BLOG

US Russia Peace Process

US Russia Peace Process

Dr. Jones comments on relations between the US and Russia in recent times.

To view the video, click the button below

View Video on Youtube

Transcript

Okay, here we are.

As you see, we have a new format. We've got a green screen in the back which allows us to put most anything we like as a background, so that's what we've done. And so this is sort of an experiment to see exactly how to do it so that I know how to run the equipment and all.

And our first thing that I want to show you, as far as the news is concerned, is: "Fears grow over prospect of Trump 'peace deal' with Putin." Ooo - a peace deal? Oh, how scary! Really, really scary. "Britain fears that President Trump will undermine NATO by striking a peace deal with President Putin when the pair meet next month."

Really? They seem to be a little schizophrenic because everybody seems to want to do business with Russia, but they still want Russia to be an enemy. What is this? Trading with the enemy or something? This is crazy.

Oh well. Peace has never been so fearful in all of history. It all depends on your point of view, I guess, and what do you have to lose or gain by peace? The big industrial, military industrial, complex that Eisenhower warned us about in the late '50s when he left office.

They certainly object to peace - in fact, that was the whole reason for the Cold War for the last 50 years or more. The Cold War was specifically designed to sell more armaments, and of course, by the Hegelian dialectic, it was meant to have two enemies always at each other and have a balance of power, so that all you have to do is tweak one or the other and those who control both sides of the question - or both sides of the conflict - can control the narrative of the entire world.

So, 1989 and '90, and the early '90s, when the Soviet Union imploded and America found itself to be the so-called "sole superpower," there was a great panic. And we had to quickly make the new Russia our enemy as well. Otherwise, what would we ever do without enemies?

So, the so-called "Deep State," the people who control both sides of the question, which prophetically is called "Mystery Babylon," do not like peace, because they have always been about war.

And in the last how-many decades, they've usually worked through the Republican party - which I've often fondly called the "War Party" - and contrasted with the Democratic party, which I have also fondly called the "Whore Party."

Either "Wars" or "Whores," either way I guess all we need is a third one and make it the "Horse Party." But whatever.

Now that Trump has pretty much co-opted the Republican party, now we actually have him out to declare peace. How bad can that be? And suddenly, the controllers of both parties have had to rely more on the Democrats than the Republicans to continue this Cold War, and to make sure that we all understand that Russia is the enemy.

But why is Russia the enemy? Well, just because the news media tells you that it's the enemy, or just because a government official makes it their official policy to make Russia the enemy, doesn't really mean that Russia is the enemy.

So, it's kind of crazy. Would we not want some peace? What's the alternative - World War 3? So, it's very interesting that these people are afraid of a peace deal with Putin.

In fact, I will say this: since Trump has come into office, and even before, they were afraid something like this might happen, and so they've been accusing him of this so-called "Russian collusion" thing in order to prevent him from actually making a peace deal with Russia.

That has been the main issue here. It's not so much about impeaching the President, it's really that they want this conflict with Russia to continue - we have to maintain this idea that Russia is our enemy.

But 20 years ago, 18 years ago, Putin tried very hard to become part of Europe, integrate with Europe, and be our friends. And guess what? We kicked him out and said, "No, we don't want friends - we want enemies." And so, that's the way it is.

And so, that's the way it is. Putin is not our enemy - we are their enemy, if anything. And that's the way we've done things. It's the so-called Wolfowitz doctrine and the Brzezinski doctrine as well, which was established way back in the early '90s. It's kind of crazy, but -that's the way it works.

Well, let's see here, what else is in the news. Ah yes. Back in June, about a month ago, 13th of June actually, the Russian company - what's it called - "Concord management," which is a Russian company went to court unexpectedly. Robert Mueller, the special counsel, decided that he wanted to indict this company for doing, let me see, "The indictment accuses..."

Here, let me show it to you here. "Mueller Scrambles to Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court." This is from "Zero Hedge." It's a good site, by the way, if you want to get some good news.

But mostly they're quoting from the "Bloomberg" article, so it's not just "Zero Hedge." It says,

"Mueller asked a Washington federal judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for 'Concord management and Consulting LLC.' One of the three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda pretending to be US activists online, and posting political content on Social media in order to sew discord among American voters."

So, basically what he's saying is that this company is indicted for trying to affect, or to influence, the elections. Okay, well, they indicted them but Mueller never expected them to actually show up in court, because if they did then they have the right to demand the evidence to be able to defend themselves.

And of course, Mueller did a big, huge back step immediately, because he doesn't want to release the so-called evidence that he has - which I don't think he has at all, and if he had to actually bring it forth, they would find out that it was actually a big nothing burger.

So, anyway. Let's see, the article continues here and it says,

"Mueller probably didn't see that coming, and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative."

Then it quotes from a publication called "Powerline," which says, quote,

"I don't think anyone, including Mueller, anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors team seems to have obtained the indictment to serve a public-relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller switch project. One of the Russian corporate defendants, nevertheless, hired counsel to contest the charges. In April, two Washington area attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm, filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord management and consulting."

"So, politico's Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled, as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution's theories." [Conspiracy theories, I might add].

"In a mad scramble to put brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial. The judge, Dabney Friedrich didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in the high-profile trial. The Russians hit back, filing a response to let the court know that Concord voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in the federal rules of Criminal Procedure, and further intends to enter a plea of guilty - and the judge agreed."

So, that was a real embarrassment to Mueller as they try to make a big deal of some Russians supposedly, or allegedly, spending about two hundred thousand dollars on Facebook ads, and some other stuff, which of course didn't amount to a hill of beans as far as any results were concerned.

Now, if we contrast that with the U.S. interference in other people's elections all around the world, which is a practice that has been, not only done, but well accepted for decades, if not longer.

We overthrew a lot of governments. I mean, we didn't just influence their elections - if we didn't like the way that the elections turned out, we just sent in the CIA, or the military, and overthrew them and installed one of our own.

So, apparently it's okay for us to do it, but not for them. I guess that's what you call "American exceptionalism" - we get to do things that other people can't do. Why? Oh, because we're the "good guys," because we're in the right, and nobody else is in the right if they disagree with U.S. policy.

Well, double standards are not a Biblical way of handling things. Double standards are abhorrent to God, and in fact, if you engage in double standards, the judgement of the law is that God will deal with you in the same way that you dealt with them. Basically, that's to teach people not to do it. You get burned by your own policies, then you learn that that is not the way to go.

So, it's interesting to see how this has all been working out. Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that none of these charges really have amounted to anything, and under any other circumstance they would've been ignored completely - nonetheless, we have another thing here, which occurred last Saturday, I believe it was, just a couple of days ago. Yes, on the 14th.

"Russia Investigation: Rosenstein Announces Charges Against 12 Russian Officials, 3 Days Before Trump Meets Putin."

Well, the timing of this is amazing, because any government agency that was actually working with the President would never do such a thing just three days before Trump was supposed to meet with Putin. That's just not protocol. It's obvious that Rosenstein is trying to undermine the peace process with Putin. That's the only reason that he would've done this, especially on such trivial matters.

And yes, it is trivial, because with only a couple hundred thousand dollars there were even allegedly spent on this, how in the world could this have affected anything? I mean, there are a whole lot bigger issues out there, but they've made this nothing burger into a huge whopper - and it really isn't anything.

So, anyway, Trump goes off to Europe to speak with NATO, and with the Queen of England, and with Putin, and here we read:

"Trump Attacks US 'Foolishness' Heading Into Putin Showdown."

And by the way, Trump has been in office for, what, 18-months now, and it's only now that he has finally been able to overcome all of this opposition within his own government, so that he was able to actually meet with Putin.

Anytime earlier, the news media, which has always been out to get him, would have jumped on this and would have been able to convince the American people that he's "cozying up to the enemy," and that he is somehow doing something really, really terrible by meeting with Putin.

And of course, they forget the fact that every president, since Roosevelt, has been meeting with Russian officials all through the Communist era, all through the Soviet empire era - I mean, they've all met with them, but now that Russia, or, now that the Soviet Union is collapsed, and Russia is now a democratic country, yes it is, as much as any other country is, and more, I would think.

Now, suddenly, it's an awful thing for the US President to visit with the Russian leadership. It's like - how is this anywhere near proportional? It's so obvious that there's bias here and there's agenda - there's an agenda going on. It's just really easy to see.

So,

"President Trump headed into his first summit with Vladimir Putin on Monday," [that's today], "determined to forge a personal bond with the Kremlin chief and adamant that only stupidity by prior administrations had brought US Russian ties to their present low."

"Hours before the Helsinki summit, Trump was asked if he would press Putin over Russia's alleged manipulation of the 2016 election that brought the Mercurial property tycoon to power. He said, only, 'will do just fine.'"

"Democrats had called for the summit's cancellation after new revelations surrounding the election meddling" - Oh, "new revelations," huh? I don't think that's so new, it's probably a few years old. But anyway, they seem to call it "new revelations."

Now, probably the most serious matter in this whole thing is the allegation that the Russians hacked the server of the Democratic National Committee, and according to Rosenstein's indictment, which I listened to, pretty much the whole thing was that the Russians hacked into the DNC server, and then basically spread what they found into the public eye, so that essentially they were - Putin's big sin was to expose what the Democratic National Committee was doing on its servers.

That's basically it. Did they tell lies? Well, what was on the server? Was that a lie? Or was that the truth? Seems to me, they ought to be commended for it, let's give them a medal - if they did that, but they didn't do that. They really didn't do it.

And we can prove this, or not me, but there's an interesting article, or not an article here, but this is about a, I think it's a 16-minute, video interview with the former NSA technical director, Bill Binney. He's speaking to Tommy Collins here, and he just simply shows the simple proof that the Russians did not hack the server.

You should listen to it. I posted this in a weblog this afternoon - that's Monday - and it's not difficult to see, he does not talk way over your heads, even I can understand it, but it's a very interesting article, er, not article, YouTube, where we learn exactly what the proof was.

One thing that I should say too, Bill Binney mentions that Mueller and Rosenstein, and some others, were saying that all 17 intelligence agencies were agreed on this - that there was Russian meddling, or that there was most likely Russian meddling.

And he says,

"No, that's not the case. It's really only two agencies that agreed on this, and that's the FBI and the DOJ." [And he says], "All you have to do is look at the actual evidence of what was published, and you can see that it was not possible for a hack to occur. It was, instead, consistent with somebody local - somebody who had access to the DNC server who used a thumb drive to extract the information, and then send it to WikiLeaks or whatever they were doing."

"And of course, that probably was done by the man named Seth Rich, who was later murdered for doing that. And so, it appears that the DNC did not like what he did and they realized what he did, but they decided to blame the Russians anyway, otherwise it might've given them a motive for murder when Seth Rich was murdered."

So, anyway, this is an article also by Paul Craig Roberts, which I thought was kind of interesting. Paul Craig Roberts was an official with the Reagan administration - he's had a long, long history in the political realm serving as a public servant, and he comments on a number of things.

But here's one thing he says, I just want to read a short thing,

"Millions of people have been separated from families by death inflicted by Washington, and for almost two decades, protests have been almost non-existent."

He's actually commenting on the recent outcry about the illegal aliens and being separated from their children, and things like that. So, that's the context of this.

So, he says,

"No public outcry stopped George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump from clear and indisputable illegal acts defined in international law established by the U.S. itself as war crimes against the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia."

"We can add to this an eighth example: the military attacks by the U.S. armed and supported neo-nazi puppet state of Ukraine against the breakaway Russian provinces."

It's very clear if you are familiar with that story from a few years ago, that the U.S. decided, under Obama, to overthrow the Ukraine, and when they did, well, the whole idea was to tear Ukraine away from Russian influence, and bring them into the European Union.

One of the big things in that, of course, was the fact that Russia was fighting Isis in Syria and was making the U.S. look kind of bad, because the U.S. had a long time to try to, supposedly try to, wipe out Isis, and had no success at all.

And so, Putin came in and cleaned house rather quickly, but what was crucial in that was the Russian base in the Crimea, which was very, very important, strategically, in Russia's interests. And so, the U.S. decided that they were going to fix them, and so they overthrew the existing government of Ukraine, established a pro-European pro-western president, and then of course threatened to undermine, or overthrow, or kick out, the Russians in the Crimea, at that base.

And so, Russia fought back, and, as a result, they didn't just go in and annex the Crimea, as you see often - the Crimeans themselves held a referendum, and the referendum was overwhelmingly in support of Russia's annexation. And so they passed a bill asking the Russians to come in and annex them, 'cause they wanted to be part of Russia.

Most of the people spoke Russian, they were Russian, and they didn't want to have any part of the Ukrainian government. So, Russia annexed them, and of course that made the Western press go crazy, so that everybody was talking about how Russia invaded the Crimea.

No, they didn't invade - they acted upon the Crimean people's request for annexation, and there is a very big difference. There was no Russian invasion, the Russians didn't come in and kill a bunch of people. There was no harm done to Crimea. The only harm would be to Ukraine itself, which lost a chunk of their territory.

But you can't just look at that event, you have to see the background as to how the U.S. actually provoked the Russians into fighting back. But it's like the old cartoon that I saw years ago, about the kid that came in looking like, came home looking like he had been in a fight, and he explained to his Dad, saying, "Joe started it when he hit me back."

Well, that's standard policy in U.S. government, and it's all propaganda. You have to understand that all sides use propaganda. They're just, they're there for their self-interest, no matter who it is. America is no exception to this. We engage in more propaganda than anybody simply because we've got the money to do so.

So, we should always understand that. So, anyway, I guess that's about the news that we have right now, and I hope all of the technical things worked well in this video. So, we'll stop here and we'll pick this up again some other time.

Talk to you later.