And now for today's pièce de résistance:Readers here may recall me having concerns or taking issue with the overhyped media coverage regarding the imagined fall out between Turkey and Russia.
"Recall my mention of the NATO media making too much of this sanctioning business?"
Not a single comment but my own:
So, readers? Disappointed that the sanctions are much ado about nothing?Only the US can afford the privilege of sanctions thanks to their global army and the petro dollar and the willingness of toady nations to be subservient the US. Example being European nations For all other nations there is simple economic reality.
It was perplexing? Why was NATO media making such hay over this Turkey/Russia situation? Normally, NATO media would have been tickled pink that some tragedy had befallen Russia. Instead we were getting this presentation of concern over a shoot down & hype that Russia and the US could perhaps work together?Bloomberg: flights of fancy and fabrication- Putin wants regime change in Turkey A destabilized Turkey is of ZERO benefit to Russia. It merely plants the seeds for the destruction of Russia's own state.
"Many have been burned trying to predict Russian President Vladimir Putin's next foreign policy moves, but it's a safe bet he will copy whichever U.S. policy he has been criticizing. That's why Turkey, in particular, should pay close attention to what Russia has to say on regime change"
We can see the transfer propaganda being prepped in the presentation of this being Putin's next foreign policy move and regime change. I will put a video at the end of the post to explain 'transfer' propaganda
“This pattern of condemn-then-copy foreign policy has been going on for some time. In 2007, Putin made a powerful denunciation of America’s addiction to military force, complaining -- presumably as a man of peace -- that “There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.” A year later, Russia openly used force beyond its borders for the first time since the end of the Cold War, invading Georgia”
Come on Bloomberg prevaricator? - First of all “for the first time ever since the end of the cold war" tells us Russia has been non agressive for a very long time. So 20 years passes roughly until 2007 (end of cold war) and still Russia invades no one. It is now 2016 and Russia has invaded no one nation. Because Russia did not invade Georgia. (There are numerous posts here on that subject)
“In February 2008, the U.S. smoothly recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, a move Putin repeatedly attacked as violation of the territorial integrity of another sovereign nation. Before the year was out, he had recognized similar declarations by the Georgian separatist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia”
“Fast forward to 2014 and Putin was infuriated by the "coup" conducted by hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, who turned out for the Maidan revolution in Kiev to protest against the corruption of former President Viktor Yanukovych and his regime. Within weeks of Yanukovych's flight, Putin was backing miniature versions of the Maidan protest in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to achieve not only regime change but, in Crimea's case, annexation”
The Bloomberg author is certainly playing fast and loose with the truth. Facts. History. The NATO backed coup in Ukraine had nothing to do with ‘fighting corruption’ because the NATO backed regime in Ukraine is as corrupt, if not more corrupt then the previous regime. Additionally Ukraine is now heavily indebted and it’s population is even more deeply impoverished. As for the annexation of Crimea?- That’s a plain lie. There are any number of posts here on that whole topic
“More recently, Putin has turned from the most ardent critic of U.S. air strikes in Syria to launching his own bombing campaign, in support of President Bashar al-Assad. Russia has even mimicked the U.S. habit of showing cockpit footage of airstrikes on TV, to impress the home crowd”
Russia was invited to Syria to assist in the situation at hand. By Syrian leadership. Oops Bloomberg forgot to mention that. Oh dear.
“These examples reveal a clear pattern. And given that regime change has for some time been the dirtiest phrase in the Kremlin vocabulary, Putin's recent falling out with Turkey is worth careful monitoring”
A clear pattern of what? Bloomberg author claims this all reveals a clear pattern of Russia pushing for regime change in Turkey, except it doesn't reveal any clear or fuzzy pattern! I can make a clear pattern of NATO regime changes. And easily connect dots from NATO interventions to intervention. One regime change after another. But the Bloomberg piece, despite what is claimed, doesn't produce any 'pattern' Also presents a contradiction in regime change being dirtiest phrase but watch out Turkey? Transfer propaganda. It seems the reason NATO media hyped the discord in order to manipulate perceptions regarding both Turkey and Russia to push forward specific agendas- Such as the one presented 'Putin wants regime change in Turkey" when it is actually NATO that is in the process of destroying Turkey as it exists today.By the way, the fact that a KurdIShIS suicide bomber was employed to wreak havoc in the heart of Turkey’s tourist area indicates the Russian sanctions were exactly as flaccid as had been suggested . It’s very clear that neither Turkey nor Russia can afford the sanctions game.Bloomberg:
“Russia and Turkey were always on opposite sides of the Syrian crisis, but until a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian jet in November, they had been able to manage this disagreement. Indeed, in recent years, Putin had been Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's strategic partner and friend. Turkey was the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization country that refused to impose sanctions on Russia after Moscow annexed Crimea. Putin even put Turkey at the heart of his gas diplomacy, after being snubbed by the European Union over Ukraine”
I've mentioned these friendly partnerships on a number of occasions here- Including the non application of sanctions regarding Ukraine/Crimea- Turkey's willingness to barter with Russia etc
Even Erdogan might now agree that the Nov. 24 shooting down of a Russian bomber that crossed into Turkish airspace only for a matter of seconds was not a brilliant idea. What's most puzzling almost two months later, though, isn't so much Turkey's misjudgment as Russia's unwillingness to de-escalate the crisis.
I don't have the impression anything was really escalated so how can it be de-escalated?
Putin has ignored pressure from allies such as Belarus and Kazakhstan, signaling that he is unwilling to normalize relations with Turkey so long as Erdogan is in power. Indeed, Russia's response to the Turkish shoot-down bears a close resemblance to the U.S. response to Russia's interventions in Ukraine. First, it imposed economic sanctions. Then it attacked Erdogan's inner circle, including in the media his son Bilal, accusing them of trading oil with Islamic State. And in the ultimate gesture of hostility, Russia invited Selahattin Demirtas, leader of Turkey's Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, or HDP, to Moscow.
Turkey's relations with Russia seem pretty much normal to me, other then each of them playing to their domestic audience:
*Russian grain exporters resume trade with Turkey despite political tensions
MOSCOW, Dec 24 Russian grain exporters have resumed deals with Turkish buyers after a short break caused by a deterioration in relations between the two countries, traders and analysts said.
*Russia unable to give up on Turkish light industry products
Sanctions are not to be imposed on light industry products such as shoes, washing machines, dishwashers and ovens, emphasizing the importance of these products for Russian consumers.
To my knowledge Russia is still supplying Turkey with almost 60 percent of it's energy requirements. The invitation of Demirtas is diplomacy. Russia has also dealt with Syrian opposition members. Including having them visit Russia. I simply have no idea of what these meetings may have entailed, but, am unwilling to portray them in a manner equal to Bloomberg's.
"Demirtas rose to prominence after the so-called Gezi Park protests of 2013 -- exactly the kind of "colored revolution" movement that Putin so despises. The HDP's success in doubling its share of the vote in elections last June cost the ruling Justice and Development Party its parliamentary majority, prompting Erdogan to call a repeat election. Last month he accused Demirtas of treason, implicating him in the nasty conflict now under way in Turkey's mainly Kurdish populated eastern provinces. So Putin just very publicly took sides in Turkey's civil war, much as he feels Western countries did during Russia's Chechen wars.
This response is in part demonstrative revenge: Putin has to be seen at home to make Turkey pay for killing a Russian pilot.( playing to the domestic audience) But there is more to it. An ambitious and influential Turkey that promotes a form of Islamism acceptable to the West is a major obstacle to Moscow’s objectives in the Middle East. Russia’s interest in the region is not just to support Assad, but also to force the West to choose between the secular dictators Russia is willing to work with and Islamists who speak the language of the popular will. What Moscow fears is that Erdogan could persuade the West to partner with "moderate" Islamists, including in Syria. In Russia’s analysis, it was belief in the so-called Turkish model that explained Western support for the Arab Spring.
As with the U.S. sanctions policy towards Russia, Putin probably hasn't set a goal of toppling Erdogan from power any time soon. For the foreseeable future, the Turkish strongman is as safely entrenched in office as is Putin. Like the U.S., though, Putin seems to have dug in for a long term policy of sapping Turkey's economy and undermining Erdogan politically. What isn't clear is whether the goal is to teach the U.S. and its allies to mend their ways, or to split them over whether to defend NATO ally Turkey, or to join Russia in distancing themselves from its increasingly authoritarian Islamist government.
After Bloomberg’s mouthpiece implies Putin wants regime change and writes a pile of rubbish to promote this absurdity he contradicts his entire premise by saying "Putin probably hasn't set a goal of toppling Erdogan from power any time soon” That’s right. Putin isn’t going to topple Erdogan. This is transference propaganda. Toppling Erdogan is a US led NATO agenda. Transfer PropagandaDon't Miss These Previous Posts