Tuesday, May 27, 2014


billmon linked to this interview in which I found this claim:
VP: That’s what they call “Mutually Assured Destruction” in America, when the destruction of each side is secured, and precisely this held both sides back-
AD: Absolutely, both us and them. But until a certain point, until there began in the 90s an imbalance, a substantial imbalance in their favour-
VP: A nuclear one?
AD: In armaments…they attained a very serious superiority over us, and in the 90s this asymmetry gave rise to the impression that Russia in one, two, ten years will fall so far behind the West that it will not be able to guarantee mutual destruction-
VP: That the West might not be able to restrain itself.
AD: And then, of course, the West no longer has a restraining power factor. We become undefended, and the entire 90s were a test of this weakness, because after the fall of the Soviet Union Chechnya began, where the separatists were supported by the West, then the battle for the post-Soviet space, but as became clear over the last fourteen years – or maybe this began a little earlier or a little later – we are ready to announce a geopolitical zone of responsibility; we are not attacking the US, we cannot advance our bases-
I know we supported Islamic militants in Afghanistan so this claim isn't out of bounds.


Ken Hoop said...

Kristol and the neocons openly approved of it, desiring a "tradeoff" wherein pressure would be taken off Israel and, as currently, a Great Russian anti- Zionist axis stymied. Thus Israel wants Assad, Hezbollah and Iran battered, Russia because in alliance with them and because of historic Russian "anti-semitism" defined as any form of Chriatian culture which defended itself against Talmudic anti Christianism.

Ken Hoop said...


Meanwhile Obama goes on his warmongering, lying, promise-breaking, drone bombing way.

amspirnational said...

THE former WLW program director
who sent Mike McConnell to Baghdad
to repeat the distortions of the government and military leadership
about the progress and justice of the Iraq War is lamenting the
state of talk radio.
Von Balkovsky sets him straight.



Hans von Balkovsky

May 27, 2014 at 5:22 pm

Since you mention Iraq, and had previously commented re talk radio:

“Gabe Hobbs, the talented radio consultant and friend, recently said the only formats left on AM radio are religion, sports and conservative talk. He’s saying a lack of variety and innovation is killing AM radio and I’ll add killing talk radio, just as a lack of innovation is killing Red Lobster.”

One of the keynotes, tipoffs in the proper?… demise of talk radio occured when Clear Channel programmers encouraged “conservative” talk jocks usage as mere government propagandists, repeating the distortions of the government and military leaders from Iraq about the nature, progress and assumed justice of the Iraq War.

Big media “conservative” talk radio showed then, it, at least had clearly outlived its ethical usefulness, whatever the capitalist value of the publicity stunt. If talk radio can propagandize for the government about matters of mass loss of life and limb, US troops and Iraqi innocents….it has outlived its value.

A radio parallel, had it been in existence then, would have had the Vietnam War’s version of Mike McConnell
and the grouping of his other CC fellows from other American cities sent to Saigon to repeat without question the lies of the government & Col. Westmoreland about the progress and the justice of the Vietnam War from Saigon as they did from Iraq’s capital.

Freedom and “our way of life” was not at stake in either place.Saddam had no WMDS (as Pat Buchanan and Scott Ritter had already proven before the war) and the Domino Theory, wherein if we didn’t fight em in Vietnam we’d be fighting them in Los Angeles didn’t happen.

And the post war public apology of Bll Cunningham doesn’t qualify as an “innovation” which re-establishes
talk radio’s worth. As we see here, the Iraq War is still being justified as a war for “freedom.”