Hybrid War for Dummies

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA

https://gianalytics.org/986-hybrid-war-for-dummies

“Hybrid war” is an expression that is much used of late. It has two opposing meanings which must carefully be distinguished.

The first is the way the term is commonly used; that use is imaginary;

the second is the way it is not used; that use is factual.

To take the first use: “hybrid war”, they tell us, is what Russia is doing and NATO has to create a response. And here’s a whole paper about it. (Although I must confess I can’t figure out whether the author thinks that asserting that Russia is cunningly practising “hybrid warfare” is true or or whether he thinks saying so is just plain nonsense.) In the paper we find this:

In sum, Russian hybrid warfare as widely understood in the West represents a method of operating that relies on proxies and surrogates to prevent attribution and intent, and to maximize confusion and uncertainty.

The author also tells us it is sometimes called the “Gerasimov doctrine” after an article written in 2013 by the Chief of the Russian General Staff.

According to Gerasimov, the lessons of the Arab Spring are that if the ‘rules of war’ have changed, the consequences have not – the results of the ‘colored revolutions’ are that a ‘thriving state can, in a matter of months and even days, be transformed into an arena of fierce armed conflict, become a victim of foreign intervention and sink into a web of chaos, humanitarian catastrophe and civil war.’

In short, the theoretical foundation of this supposedly amazing, tricky, sinister and almost invisible Russian way of waging war originates in a paper written about Western-inspired “colour revolutions”. But I’ll return to that point later.

We started to hear a lot about “hybrid war” after the referendum in Crimea. And still more after the fighting started in eastern Ukraine. And this is where we see the term used in an imaginary sense. “Russia invaded Crimea“. Well, it didn’t: it already had 20-25 thousand troops in Crimea (by treaty – the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been based at Sevastopol since before the US Constitution was drafted) and those were the troops used. What were they used for? To make sure that a referendum was peaceful. Which it was and the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants voted to re-join Russia. No evidence of invasion? all the more proof that it’s… “hybrid war“!

Then Russia “invaded” Ukraine. Again, no serious evidence was presented – I covered the laughable “evidence” that NATO was handing out at the time and there is no need to go over it again: blurry satellite photos of something or other, “social media and common sense”, reporters who saw but – !! – forgot the means to record it. But, the lack of evidence makes us all the more certain that it must have been… “hybrid war”!

Then they read comments on their flacks’ articles that show their audience doesn’t believe it any more. Trust in the MSM continues to drop. RT appears on TV screens and attracts an audience. People catching on to the lying? No way, it must be… “hybrid war”!

Disagreement… “hybrid war”! Vote against it… “hybrid war”! Doubt it… “hybrid war”! Criticise it… “hybrid war”! Question it… “hybrid war”!

So, if you want to assert something, but you don’t have any evidence, call it “hybrid war”! If somebody catches you in a whopper, it must be “hybrid war”! No US Navy base in Sevastopol, it must be “hybrid war“!

“Hybrid” is used here in the sense of “invisible”.

And you hope that no one noticed that when Moscow actually did intervene with military force – as in Syria – reporters remembered their cameras, satellite photos became so sharp you could almost read the serial numbers and there was evidence of Russian military activity all over the place. Nothing “hybrid” about that.

So, that is the term “hybrid war” in its common, but imaginary, sense.

We now turn to the rarely used, but non-imaginary sense of the term. Remember that Gerasimov wrote his piece while discussing “colour revolutions”. A colour revolution is the nickname given to a regime change operation. As, for example, the Rose Revolution in Georgia that overthrew Shevardnadze and brought in Saakashvili. Or the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that overthrew Yanukovych (the first time) and brought in Yushchenko. Or the Libyan Arab Spring that killed Qaddafia and blew up the country. Or the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan that everyone has forgotten. Or the abortive White Ribbon Revolution in Russia. Or the abortive Umbrella (a colour is a giveaway these days, but there has to be a catchy slogan) Revolution in Hong Kong. Now that’s real “hybrid war”. And, as we have seen in course of the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine, sometimes it becomes a real shooting war, with real dead bodies and entrails. Used to be that to get rid of a ruler you didn’t like, you invaded and eventually fished him out of a hidey hole and hanged him. Now, you invest the money ($5 billion in Ukraine we are told) to organise protests against corruption and overthrow him. But, different methods in different places: sometimes the one thing, sometimes the other; but it’s all war, and it’s all “hybrid”.

It’s “hybrid” because it uses many methods to bring about the desired regime change: propaganda, manipulation, protest and, occasionally, a little judicious bombing. So how ironic – how “hybrid”, in fact – that Gerasimov’s so-called textbook of Russian “hybrid war” should actually be written about the real “hybrid war” that Washington practises. A neat illustration that the common use of the term “hybrid war” is imaginary and that the hidden use is real.

For any objective observer, the evidence of who actually practises “hybrid war” is all around. Look at what we have learned just in the last month or so. The Guardian informs us that “The British government is waging information warfare in Syria by funding media operations for some rebel fighting groups…“. In the USA “15 years ago, there were two PR people for every reporter in the country. Now there are 4.8 PR people for every reporter.” “One of President Obama’s top national security advisers led journalists to believe a misleading timeline of U.S. negotiations with Iran over a nuclear agreement and relied on inexperienced reporters to create an ‘echo chamber’…”. Even respected organisations like MSF are suspect: “It seems that current MSF actions and statements on Syria are biased and effectively serving the coalition of governments waging war on Syria in violation of international law.” The US funds “White Helmets” – an allegedly independent neutral organisation in Syria – but won’t allow its leader into the USA. “Millions of pounds of British humanitarian aid sent to Syria may have fallen into the hands of jihadists, it has been claimed“. “The problems of the Middle East and North Africa are being compounded by a lack of ‘Western involvement,’ former Tory Foreign Secretary William Hague has claimed.” “Referenda are becoming a huge problem for the EU. The latest result in the Netherlands on the Association Agreement with Ukraine is probably the worst possible outcome.” “Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, you have been manipulated, war was staged – Former CIA officer.” “And as life has shown during these two years, Ukraine today is not a successful project. That is, America has not coped with this task.“

A recent sample; and none of it from Russia or from any Putin “hybrid war” troll. What have we learned? Let us translate:

  1. Most of what you hear about Syria actually comes from London;

  2. Most reporters these days are full time PR flacks;

  3. Your government manipulates what you think you know;

  4. NGOs – well forget the NG part, only the O part is true;

  5. Different “NG”O, same story;

  6. Either we’re not as smart as we told you we were or we always intended to give the so-called enemy all that stuff. You’ll never know;

  7. More wars and more wars after that; eventually we’ll get to the Last War of All;

  8. Democracy is for losers; which is what Dutch voters are;

  9. Manipulation, ditto;

  10. Oops! Ukraine is a disaster, but the next intervention is guaranteed to be a winner. Trust us.

Definitely warfare – if you’re in Syria, Iran, Middle East, North Africa, Netherlands, former Yugoslavia, Ukraine. Warfare and pretty “hybrid” too. “Hybrid” here means sometimes bombs, sometimes “democracy promotion”, but always lies and manipulation.

By the way, this sort of thing began some time ago – “It’s recently [ February 2011] been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion.”

Which makes it all the more “hybrid” to assert that Gerasimov dreamed it all up three years ago.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 19 MAY 2016

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

RUSSIA’S “CREDIT CRUNCH”. Remember “Russia faces ‘perfect storm’ as reserves vanish and derivatives flash default warnings” in January 2015? Mercouris explains why it didn’t: he and Jon Hellevig read reality better than the conventional pundits. Actually, Russia has quietly got rid of 30% of its external debt in two years. One more example of the perpetual underestimation of Russia’s strength, creativity and determination. A dangerous and provocative policy is being driven by people who know nothing, think they know everything and live in an echo chamber; they believe it’s safe to threaten Russia because they listen to each other telling each other that Russia is feeble. No, sanctions haven’t changed Moscow’s behaviour and have done more harm to the West; no, the Russian military is not a rusty hulk; no, there’s no opposition ready lead a people rising up against the hated “Putin regime”; no, Russia is not “isolated”. No, no, no: Russia is united, strong and well-managed. But put the headphones back on.

DOPING AT SOCHI. “Russia invades“… “probably murdered“… “Russia fails in Syria“… “Putin billions Panama“… Prove it I say; the WMSM has no credibility any more.

CRIMEAN TATARS. Actually, as Karlin shows, they are happy enough to be in Russian Crimea. I wonder how many of the Westerners suddenly so concerned about them (having never heard of them before) think they are the autochthonous inhabitants? Crimea itself is doing all right.

POWER. Last November “unknown” people (Right Sektor and Tatar activists – they took photos) blew up the power supply from Ukraine to Crimea. Full power has now been restored from Russia. So, water, power and food blockades have been successfully circumvented. All that remains is completion of the bridge; December 2018 is the target.

HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE? Russian jets “threatening Estonian airspace… latest show of aggression…” And further down the page you learn the Russian aircraft were in international air space. OK that’s just the Sun, shrieking and stupid. How about this, then? “Britain’s defence secretary, Michael Fallon, described it [an earlier flight] as an ‘act of Russian aggression’“. Look at the map: to fly between Kaliningrad (Russia) and St Petersburg (Russia) involves flying pretty close to somebody. The audience is leaving; anti-Russian claptrap doesn’t pay the bills as The Guardian is discovering.

VICTORY DAY. Moscow parade video. The Immortal Regiment marches are spreading.

ADMIRED. These polls don’t mean much, but Putin’s No 6 position shows the propaganda isn’t working.

ABE VISIT. The first crack in G7 solidarity about Russia? Japan’s PM Abe Shinzo visited Putin in Sochi. Information about the meetings is slowly dribbling out. Possibly a new approach to the “northern territories” problem with Tokyo giving up territorial claims. Perhaps Tokyo wants to be an intermediary between Washington and Moscow. Maybe extensive cooperation proposals. Japan is hosting the next G7 meeting at the end of this month. It ought now to be apparent that Washington’s attack on Moscow, based as it was on arrogance, ignorance and wishful thinking has failed. We will see what develops.

PALMYRA CONCERT. Video. Western reaction pretty embarrassing: the rebarbative Philip Hammond set the style.

US MISSILE DEFENCE. The first installation – is it still supposed to protect from Iran? (apparently) – opened in Romania. Putin was right to laugh.

WHO KNEW? NATO’s not just a centre for “stability generation” but a centre for music criticism too. Do you think it knew who the winner was going to be before it happened?

THE WISDOM OF THE RETIRED. Former US Defense Secretary Hagel says the next US president should make it a priority to talk seriously with Putin: “I’d be very careful with this. Because the centrifugal force of this is so subtle it take you right down into the middle of a situation that you didn’t want to be in.” I hope some day to hear this sort of thing from people who are on the job: it’s as if they take your brain away when you’re working and only give it back as a retirement present. But, some don’t get it back – Russia’s invading Latvia next May. Why Latvia and why next May? Why not all three this weekend? And Ukraine by the end of the month? Note how nervous NATO membership has made some people – wasn’t it supposed to be an assurance of security? “We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.”

NEW NWO. A piece summarising Russia-China military cooperation. Like a stronger Iran and defeats all round, this is another unintended consequence of the neocon-led US policy.

Why Does the American Establishment Hate Russia So Much?

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA

https://gianalytics.org/869-why-does-the-american-establishment-hate-russia-so-much

JRL/2016/83/5

First of all, let me start by saying I don’t know why the American Establishment is so obsessed about Russia. I can’t think of any good reason why it should be. All Russia wants is a quiet life so that it can rebuild things – as Putin himself said, back before he was President:

The current dramatic economic and social situation in the country is the price, which we have to pay for the economy we inherited from the Soviet Union.

That was not said by someone whose principal purpose is to re-create the USSR or the Russian Empire; it’s someone who wants to re-construct the defective “economic and social situation” of his country. And that requires peace and quiet. In the real world, Russia isn’t any kind of threat whatsoever to the USA. And, one would think, when the “Terror threat looms across the world” it’s a useful and necessary ally.

I do know, and my quotations collection shows, that hostility to Russia never stopped – or even moderated – after the USSR collapsed. Even in 1990 there were people insisting that nothing was real was happening because Russia, in its very essence, was expansionist, dictatorial and hostile to “our values”. Any so-called changes were only illusions calculated to gull the simple-minded. The only possible Russia was an Enemy Russia: all Russians qua Russians – never mind the absence of the temporary Soviet carapace – imagined, thought about, dreamed of, was enmity to Us and to Our Values. Russophobes – not Russia-fearers really, but Russia-haters – had little audience as long as it seemed that Russia was sinking into insignificance. With the revival of Russia’s prospects this century the Russia-haters have come to dominate the discussion.

We hear that Russia is an “existential threat” to the USA. That charge, at least, is true: Russia’s nuclear weaponry could obliterate the USA and render it uninhabitable for decades or centuries. (At the same cost to itself, of course). But the UK, France or China could cause unacceptable damage, if not outright obliteration, too. But Washington doesn’t worry about the first two and is not obsessed about the third. And one would think that Russia’s nuclear might should have been a reason to treat it with circumspection. Apparently not.

To any objective viewer Russia is not the aggressor. Those who believe that “Putin wants a new Russian empire” should – but never do – explain why it missed the chance to put Georgia into the bag in 2008. Those who believe Russia has invaded Ukraine, never explain why why the invader still hasn’t managed to get past the Donetsk Airport. A strange reluctance to take the full mouthful: a reluctance that cries out for an explanation. But no explanation is ever presented: in their vision Russia is forever reaching but never grasping, powerful but impotent, determined but indecisive.

It’s not Russia that expanded its military alliance up to the “doorstep” of the USA. It’s not Russia that has fomented, or tried to foment, “colour revolutions” in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, Guatemala or the USA itself. Russian military bases do not surround the USA. Its media is not full of stories about Obama’s mistresses, offshore accounts, “information war“, “hybrid war“, troll factories, thuggish propensities, hatred of homosexuals, determination to conquer neighbours, bare chested macho posing, persecution of rock groups, murder of opponents.

So, why this bizarre fixation with Russia? As I said, I don’t know: there remains something deeply irrational about it; something buried deep in the dark that can’t quite be seen.

But, forthwith, I put forth a list of possible reasons.

  1. American lefties dislike Russia because it rejected socialism; indeed the Soviet experience stands as an indictment against the whole scheme.

  2. Righties dislike Russia because, communist or not (and how many think it still is?) it’s still Russia.

  3. Americans have to have a rival, an opponent, a counter, an enemy even. It’s geopolitical chiaroscuro: the City on The Hill must shine in the Darkness.

  4. Russia is the right size of opponent. To be obsessed with Venezuela (“national security threat” though it is declared) would be unworthy for such a “great” and “winning” country. China is too big and, because it owns so much of the US economy, too dangerous, to provoke. Russia is of sufficient size to be a worthy target.

  5. Russia is a safe target (or so Obama thought a year ago). US-Russia trade is small and there is little cost to being sanctimonious against Russia: bashing Russia gives a pleasing sense of moral superiority without uncomfortable consequences.

  6. Maybe Russia is an ungrateful child? In the 1990s there was much talk about US aid and advice reforming Russia, the “end of history” and all that. Russia was, evidently, on the edge of becoming “just like us”. But it didn’t and such back-sliding cannot be forgiven.

  7. Russia is a convenient palimpsest on which to write the presumptions you brought. Martin Malia wrote a fascinating book showing how Westerners from Voltaire onwards found Russia to be the perfect exemplar of whatever it was that they wished it to be. So, in Russia you can find whatever you’re looking for: a “geostrategic foe”, for example.

  8. Given that today “human rights” have been reduced to little more than applauding sexual preferences, (Watch this Ukrainian video on why the Dutch should have voted Yes, if you think I’m overstating things) Russia is so old-fashioned that all can hate it.

  9. They’re just trapped in it – they’ve been crying wolf so long and so loudly, they can’t stop.

  10. The people who actually run the USA (the White-House-and-Congress/the-Deep-State: your choice) know that the USA is losing the industrial production capacity that made it Number One. Their solution, so the theory goes (Pepe Escobar’s Empire of Chaos theory), is that the only way to keep the USA (relatively) on the top is to depress the others. Chaos and instability on its borders will bog Russia down. Europe can be bogged down by using the Russian threat – in this respect, the sanctions against and by Russia are hurting Europe more than anyone. At the end, the USA will still be king of the hill even if the hill is smaller.

  11. For some reason – it’s observable, even if it’s not explicable – Americans personalise everything. And, out there, visible everywhere, is Vladimir Vladimirovich. On Wednesday the Panama Papers are about him, on Thursday they are by him. Putin Derangement Syndrome sells papers and animates talk shows. Just in the month of April, for example, we have been told that Putin is going out with Murdoch’s ex-wife; we have seen both versions of the Panama Papers story; told that Dutch voters were thought-controlled by him, that he has a secret army in Europe and an army of “spy dolphins“. Putin Derangement Syndrome is getting crazier and crazier.

  12. We cannot forget sheer profitability. Billions spent on an F-35 fighter, a Littoral Combat Ship, unending tank production, trillion-dollar nuclear weapons program and billions and billions more cannot be substantiated by fighting a handful of “terrorists” equipped with small arms, road-side bombs and suicide vests. Without a serious enemy, justifying big contracts, how can generals hope to get a second high-paid job in retirement? The enormous US military sector needs a capable and convincing enemy. And, other than Russia (or China – remember the pivot to Asia?), what is there?

  13. There is the argument that NATO is one of the principal ways that Washington maintains its dominance over Europe and the EU. The easiest and simplest justification for NATO is a return to its earliest purpose, as Lord Ismay wittily put it, “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. The director of Stratfor has opined that the “primordial interest” of the USA has been preventing any sort of condominium between Germany and Russia. The Russia-the-eternal-enemy position provides both a justification for the continuation of NATO and a prophylactic against a Berlin-Moscow axis. It ensures a Europe that cannot stand on its own.

  14. Sheer laziness. The 24/7 news cycle needs material and it’s always easiest to stick with what you have. Because Russia filled some time yesterday, it should do so again today. There’s always someone available to tell you that Putin is corrupt, or Russia is about to invade some country, or Russia is about to collapse, or Russians are hungry or some other click-bait headline. Better than celebrities and their drug or marital problems because it gives that soupçon of gravity that makes the audience feel it’s not wasting its time. The steady diet has its effect and so Russia-the-eternal-enemy comes to be casually accepted.

  15. It’s clear that Putin’s team is serious and so many Western leaders are not. Also, and this cannot be denied, the team is successful. This minor country that makes nothing, where no one wants to live and which is dying is setting the course. Meanwhile, in the West…… This must infuriate the Western Establishment and that is a motive for the unceasing attempts to demean Putin & Co. It is “magical thinking“: if they repeat the charm loudly and often, maybe Russia will go away and no Western population will have to contemplate the possibility that national governments might actually do what they are paid to do.

  16. The state of mind in the Obama Administration is not made better by million-view YouTube videos comparing his work-out style with Putin’s. Nor pages of sneering cartoons contrasting a macho image with a feeb. Nor pages of “Putin beats Obama”. It has been some time since people gushed over Obama’s “glistening pecs“. It would also go some distance to explain outbursts like “White House criticizes Vladimir Putin’s posture” or flippant – and self-deceiving – dismissals like “regional power acting out of weakness” or “Russia is the outlier“.

  17. A subset of the above is the realisation that the Putin team has out-manoeuvred Washington at every step in the past few years. Washington was not able to overthrow Assad in Syria. The US Navy will not have a base in Sevastopol. Ukraine is a failing nightmare and its chances of joining NATO are probably lower than they were ten years ago. The sanctions regime against Russia has backfired. Russia survives low oil prices. The Moscow-Beijing axis is stronger than ever. Russia is not “isolated”. The Western Alliance is surely weaker than before. And this returns us to the “magical thinking” that we see manifested in Washington’s confused and contradictory utterances.

So abusing Russia satisfies many needs for the American Establishment: a safe opponent to swagger over; a contrast that can be painted as dark as you like; an object of feel-good moral righteousness; a sullen teenager who won’t listen to Daddy; a blank slate on which to write; a pretend enemy we can make a fortune out of; a useful bogeyman to frighten allies into obedience; gossip for pseudo-intellectuals. Many things at once.

But, the cost is rising.

What has changed is the conviction that Russia is a low-cost opponent. It’s very interesting to read things like this “If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly” and “I am very concerned about the increasing risk of loss of U.S. military technological superiority” from the US defence establishment. Perhaps it’s just an attempt to screw more money out of Congress but these are certainly not things that could have been said in 2000.

It’s amazing the effect that a few insignificant boats in the Caspian Sea had, isn’t it?

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 5 MAY 2016

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

CORRUPTION. Imagine an internationally respected survey showing equal levels of perceived corruption in Russia and the USA. The Ernst and Young 44th Global Fraud Survey finds 34% of Russians and 34% of Americans saying “Yes” to the question “that bribery/corrupt practices happen widely in business in their country” (a bit better than the world average of 39%). (Page 44). Especially interesting given Washington’s proclivity to use corruption accusations as foundations for regime change operations.

RUSSIA INC. We always hear that “Russia is declining“. Well, it isn’t. This from a member of Harvard’s Belfer Center, uses several different measurements to show Russia’s improvements since 2000; during this time most of its competitors have slipped. All pretty evident to commentators not living in Laputa. Speaking of which, some Russian sarcasm: “Backwards Russia under Putin’s Regime“.

NEW LAUNCH PAD. The Vostochniy Kosmodrome in the Amur region in Russia’s Far East just had its first launch. Video shows a brand-new blast deflector pit before it’s all burnt and dirty.

NATO. While a cynic might argue that NATO must return to the more profitable business of keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down because fighting “terrorists” equipped with road-side bombs cannot ensure the retirement emoluments of generals, NATO itself is more sententious: it “safeguard[s] the freedom and security of its members through political and military means“. But a study shows rather little enthusiasm for even the most basic of its original functions: over half the Germans, French and Italians polled don’t want to fight to defend Poland or the Baltics. The authors bemoan this reluctance to rush to the colours at a time, say they, when “the Russian military has begun a campaign of intimidation against its neighbors”. Of course, they cannot imagine the possibility that these citizens simply don’t believe what they are told about Russian “aggression” and all the rest of it. To my mind, all the clatter about “Putin trolls” and Russia’s “information war” – the part of it that is not simply distraction and projection, at least – comes from the realisation the Party Line is not selling very well. In the old days they jammed our broadcasts, we didn’t worry about theirs. I find the poll results rather encouraging.

LATEST FAKE ATROCITY. “MSF says deadly air strike hit Aleppo hospital“. But the Russian MoD has published satellite photos showing the same damage was there a year ago. It’s all lies, propaganda and manipulation. Every now and again, even the tame WMSM admits it. A BBC reporter has quit – she can’t stand it any more. Very fishy story indeed: Kuwaiti incubators all over again.

CRACKS IN THE CARAPACE. Every now and again one can hope. A piece in the Boston Globe argues that conflict with Russia is against the US’ interest. The author says Clinton’s decision to expand NATO – “America’s worst foreign policy choice [after the Iraq invasion] of the post-Cold War era” – “was made haphazardly… He never convened a top-level meeting…” Just as Kennan said – “light-hearted“. And “How NATO became one of the most destructive forces on the planet” in Salon. But these will soon be compensated for by a hundred pieces on Putin’s troll factories or other junk.

UKRAINE. While on the subject of “information warfare”, we learn that Hromadske TV, which describes itself as “a joint project of Ukrainian journalists… objective and unbiased information“, turns out to be almost entirely funded by foreign governments. Wake me when you next see a Western media outlet say “foreign government funded Hromadske TV reported…”. Not Der Spiegel, nor NYT, nor The Guardian. The word громадське means “open” or “public”.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The Baltic ports are apparently suffering quite badly – and it’s not as if their economies were all that exciting before – from loss of Russian business. The US has a stockpile of unconsumed dairy products because of cheap European imports. Russia has passed the USA as the world’s number one wheat exporter. Russian tourists to Turkey are a tenth of last year. I continue to maintain that the net effect of the sanctions are more damaging to the West than to Russia. The French parliament evidently agrees – it has voted to end them. Not that, in the EU, it will make any difference. Any more than the Dutch referendum – swiftly overruled in parliament – did. Another indication the Official Line isn’t selling well.

NEW NWO. China will invest money to construct a Moscow–Kazan High-Speed Rail Project. Moscow has expressed support for Beijing’s position on Korea and the South China Sea.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada