Sunday, 31 August 2014

Couldn't Make it Up : "World Order", by Henry Kissinger - Published Sept. 9 2014


ESSAY

Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis


The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. 

"Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

In the Middle East, religious militias violate borders at will.

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy."

— Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

The Kursk Incident - The Second Occasion when Vladimir Putin PreventedWorld War III




It was US and UK that sank Russia's Kursk submarine?

Pravda
18.05.2012

Strategic submarine "Kursk" that sank in 2000 was sunk by the Americans. This theory discussed in Russia and abroad was once again raised by the Polish Wprost, referring to the information allegedly received from the Russian General Staff officer, "Lt. Col. Andrei."

According to the authors, the restraint of the Russians made it possible to avoid a full-scale nuclear war.

The fact that "Kursk" perished at the torpedo explosion was adopted as the official theory in Russia. The report of the Prosecutor General of Russia of 2002 stated that the torpedo was a teaching one, and it exploded on its own followed by a detonation of the ammunition.

Almost immediately after the accident a few admirals and officials claimed that "Kursk" was torpedoed by a U.S. submarine stationed in the area of the exercise.

Also, some military officials declared that Russian nuclear submarine collided with a foreign submarine.


The first information of any unexpected event that subsequently gets an official legend, as a rule, is the closest to the truth.

The same theory was also developed by French director Jean-Michel Carré in the movie "Kursk": "Submarine in turbid waters," (2005).

According to the movie, the Russian submarine was watched by two American submarines "Memphis" and "Toledo."

"Toledo" came dangerously close.

To prevent an attack of the Russian submarine at "Toledo", "Memphis" allegedly fired Mk-48 torpedo at "Kursk".


According to the Canadian History TV Channel, in the course of surveillance of "Kursk", "Toledo" tried to come closer, but by chance ran into the Russian nuclear submarine that was likely performing a maneuver.

The captain of "Memphis", thinking that "Kursk" attacked "Toledo" (presumably receiving an acoustic signal to open the torpedo locks), fired at the Russian submarine.


According to "Lieutenant Colonel Andrei", "small submarine AS-15 (apparently, "Kashalot" (Project 1910) - Ed.) quickly discovered "Kursk" after the accident. However, there was no decision on rescue operations - though, as the source claims, there were divers on board able to operate at depths up to 200 meters. "Kursk" was lying at a depth of 108 meters.

"Kashalots" are among the most secret Russian Navy submarines. To this day, it is unknown whether they obey the Navy command.

At least until 1986 (at the time the first submarine of this type was used for three years), they were registered with the GRU.*

*GRU,
Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye
(Soviet Military Intelligence)

"We thought that the crew was killed, there was no contact with them," continued lieutenant colonel.

"The phone rang, Korabelnikov picked up, listed, turned pale, and murmured:

"The U.S. (...) sunk the ship, there will be a war!" Supposedly said Korabelnikov.


Of course, the American side rejected both theories.

Against this background, the presence of a British boat "Splendid" in the area was forgotten.

In 1986 it encountered a Soviet submarine "Simbirsk" and in 1999 struck at Serbia, and was supposedly scared by "Kursk" surfaced in the Mediterranean.

After the explosion at "Kursk" submarine, it left for repairs at NATO bases.

The presence of two boats in the area of ​​the crash, along with the harmonization of positions on the force majeure between Moscow, Washington and London, as expected, could cause delays in the rescue operation of the Russian sailors.

Interestingly, it was possible to track down the route of the Americans after the incident, but the situation with the British nuclear submarine has not been clarified.

The idea of a possible involvement of "Splendid" in the death of "Kursk" concerns the British.
The British "Wikipedia" on the page devoted to this boat, made a very voluminous retreat.

It argues that the British submarine had nothing to do with the death of the Russian submarine.


"Although the charges were unfounded, the conspiracy theorists have developed them in different directions for a long time," said "Wikipedia".

Indeed, back in 2000, "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" published an opinion of one of the captain divers, according to which "Splendid" submarine found rest next to "Kursk" on the bottom of the Barents Sea, and was blown up during an operation aimed to raise the Russian submarine. The author suggests that we will soon hear of the death or retirement of this submarine.

In October of 2000, according to BBC, 12 nuclear submarines (including all submarines "Swiftsure") were removed from combat duty because of a leak in the cooling system of a nuclear reactor in a boat of Trafalgar class.

It is unknown how many boats later returned to the system.

According to "Jane's" catalog, the boat was written off in 2004.

Although it was the last and the newest boat of project "Swiftsure" (a total of six), it was the first one to be sent to scraps.




Six days after something went dreadfully wrong with the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, another submarine quietly pulled into a Norwegian port, carrying some of the most detailed evidence so far of why the pride of Russia's navy sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea.
The other submarine was the Memphis, a nuclear-powered attack submarine based in Groton, Conn., and one of two American submarines that were spying on the largest Russian naval exercise in years when disaster struck the Kursk on the morning of Aug. 12.
By the time the Memphis reached Bergen, Norway, Russian officials, including the defense minister, Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev, had said the Kursk had probably sunk after colliding with a foreign submarine or a World War II mine. So the arrival of the Memphis spawned news reports in Russia that a damaged submarine needing repairs had limped into port.
Publicly, the Pentagon still refuses to comment on the whereabouts or the mission of the Memphis. And they say the most likely cause of the sinking is the misfiring of one of the Kursk's torpedoes.

They insist that the Memphis was not damaged. Nor was it, the other American submarine or any other foreign submarine involved in any collision, they said. The Memphis's arrival in Norway was a long-scheduled liberty call, they said.
The call allowed the submarine to unload sonar tapes and other recordings that the Americans say captured two explosions that ravaged and sank the Kursk, killing all 118 people on board.
Those tapes, now being analyzed at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Md., contain the strongest evidence, until now not discussed in detail, to support the leading American theory of what destroyed the Kursk.
And that theory, they said, does not include the collision that the Russians have said probably occurred. ''We have subs that hear everything that goes on,'' a senior officer in Washington said. ''It's pretty clear to us what happened.''
According to the American theory, a rocket-propelled torpedo being loaded or launched as part of an exercise misfired, its engine or its fuel exploding.
After 2 minutes and 15 seconds -- during which time the Kursk's captain either increased power from the nuclear reactor or blew ballast in an effort to surface -- a powerful explosion of the torpedo's warhead tore a gaping hole in the submarine's bow, killing most if not all of the crew instantly.
[In Vladivostok, Russia, today, a former submarine officer who is a member of a governmental commission investigating the explosion said a new weapons system was being tested on board the Kursk when it sank. But the former officer, Sergei V. Zhekov, would not elaborate on the system during a news conference, saying it was a state secret, the news agency Interfax reported.]
When the Kursk sank, the United States government knew within hours. The Americans collected telltale recordings by means of submarines and a surface ship, and even from shore.
They detected no sounds of a collision. And they monitored the Russian fleet's emergency radio transmissions closely during the aftermath.
In addition to two submarines, the Navy had a surface ship, the Loyal, in the Barents Sea.
The Loyal is one of a class of surveillance ships operated by civilian contractors, but with as many as 15 Navy sailors and officers aboard.
According to the Navy, ships like the Loyal have only a single mission: ''to gather underwater acoustical data'' in support of ''the antisubmarine warfare mission'' of fleet commanders.
The ship can tow an array of underwater listening devices that pick up the most minute data, and that, the officials said, was precisely what it was doing.
A senior American officer said the two submarines were ''a long ways away'' from the Kursk at the time of the explosions, but he declined to say how far. Another senior officer said that under the Navy's rules of engagement the submarines would not have gone any closer than five miles, especially because the Russian ships were testing weapons. The Loyal, whose presence would have been obvious to the Russian fleet, was presumably even farther away.
Still, the senior officer said, the submarines were close enough not only to detect the explosions with their sonar, but also to feel the underwater concussion caused by the second, larger blast.
Even so, there was no damage to the Memphis or the other submarine, all of the officials said. ''Not a teacup was rattled,'' the senior military officer said.
Britain, the other country whose submarines regularly prowl the Barents, has denied that it had a submarine in the area at the time.
Within hours of the explosions, both American submarines radioed messages back to fleet headquarters. ''They were alive and well and had no bumps,'' another senior officer said.
The American officials said that neither the two submarines nor the Loyal had detected any sounds that would suggest that the Kursk had been involved in a collision of any sort.
Even at great distances, the signals created by a collision or an explosion are easy to distinguish, the officials said.
One official also said that given the Kursk's immense size, larger than the American Trident ballistic missile submarines, it was unlikely that another vessel could have endured a collision without suffering significant, perhaps debilitating damage.
It is also unlikely, given the Kursk's double-hulled design intended to withstand crashes or torpedoes, that a collision alone could have caused the damage that doomed the Kursk, the officials and experts said.
Ever since the Kursk sank, Russian accounts of what happened have been imprecise and sometimes contradictory. Officials in Russia did not report the accident until early on Aug. 14, which was a Monday, a day after the they realized that something had gone wrong and nearly two days after the accident. Even then, they said it had happened on Sunday, rather than on Saturday.
The Russians do not deny that a massive explosion hit the Kursk. But they have insisted that the submarine first was involved in a collision with some huge object, possibly a submarine or a World War II mine.

The Russian assertions are based in part on five hours of underwater videotape now being examined by an investigative commission headed by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya I. Klebanov. Russians officials have cited external damage on the submarine's hull that they said could only have been caused by its scraping another large object, and they have reported detecting pieces from unknown foreign submarines on the ocean floor.
In a television interview a week ago, Marshal Sergeyev, the defense minister, said that Russian surface ships racing to rescue had detected a second vessel on the seabed near the Kursk and had found an unknown signal buoy like those used by submarines. Some Russian reports said the buoy's markers were green and white and did not match those of the Russian fleet. Mr. Sergeyev said the buoy had never been recovered.
American officials questioned the reports of a green and white buoy being found. They said rescue buoys on American and British submarines are orange, while emergency communication buoys are gray.
They also discounted the possibility that the second vessel the Russians claimed to have detected on the ocean floor could have been one of the two American submarines.
''They didn't go in that close to look at what happened,'' a senior intelligence official said.
But even after the explosion, the two submarines did not immediately leave the area, the officials said. They continued to gather intelligence, intercepting frantic, confused radio messages between the other Russian ships trying to determine what had happened to the Kursk and trying to coordinate a rescue effort, the officials said.
The officials and submarine experts said it was possible that some of the crew -- perhaps 15 men or more -- had survived the initial explosions if they had managed to shut the watertight doors to their compartments in the stern quickly.
The Russians said they had detected tapping sounds from within the Kursk at least two days after it had sunk, raising hopes that a rescue of some crewmen might be possible.
Some American officials said that neither the Loyal nor the American submarines had detected the sounds, though they might not have been able to do so if they had been too far away.
The officials said it also appeared likely that the force of the second explosion had torn the Kursk apart with the force of one to two tons of TNT. The Norwegian divers who reached the Kursk a week after the accident found the rear escape hatch deformed, suggesting that the force of the blast might have rocketed throughout the submarine's compartments.
One question is whether the American submarines could have done anything to help the rescue effort. The American officials said the American submarines had not carried the kind of rescue equipment, like a submersible vehicle, that could have helped.
While the Americans had a fair guess of what had happened to the Kursk early on, it was only after the Memphis unloaded its sonar tapes on Aug. 18 that officials in Washington began to offer the theory of the torpedo misfiring.
But how much the Pentagon will be prepared to say in public remains in question. The submarine fleet has been traditionally wrapped in silence, and even now, more than two weeks later, the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged the presence of two submarines in the Barents. Officials privately confirmed the role of the Memphis only when the vessel surfaced in Norway, and they still will not disclose the name of the other submarine. Nor have the Americans provided information on the submarines' exact whereabouts when the Kursk went down.
Given that secrecy, and the likelihood that the Russians will not fully share what they learn even if they recover the wreckage, it will be difficult to learn with any certainty what happened to the Kursk.
In 1968 an American submarine, the Scorpion, sank in the Atlantic near the Azores. Like the Kursk, it may have have been destroyed in an accident involving a torpedo misfiring. Other experts have argued that a faulty battery led to a fire and explosion. But to this day there is no public explanation of what happened.

ADMIRAL POPOV, FORMER COMMANDER OF THE NORTHERN FLEET, HAS NEW APPOINTMENT
Kommersant, December 5, 2001, p. 2
Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, former Commander of the Northern Fleet, dismissed last Saturday by the president, has moved to the Nuclear Ministry. According to Kommersant, the admiral has been appointed chief of the department in charge of scrapping nuclear submarines. In other words, exactly he will be in charge of scrapping the Kursk submarine.
Vologda Governor Vyacheslav Pozgalev said: "The admiral is in rather optimistic spirits. He said he moves to Moscow where he has received a new apartment." Official representatives of the Nuclear Ministry do not know anything about the admiral's appointment. However, Kommersant's sources said on condition of anonymity that the admiral will control the department for scrapping nuclear submarines.
The admiral has been appointed to a very important post - his department will have to scrap over 150 nuclear submarines. Admiral Popov's new job will be linked with his previous responsibilities because the functions of scrapping nuclear submarines were passed over to the Nuclear Ministry from the Defense Ministry in 1998. Currently, the Navy has to pass over technical bases of the Northern and Pacific Fleets to the Nuclear Ministry's enterprises. The military do not want to part with their property because the maintenance of the bases is funded from the state budget. Admiral Popov will have to settle relations with his former subordinates.

The Incident at Pristina Airport - The First Occasion when Vladimir Putin Prevented World War III

"We must find a way to help Kennedy - somehow..."

- Nikita Kruschev, 
Supreme Soviet, October 1962

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," Jackson told Clark
Behind the scenes battle over Pristina airport between British and US generals comes to light

Monday 2 August 1999 15.11 BST


Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.

Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

The move is widely seen as a rebuke for the man who led Nato to victory, but who clashed repeatedly with his superiors because he favoured more aggressive tactics. General Clark, for example, pressed for the use of Apache attack helicopters, but his wish was denied amid fears of American casualties.

Trouble flared between the two men as soon as General Jackson was appointed commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia's role had broken down and the American general was so anxious to stop Moscow from stealing a march on the allies, he ordered British and French troops to take the airport.

General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it.

The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson's judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.

In Kosovo itself, the province took a step towards normality when post office workers and university professors returned to their jobs in the capital Pristina.

Bernard Kouchner, who heads the UN mission in Kosovo, accompanied hundreds of ethnic Albanian workers back to their jobs at the main headquarters building in Pristina.

"This is an important day in the rebuilding of Kosovo," Mr Kouchner told the workers. "It is a very important day because the workers are going back to their work."

But ethnic tension remains high. A bombing yesterday of an Orthodox church in the heart of Kosovo's capital underscored Serb fears that Nato is unable to protect them from vengeful Albanians. The bombing "was not a surprise because for the last few days we have been telling every day the K-For officers that this is going to be the next target," said Father Sava Janjic, a prominent Serbian Orthodox priest in Kosovo.

In Serbia, opponents of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic said they would hold a major rally in the capital on August 19 calling for a transition government to lead the country to democracy.


Cologne, Germany - June 20, 1999 - G8 Summit, Day 2.

The Yeltsin Group face off against Clinton and core members of his Rogue Cabinet.

President Clinton (DeMolay Society, Rhodes Scholar. CFR, Bilderberg) Secretary Albright (Israeli Mossad, Trilateral Cm., Bilderberg, CFR)  and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (CFR, Trilateral Cm., Quill & Dagger, McGovern '72) meet with Russian President Boris Yeltsin (Heritage Foundation) and members of his delegation at Cologne’s Renaissance Hotel

Suddenly, Yeltsin reached below his desk and produced a yellowing loose leaf file of papers.

"A gift, for my old friend, Bill!"

Clinton's eyes widened like saucers -  

"Oh, I can use this...!"






President Yeltsin decorates Moscow Mayor Vladamir Putin for Services to Mother Russia.


NEWLY RELEASED Soviet files may shed light on one of America's most enduring mysteries, the assassination in 1963 of President John F Kennedy. The documents concern Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot the President in Dallas. Many Americans still suspect Oswald was part of an elaborate conspiracy.

The former US marine lived briefly in the Soviet Union, leading to speculation that he was a Soviet agent - and counter-speculation that he was a convenient patsy for American right-wingers. The files - assembled at the request of the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin - were handed to the US at the weekend during the G8 summit.

They are unlikely to prompt any great revelations. "The Russians opened their files to Norman Mailer and Lawrence Schiller years ago, resulting in Mailer's Oswald biography," said John Locke, an independent researcher on the assasination. "Some details may emerge, but they won't be central." Large parts of the KGB files were revealed in Izvestia several years ago. But they will provide new information on one of the strangest eras in Oswald's life.

Oswald was a source of great fascination for the KGB, which concluded he could not possibly have been the only assassin: he must have been part of a larger conspiracy. But the Izvestia reporter, Sergei Mostovshchikov, said this was partly professional jealousy. They could not understand how a man under their noses for so long and disregarded, had emerged as such a significant figure.

Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union in October 1959, having flown from London to Helsinki. He claimed political asylum and when the authorities tried to throw him out, he slashed his wrists. They let him stay.

He was under heavy surveillance while he lived in Minsk, now the capital of Belarus, because the KGB believed he worked for the other side. They were extremely interested when he bought a rifle in August 1960 and joined a hunting club because they suspected he would use this as an excuse to visit secret facilities while out on "hunting" trips. In fact he sold the rifle shortly afterwards and was a poor marksman.

He had a job as a low-level worker at a radio factory, and in March 1961 he met 19-year-old Marina Prusakova at a dance. They married and had a child.

The KGB was increasingly suspicious that Oswald missed "numerous union meetings and cultural events", and doubted his political commitment.

When he finally returned to America in 1962, disillusioned by his experiences, he said to a neighbour: "You go on building your communism by yourselves. You can't even smile like human beings here."

The authorities decided that he was of no interest as adversary or ally.

Oswald came to the attention of the KGB again when he visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, wishing to return to the Soviet Union. He was fed up with being followed and harassed by the FBI, he said. The KGB brushed him off. The next time they heard of the former employee of Department 25 at the Gorizont radio factory was 22 November 1963, the day that Kennedy died.

Izvestia and Mr Mailer say the Oswald files contained no big new secrets. After Belarus became a separate state, the files caused a wrangle with Russia. Now it is up to the US what is released. Whatever is made public, addicts of conspiracy theories will continue to believe still more has been hidden.




Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.


Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.
"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.
News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
The move is widely seen as a rebuke for the man who led Nato to victory, but who clashed repeatedly with his superiors because he favoured more aggressive tactics. General Clark, for example, pressed for the use of Apache attack helicopters, but his wish was denied amid fears of American casualties.
Trouble flared between the two men as soon as General Jackson was appointed commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia's role had broken down and the American general was so anxious to stop Moscow from stealing a march on the allies, he ordered British and French troops to take the airport.
General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it.
The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson's judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.
In Kosovo itself, the province took a step towards normality when post office workers and university professors returned to their jobs in the capital Pristina.
Bernard Kouchner, who heads the UN mission in Kosovo, accompanied hundreds of ethnic Albanian workers back to their jobs at the main headquarters building in Pristina.
"This is an important day in the rebuilding of Kosovo," Mr Kouchner told the workers. "It is a very important day because the workers are going back to their work."
But ethnic tension remains high. A bombing yesterday of an Orthodox church in the heart of Kosovo's capital underscored Serb fears that Nato is unable to protect them from vengeful Albanians. The bombing "was not a surprise because for the last few days we have been telling every day the K-For officers that this is going to be the next target," said Father Sava Janjic, a prominent Serbian Orthodox priest in Kosovo.
In Serbia, opponents of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic said they would hold a major rally in the capital on August 19 calling for a transition government to lead the country to democracy.

Moffat Accredits the Memes: Appendix 1 - Like, Totally Metal, dude...

Okay, just to deal with this separately, quickly - is he doing that on purpose...?

Almost certainly not, but you have to wonder why it seems to keep happening, because it  keeps randomly emerging from screen-grabs I have taken so far from episodes 1 & 2.

Must still be a Malcolm Tucker thing...




It's probably worth noting, and getting on the record and out of the way early on, that (contrary to popular misinformation), the "Devil Sign", Metal Horns, Hook 'em Horns or Corna gesture is, and always has been, and still is (in Europe, at any rate) a tranditional, folk protective warding gesture intended to repel or deflect evil, bad luck, curses or malevolent entities, especially in Italy, which may go some way toward explaining the seeming massive prevelemce of photographs of various Popes and senior cardinals, not to mention various Heads of State throwing up the horns for the camera - the Roman Church may be right or wrong on many points, but one thing that they do constantly emphasise is indeed undeniably true, that the Church is indeed surrounded on all sides by enemies, determined to harm it and bring about it's downfall, and those persons seek confirmation of their own sincere belief that the Vatican / the Pope himself is the Antichrist Power, by any and all means, and they don't care about the truth (and traditional semi-pagan folklore even less so).

Paris Jackson : Righteously Deserving of All the Extra Protection Available.

(And also a slightly longer pair of shorts - woman, seriously... In public, no less...?)

In the Rock and Heavy Metal community indeed, the gesture was first popularised onstage by Ronnie James Dio, who explained that he had always known of the gesture and it's purpose from his elderly grandmother in Italy, who explained to him that it was intended to ward off and deflect the Evil Eye (meaning, minor malicious curses or satires placed upon oneself by others, with or without having knowledge of who might do or have done so.


Saturday, 30 August 2014

Moffat Accredits the Memes: Part II - Dalek Counterinsurgency Warfare

"…it means… I don’t know. It means, basically, that some movies are clearly being made by Invisibles and they contain messages for other Invisibles. Invisibles talking to each other in ther own secret language… the movies are signals, they let us know that others are out there…”

"Counterinsurgency was stylish, and exciting - and it suited JFK's needs perfectly."

- PBS' Explanation for the Vietnam War.




"This was the metastasis of the cancer, the shift of the Venetian Party from the Adriatic to the banks of the Thames, and this has been the main project of the world oligarchy during the past five centuries. 

The Venetian Party, wherever it is, believes in epistemological warfare. 

The Venetian Party knows that ideas are more powerful weapons than guns, fleets, and bombs. In order to secure acceptance for their imperial ideas, the Venetian Party seeks to control the way people think. If you can control the way people think, say the Venetians, you can control the way they respond to events, no matter what those events may be.

Since the days of Aristotle, they have attempted to suffocate scientific discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion. 

We can identify the Venetian faction which has been responsible for the most important of these scientific and epistemological frauds. They can be called the “dead souls” faction, or perhaps the “no-soul brothers” of Venetian intelligence. 

This is because their factional pedigree is based on the belief that human beings have no soul. 

Their factional creed is the idea that human beings have no creative mental powers, are incapable of forming hypotheses, and cannot make scientific discoveries."

How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
ICLC Conference, September, 1994

"Why did you have to be a solider?"

First off, Moffat is one of the only people in British television to understand that in the past fifteen years, beyond the vast, traumatic break in national consciousness that proceeds from it as an inevitable consequence, we have become a nation of traumatised, over-medicated War Criminals, survivors and perpetrators of atrocities on a mass scale, for no good or morally consciable reason.

We, who stand for nothing, and believe in less; we are The Daleks.

And these people come home and then get released straight back into society - as teachers.

Nurses, lawyers. Glamour models.

Policemen.

Myths.

And most of the rest of us have absolutely no comprehension of that, or what it means... Either at the personal, or at the societal level.


This is a STRATEGY OF TENSION.


Membership of the (Jewish Defense League (JDL)-sponsored English Defence League) increased FOURFOLD in the fortnight following the Woolwich Incident, during the push to war in Syria.

Was it not ever thus...?


Lethbridge-Stewart is Dead.


" Atta in particular had mastered the fine art of getting himself noticed and remembered when he wanted to. 

One witness spoke of Atta as a menacing presence: "He just stood back and glared at you with his dark eyes. It gave me a frightening feeling you wouldn't want to be caught in the parking lot at night with him." 

Another specialty was a nasty shout of "You do not speak to me unless I speak to you first" for anyone who approached him. "

His bit, the thing he does with the pizza box and the paper carrier bag - that's pure genius.

Watch the footage, you'll see what I mean.


In keeping with Moffat's limited enthusiasm for Dalek episodes, and as a further departure to normalise their continuing existence in-continuity, following RTD's elevation of the Dalek Saga to "Permanent, Rolling Ragnarok" status, Into the Dalek presents an altogether different and much more relatable depiction of Dalek War than we have yet seen come close to being brought to screen anywhere esince.... Probably around about 1974, thinking offhand.

"Dalek War" is a meme that gets bandied around, especially in spin-off or supplementary media, but rarely one that gets addressed head-on as the primary focus of a TV episode, and with good reason, although RTD took at least three or four solid cracks at it. The problem is, when confronted by an unfeasibly vast horde of attacking Daleks, quite literally to only thing you can do subsequently to progress forward dramatically and escalate the stakes is to add still yet even more more Daleks (or, in a variation, a single, much LARGER Dalek Emperor), until by Stolen Earth, you have a situation where the dramatic demamds of the audience's expectations can only be met and surpassed by conjouring up an entire starsystem populated by them (every last one of them, so we are told, grown and mutated from flesh Davros pulled from his side and fashioned from his own left rib) - which then all have to be destroyed again at the end, because the plot says so.

In the midst of all this, though it was ultimately a failure, the Daleks Take Manhattan interlude was a brave and well-conceived effort (by a writer other than RTD) to tell a genuinely interesting and different Dalek story, by showing just how truly depraved, desperate and self-destructive they can can get so very quickly when placed in extremis. And though it was ultimately a failure, it never fully properly came together for reasons entirely beyond its own control as a mid-season two-parter; had much more been made from the very start of the Dalek's all-encompassing obsession with preserving the absolute perfection of their own racial purity, both in terms of their perverted mutant genome, their cybernetic technology, and moreover, their actual own doctrine of Dalek thought, it would have made their utter willingness to abandon each and every aspect of those core fundamental principles just to survive and conquer, and exact vengence without mercy all the more horrifying.

The idea of the Daleks themselves creating a Human-Dalek hybrid, for the sole purpose of expanding the realm of possible survival strategies beyond the narrow limits conceptual of their own thought, then deciding that the solution he offers them, which they are incapable of contemplating on their own, is itself unacceptable in terms of Dalek survival, and that they would instead much rather have a race of zombie Dalek-human drones that could ensure the survival of Dalek THOUGHT and Dalek "ethics", whilst consciously sacrificing what were then the last few pounds of original, mutated Kaled flesh from long-lost, vanished and destroyed Skaro is at once galling and astonishing, but at the same time, entirely in character for them - they care of nothing else but preserving their own culture and their own genome, and wiping out totally absolutely everything else in the universe.

But again - during the RTD era, that was a rare break in the Constant Rolling Dalek Ragnarok cycle interspersed with deus ex machina routine under Russell - more choir, Murray, and Louder - we're onto Series Four now, for goodness sake... Give it some cowbell, even, if you have to.

Moffat's primary gripe regarding Dalek stories is essentially the same, and he's right - how do you make them interesting, tell an original story and stay out of falling into the Dalek War trap?

As others have noted, it's telling and revealing that straight away, Moffat had Mark Gattis impose the infamous Make a Toy of Me "New Paradigm" Power Rangers Daleks, only to then almost immediately completely disappear them, quickly reverting back to the iconic and by-now quite beloved copper/brass finished Drone type Daleks in nearly all instances, with little desire shown for a contiguous or ongoing narrative between appearances - consequently, Asylum of the Daleks was one of the most rewarding and original Dalek tales in years (perhaps since Rememberence), even if the first five minutes are incredibly silly and redundant, and the BRILLIANT last five minutes were completely thrown away as part of the utter train-wreck that coalesced and came to a head eventually on the fields of Trenzalore. Fortunately, it seems those rules and that status quo may actually be back, but more on that later. As an introduction, this begins to rival War and Peace. Or Love and War. 

Oh, well now, where was I...? Oh yes, the Prologue:


"Although, it was quite amusing to see the longest queue for Starbucks IN THE WORLD, in that churchyard, amongst the tents, in midst of the protest against Capitalism..." - Dingbat Former Conservative MP Lousie Mensch


'You don't need to return to a barter system of Stone Age ecconomy to complain about the cuts and the financial crisis...' - Hislop


'If you buy coffee, have a tent and use an iPhone your opinion is worthless...!?'Merton.


You also shouldn't let the fact you only were meant to be doing the coffee run deter you from intervening in a low-intensity, deeply entrenched frontier conflict on the edge of Earth Space in the far future to spontaneously save the life of a single, sobbing colonial marine just as her scout-ship begins to disintegrate

But only JUST the one - Moffat clearly enjoys the delicious ambiguities he heaps upon this impromptu errand of mercy.

In particular, it's actually very difficult and a tribute to both the subtlety and skill of the writing and Capaldi's performance that you really don't quite know what they are going for here, or what direction it might be leading us in; whatever the truth if the matter may indeed be, the answers, as they begin to come, will prove instructive as to the true solution to the riddle of the Missy enigma - but more on this at the appropriate time.

For now, as shot, as assembled and as performed, this deep-space rescue from the first raises far more questions than it answers.

Firstly, at the most superficial level The Doctor's actions and manner reflect that instinctive desire that all actors in the part and all producers inevitably gravitate towards like Magnetic North, when establishing the character of a newly regenerated Doctor - let's make him unpredictable, devoid of what we would recognise as any mortal concept of personal feeling or compassion, wild, often rude, acid-tongued and bad-tempered... Even downright unlikeable, much of the time.

We might call this the Saward Dramatic Homing Instinct - and, as anyone who ever has sat down and watched Caves of Androzani followed by The Twin Dilemna back to back, for those who might attempt such a bold dramatic statement, you really are playing with fire, unless you know exactly what you are doing, where it is you are ultimately headed and all points to be navigated in between necessary to allow you to get there.

As Colin Baker, and all revivalist fans and supporter of Ole' Sixy will attest, off-kilter, lop-sidedly scheduled attempts at such a take, either done to excess or served up as cautious half-measures in piecemeal fashion can all-to-easily place both the actor's portrayal and the show itself, orbiting as it does around the leading man's characterisation as the show's central axis straight away into one humongous mother of a self-dug hole, straight out of the gate.

Back in the day, all of this began (as so many other awful, awful things did in that era of Doctor Who, and increasingly so, almost exponentially so for a while, subsequent to this one in particular) as just one more example of John Nathan-Turner's disasterously ill-conceived "Super little ideas" that in essence added up to just a string of every-more outlandish and more often than not, unashamedly tacky publicity stunts designed to generate maximum column inches in whatever rag he could persuade to publicise that week's given gimmick.

This, even though Peter Davison, who had been advised by Pat Troughton "only do three years", and had been contracted to do three years and three whole series as the Doctor (with the Five Doctors being a special case) did indeed find himself asked if he wouldn't mind actually just doing very slightly just LESS than three whole years in the part, waiving his expected final four episodes of the series in favour of giving the next chap the chance to hit the ground running the following year, by beginning his first year with The new Doctor's on-screen persona already established and familiar in the minds of the audience in such a way that next year, his new Doctor would really hit the ground running, and the writers, Directors and other creative personal would go into the planning and pre-production phase already with a clear basic sense of the new Doctor's character and what he was about to use as a starting point going forward around which to tailor their own story ideas and characterisations from that initial template.

And the Grimding Engines of the Universe, obviously.

Thus, fatefully, the bulk of the Sixth Doctor's erstwhile on-screen legacy is rightly remembered, quite accurately, as being the era most closely associated with people standing about in the TARDIS console room, having an arguement. 

And not even arguing properly, just mutual irritation and snippiness, and endless bad-tempered non-sequiturs.

Lt. Hugo Lang of the Undercover Division.

Whilst wearing some really quite indescribably awful clothes - because that's exactly what Twin Dilemna was like throughout all four of its episodes, and from that writers took their brief to produce scripts on the presumption: "Here, now there - look at that. This is just the kind of thing we fully intend to do more  of, just almost exactly like that."

Never Got There.


Likely still in his first 48 hrs following "The Whopper" 
- 5 mins later, still not knowing who he is, he runs out to pick up coffee.

"Am I a good man..?" He really has no idea yet.

So far, we could go with rude and not ginger (again).

"No - not that way."


The essential problem with Dalek War, and by extension Daleks themselves is that there is absolutely no variation, no adaptation to situation or circumstance, and of course, no mercy.

Daleks arrive, they attack in huge numbers with overwhelming force, and they absolutely do not so much as pause for lunch until you and everyone you have ever loved, everyone you know or have ever met is annihilated. 

The end.


Real wars are nothing like Dalek War.


Real wars never end.


Time Wars even more so.

"Am I a Good Man, Clara..?"

We already know that that's somebody else.

PTSD must be a real humdinger when you live forever because you killed everyone else.

How are you supposed to get any therapy..?

Of course, we know that the (Non-Time Lord) soldiers of Gallifrey just have all their traumatic combat memories deleted by their implants - there is of course (naturally) a real-world name for this procedure, as it relates to programmable assassins:

RADIO-HYPNOTIC INTRACEREBRAL PROGRAMING (RHICP)

And

ELECTRONIC DISSOLUTION OF MEMORY (EDOM).

And so the question remains... Why didn't he save Jenni Blue's brother when it's obvious that he so easily could have - he had a whole second to work with...!

And why does he seem to be systematically and purposefully sending people to Heaven...? 

Or "Heaven".

The most likely reason is due in some sense to the fact that that's where Gallifrey probably is:


They seem to like drinking Tea and cakes in Heaven.

"Hello! My name is Missikobongibunga! Would you care for a scone?"

We are told that The Void is "Hell".

This is something else - more though, it seems, much like Limbo than Heaven...