country’s western and more pro-European region.

Nuland was soon at work planning for “regime change,” encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn’t seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.

By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government.

“Yats is the guy,” Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. “He’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy you know.” By “Yats,” Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister — and who was committed to harsh austerity.

As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera’s anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during World War II.

With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives.

With these neo-Nazis providing “security,” the remaining parliamentarians agreed in a series of unanimous or near unanimous votes to establish a new government and seek Yanukovych’s arrest for mass murder. Nuland’s choice, Yatsenyuk, emerged as interim prime minister.

Yet, the violent ouster of Yanukovych provoked popular resistance to the coup from the Russian-ethnic south and east. After seeking refuge in Russia, Yanukovych appealed to Putin for help. Putin then dispatched Russian troops to secure control of the Crimea. [For more on this history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Cheering a ‘Democratic’ Coup in Ukraine.”]

Separating Obama from Putin

The Ukraine crisis has given Official Washington’s neocons another wedge to drive between Obama and Putin. For instance, the neocon flagship Washington Post editorialized on Saturday that Obama was responding “with phone calls” when something much more threatening than “condemnation” was needed.

It’s always stunning when the Post, which so energetically lobbied for the U.S. invasion of Iraq under the false pretense of eliminating its (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, gets its ire up about another country acting in response to a genuine security threat on its own borders, not half a world away.

But the Post’s editors have never been deterred by their own hypocrisy. They wrote, “Mr. Putin’s likely objective was not difficult to figure. He appears to be responding to Ukraine’s overthrow of a pro-Kremlin government last week with an old and ugly Russian tactic: provoking a separatist rebellion in a neighboring state, using its own troops when necessary.”

The reality, however, appears to have been that neocon elements from within the U.S. government encouraged the overthrow of the elected president of Ukraine via a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi storm troopers who then terrorized lawmakers as the parliament passed draconian laws, including some intended to punish the Russian-oriented regions which favor Yanukovych.

Yet, besides baiting Obama over his tempered words about the crisis, the Post declared that “Mr. Obama and European leaders must act quickly to prevent Ukraine’s dismemberment. Missing from the president’s statement was a necessary first step: a demand that all Russian forces – regular and irregular – be withdrawn … and that Moscow recognize the authority of the new Kiev government. … If Mr. Putin does not comply, Western leaders should make clear that Russia will pay a heavy price.”

The Post editors are fond of calling for ultimatums against various countries, especially Syria and Iran, with the implication that if they don’t comply with some U.S. demand that harsh actions, including military reprisals, will follow.

But now the neocons, in their single-minded pursuit of endless “regime change” in countries that get in their way, have taken their ambitions to a dangerous new level, confronting nuclear-armed Russia with ultimatums.

By Sunday, the Post’s neocon editors were “spelling out the consequences” for Putin and Russia, essentially proposing a new Cold War. The Post mocked Obama for alleged softness toward Russia and suggested that the next “regime change” must come in Moscow.

“Many in the West did not believe Mr. Putin would dare attempt a military intervention in Ukraine because of the steep potential consequences,” the Post wrote. “That the Russian ruler plunged ahead shows that he doubts Western leaders will respond forcefully. If he does not quickly retreat, the United States must prove him wrong.”

The madness of the neocons has long been indicated by their extraordinary arrogance and their contempt for other nations’ interests. They assume that U.S. military might and other coercive means must be brought to bear on any nation that doesn’t bow before U.S. ultimatums or that resists U.S.-orchestrated coups.

Whenever the neocons meet resistance, they don’t rethink their strategy; they simply take it to the next level. Angered by Russia’s role in heading off U.S. military attacks against Syria and Iran, the neocons escalated their geopolitical conflict by taking it to Russia’s own border, by egging on the violent ouster of Ukraine’s elected president.

The idea was to give Putin an embarrassing black eye as punishment for his interference in the neocons’ dream of “regime change” across the Middle East. Now, with Putin’s countermove, his dispatch of Russian troops to secure control of the Crimea, the neocons want Obama to further escalate the crisis by going after Putin.

Some leading neocons even see ousting Putin as a crucial step toward reestablishing the preeminence of their agenda. NED president Carl Gershman wrote in the Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.  … Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

At minimum, the neocons hope that they can neutralize Putin as Obama’s ally in trying to tamp down tensions with Syria and Iran – and thus put American military strikes against those two countries back under active consideration.

As events spin out of control, it appears way past time for President Obama to explain to the American people why he has collaborated with President Putin in trying to resolve some of the world’s thorniest problems.

That, however, would require him to belatedly take control of his own administration, to purge the neocon holdovers who have worked to sabotage his actual foreign policy, and to put an end to neocon-controlled organizations, like the National Endowment for Democracy, that use U.S. taxpayers’ money to stir up trouble abroad. That would require real political courage.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+15 # jdd 2014-03-04 10:01
Obama can rant on, but he knows that Russia could easily retaliate by denying logistical support to our troops in Afghanistan, effectively denying them access to Russian rail and road connections.
 
 
+43 # anarchteacher 2014-03-04 10:53
Hell will freeze over before the despicable neocons recognize the Russian nationalist Vlad the Impaler as the great stabilizing force for peace in a world where most nations view Obama and his National Security State as the primary destructive force for preemptive war, international chaos, and murderous drone strikes against innocent civilians.

Obama's drones are the moral and operational equivalent of the Nazi V-1 and V-2 weapons used against the Allies in WWII.

That Obama's Whitehall cheerleaders in London can back this despicable stealth assassination program shows just how far the UK has fallen in craven obeisance.

Robert Parry's cogent assessment of Putin is directly on-target. The US betrayed the accords reached with the former Soviet Union in ending the Cold War by bringing NATO forces almost to the gates of Moscow. For over twenty years these and similar destabilizing clandestine actions have undermined regional stability and the territorial integrity of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
 
 
+17 # Caliban 2014-03-04 11:41
If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it is about the attempts of Obama and Putin to join forces to help stabilize the world and that it is the Neocons (who--like you--hate Obama) that are trying to ruin BOTH Presidents.

So you can call the Neocons "despicable" all you want, but it is you who are happily in bed with them in their attitude towards President Obama. Sleep well.
 
 
+11 # davidh7426 2014-03-04 13:47
@anarchteacher ::

It's your lucky day, and your wish has come true -

"HELL HAS FROZEN OVER"
Hell, Michigan 19F / -8C

http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/US/MI/Hell.html
 
 
+47 # Anarchist 23 2014-03-04 11:41
Nuland is married to Robert Kagan who along with Kristol were calling for war with China when the spy plane shoot-down hit the fan in 2001. These guys are raving maniacs...chick en hawks of the first degree! Meanwhile, it is deja vu all over again with Obama and Putin...remindi ng one of the peace JFK and Khrushchev tried to make after the brink of nuclear war in 62. The Shadow Gov did not want that so JFK was killed...anothe r black op still enshrined as the 'Lone Gunman' 50 years later. Wake up to reality and stop believing the myths! Or there will be no future for your children or humanity! There is very little 'future' left, given Global Warming, Fuk-U-Shima and all the rest but why let these crazies give you World War III as well! Oh wait...is 'American Idol' on the big screen? Get the chips and dip.
 
 
+44 # walt 2014-03-04 11:47
Robert Parry again has it all correct. As more and more people are seeing, the neocons have never really left the scene.

The saddest part of it all is that many of us looked to Obama for that "change we can believe in" only to see him recycle the same old neocons like Gates, Clinton, Petraeus and the like. Perhaps his greatest failure was succumbing to the neocon pressures and increasing troops to Afghanistan, a move that cost him dearly with his liberal support base and may have caused the 2010 election failures by his own party when they lost the House of Representatives.

In a nutshell, Obama has failed to be his own man by relying on more of the same old neocons for foreign policy as well as on Wall Streeters for the economy. That's not the change people had hoped for. If he can find his spine in these last years, he might regain some faith of those who believed in him. That remains to be seen.
 
 
-3 # lorenbliss 2014-03-04 15:48
Hoping Obama might "find his spine" assumes he had one to begin with. But the pre-inaugural immediacy of his transformation from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer tells us he was the neocons' Manchurian Candidate (actually the Neoconian Candidate) from day one -- that his 2008 "change we can believe in" campaign was the biggest Big Lie ever fed the U.S. electorate.

Now it seems to me just as likely Obama is again demonstrating his signature deviousness, painting himself as the good guy, no doubt in hope of salvaging the 2014 elections, which as of now are a looming Republican landslide – not because of GOP popularity, but because of the bottomless, throw-the-basta rds-out unpopularity of the treacherous Democrats.

Meanwhile the "my advisors did it" excuse is as old as politics itself. Think for a moment: Obama is a ruler so omnipotent he openly boasts of holding the power of life and death over all his subjects, yet Mr. Parry claims this same tyrant is afraid of firing cabinet members and bureaucrats for trying to start World War III -- an analysis that defies the reality of Obama's unprecedented Emperor-of-the- Planet arrogance. This seems unlikely at best.

While I don't doubt what happened in the Ukraine was an USian-organized neo-Nazi coup (as ALL USian-organized coups invariably are), I therefore question Mr. Parry's view of Obama's relative blamelessness.
 
 
+23 # Anonymot 2014-03-04 12:08
A thorough, very interesting article. Part of what is difficult to grasp is the mentality of the neocons. They're not all dumb, not all Palins and Bachmans, not all senile once-heros, not uneducated, although Hillary's girl's college background obviously gave her some special interest. Then why are they so totally, but totally without perspective and understanding of the world that's out there and its histories, needs, drives, etc.? You don't ride a blind horse on a mountain trail even if he's OK around the barn.

So, political pressure, yes, but I find it still mysterious why Obama so filled his key positions with neocons left over from Bush or hot new ones put in place by the Clinton SOS. It goes beyond his inexperience and general incompetence in foreign affairs. Your description would give him credit for more savvy than he's exhibited. There comes a point where his acts do the talking. As you say, he's not spoken out.

Well, he IS the President of The United States. All he has to do is tell a channel, I want Monday night and he's got it. He sits down and explains it. The general public IS dumb, yes. Understanding and perspective, history and geography, politics and non-American lives & thought are not part of our curriculum. If you get those things it's because of some personal drive.
 
 
+17 # curmudgeon 2014-03-04 13:26
His puppet masters are angry.
 
 
+25 # Anonymot 2014-03-04 12:10
Our "educated" are brilliant on computer games and expressing themselves in twitter bits on facebook, but they're dumb as doorknobs about the rest of the world.

In addition, 20% of the American population is Germanic in their ancestry and like it or not, we reflect that history more than others. We're more Gotterdamerung than Heinrich Heine.

It brings me back to the possibility that there were threats put on him within days of his election in 2008 by members of our Deep State government that are of such a nature that he's been in psychological and intellectual shackles ever since.

Or perhaps he got in so far over his head from day One that he just froze up.

In every case, we have not been given a candidate of real competence for several decades. No one in their right mind would take the job.
 
 
+10 # curmudgeon 2014-03-04 14:16
Amen!
 
 
-9 # ecoforestree 2014-03-05 00:11
We had an excellent candidate in 2008 and 2012 who regularly challenged both neocon and neoliberal war mongering and elitist economic policy. But, "progressives" were too wrapped up in their idealistic socialist philosophizing and mesmerized by the lies and seductive promises of Barack Obama to figure it out. The candidate's name, Dr. Ron Paul. Too bad, that train has left the station. Another wonderful opportunity for real change squandered by the blind leading the blind.
 
 
+21 # giraffee2012 2014-03-04 12:24
The Russians need the "port" on East Urkraine bordering Russia. The non-neocons can certainly come up with a "peace" deal that allows Russia access to that port (even at a price).

The idea of a war is beyond comprehension for obvious reasons - mainly the international monetary involvements.

Listening to Lindsay Graham and his cult compare Putin's superiority to make a decision (as a dictator) compared to Obama (in a "democracy") is proof positive the Lindsay Grahams cannot let go of the fact the USA "elected" a black president. Bigotry reigns. Glad "12 years of slavery" won the Oscar bc the bigots cannot understand "we are all humans" -

Several of my grandchildren are "mixed" and they WILL PREVAIL. Of this I have no doubt: these "mixed" race children are many so "Mr. Graham: The tide is turning and it's too bad you won't be around to see"
 
 
+31 # wrknight 2014-03-04 13:00
No American president has ever had control over his foreign policy. American foreign policy has always been dictated by American business and now multinational corporate interest groups. If they can't profit from exploitation then they will profit from war.
 
 
+24 # Activista 2014-03-04 13:45
Excellent in depth article - think that both Putin and Obama had to do/say what nationalists in Russia and neocons in the USA demanded.
The good news is that NEOCONS/AIPAC are being exposed - in the long run I see Russia being more stable than USA militaristic money culture. Put Perry article on the facebook -
 
 
+23 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-03-04 14:46
Time to get the Neoconservative s out of "our" government. They have spent trillions of dollars and have only pissed off our friends and fueled our enemies. Of course, they continue to make money off of creating hostilities. Vote these leeches out of office.
 
 
+4 # mighead 2014-03-06 01:12
Obama needs to start with getting rid of the two behind the Ukraine mess...

I can't BELIEVE Victoria Nuland is Asst Sec'y of State???!!!

And Walter Pyatt is our Ambassador to Ukraine???!!!

Obama needs to get these guys and their insane plotting out of ALL foreign countries...

Before they start WWIII!!!

They barely missed it this time!!!
 
 
-3 # harleysch 2014-03-04 15:55
Again, Parry's insights are undermined by his defense of Obama. As in Part 1, he neglects to mention Obama's full support for the liberal imperialists (LIMPs) in his administration, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, who coordinate with the arch-imperialis t, Tony Blair. Obama has continued to promote them, along with John Brennan, his go-to-guy on drone warfare.

It's not just the Bush left-overs among the neo-cons, who are the cause of the dangerous regime change mentality, but also Obama's closest advisers. Whatever he may be doing with Putin in Syria and Iran, has been undercut by Brennan and his Saudi-jihadist connection, and the Responsibility to Protect neo-colonialist s Rice and Powers.

My view is that Obama is risking a war with Russia, in defense of the regime change fanatics aming the neo-cons and the LIMPs. He is the one responsible for this crisis, and he should be removed.
 
 
+20 # listentome 2014-03-04 16:04
Thanks Boardman, Parry, Ash, Goodman, Cohen and the rest for saving us from mainstream misinformation as strong as the Ukrainian coup. We will need it to try and get others to read beyond what is comfortable and familiar and throwing stones while in glass houses. Risking a US-European third world war is what we need to share with those we know. (Russia is part of Europe) according to geography.
 
 
+18 # ganymede 2014-03-04 19:48
Mr. Parry has a wonderful way of cutting through the bs of world events. Our great imperialist country, in its long-running, misguided attempts to rule the world has become the biggest warmonger and danger to world peace since Hitler and Stalin. It also seems that with the fascist neocons, who still control much of our government, we have become the biggest terrorists and threat to peace. It also seems that Obama is not totally plugged into the neo-con agenda. I have sufficient respect for Obama, and strangely enough, for Putin, that they will work something out to avert a tragedy. Obama has learned a lot over the past 6 years, and he knows he can still go down as a great President and reformer, but he's going to have to kick a lot of stupid asses.
 
 
+8 # Activista 2014-03-04 21:53
This month Crimea autonomous republic of Ukraine will vote on the referendum (how many western "democratic" states dare to put up referendum?) -
Russian: "Автономная республика Крым обладает государственной самостоятельнос тью и входит в состав Украины на основе договоров и соглашений (да или нет)"
English: "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has its own state independence and is a part of Ukraine on the basis of agreements and treaties." (yes or no).
Putin won, US neocons lost. Crimea will become independent from Ukraine ...
 
 
+9 # mighead 2014-03-05 09:45
Let me see if I've got this straight...

The National Endowment for Democracy ran 65 missions in Ukraine?

The Asst Sec'y of State: Victoria Nuland
and the US Ambassador to Ukraine: Geoffrey Pyatt decided to overthrow the Ukraine government?

Then the Ukrainian people were unarmed and too peaceful to overturn the government so they brought in Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers who started firing and 80 people were killed?

Then Nuland and Pyatt picked the successor to the Presidency and made him interim Prime Minister?

Where was Obama in this???

Were they planning to surprise him???
 
 
-1 # JSRaleigh 2014-03-07 19:01
It's just more tea-bagger birther hypocrisy.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN