, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Possibly: when the Soviet Union dissolved Dec. 25, 1991 and then presumably ended the Cold War, it’s possible (possibly) that American and Russian security elements thought to cooperate on issues confronting both states, Islamic Terrorism high on the list of possibilities conveniently at hand for that.

For the United States, one presumes that cooperation would have been intended to reduce the power and presence of dictatorship in the world and (in domino effect) remove the vestiges of the defunct Soviet Union in global foreign affairs.  In the way of political “optics” — how things look — the American and other EU / NATO constituencies would have perceived some great measure of peace and trade taking place between the former superpower antagonists, so when Clinton and others signed off on “Uranium One”, it may have been in that context that the deal went down.  

East and West had taken the great leap forward toward peace in 1992 and by 2010 business involving uranium, a strategic asset, appeared to have been conducted in overall calm, bureaucratic, and peaceful conditions.  

While other business and political mixers were proceeding, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya were also transformed (in 2003 and 2011, respectively), at least as regards the deposing of each dictator — and let none remember them fondly: they were both monsters in each their own demonic way.

Then in 2011: Syria.

When offered the choice, Putin refused the liberal western path and reverted to the KGB past.  At that moment, possibly(!), Team Security USA, in some part, discovered that it had been duped

(Note: intervention in Libya preceded the perceived (Wikipedia) start date of the Syrian Civil War — on BackChannels, the “Syrian Tragedy” — by five days).  

Moscow had intended to refuse the adoption of democratic liberalism all along.

What the United States and EU / NATO had done for peace between 1992 and 2011?

I don’t know.

However, one may imagine the possibilities. 

However, the old news cross my desktop a few minutes ago, and it seems to add its little bit to the BackChannels perspective on Cold War / post-Cold War / Phantom of the Soviet history.

If you haven’t hit the link, the “old news” was this:

Albawaba.  “America’s gulag: Syrian regime was a ‘common destination’ for CIA rendition.”  February 5, 2013.

Syria was a key participant in the C.I.A. rendition program at a time when President George W. Bush’s administration labelled Damascus part of the “axis of evil,” according to a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative.

 The report – titled “Globalizing Torture” – said President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was one of the “most common destinations for rendered suspects,” indicating an established security relationship between Syrian intelligence and Western agencies.

The story — and not written for conservative Americans — traces its thesis back to at least 2003.

Apparently, Moscow and Washington had been fighting terrorism together in the double-0’s of the new century.

However, that day must have been young compared to this in which the interested public knows of the false-flag operation known as the  “Moscow Apartment Bombings” (September 4-16, 1999).

Also today, thanks to Anna Politkovskaya, we know also of the Russian Army’s unofficial but observed brutalizing of Chechen villages as a means certain to fill the ranks of “Chechen rebels” through the Second Chechen War (August 26, 1999 – April 16, 2009) — for where else would Chechen boys and men go to fight back against so monstrous a force?

BackChannels stands by its argument that Assad incubated ISIS as its preferred foil in a piece of KGB-type theater one might call “Assad v The Terrorists”.

The assertion has held up over time.

A companion piece suggesting that “Islamic Terrorism –> Reflexive Feudal New Nationalism” has held up as well.

Welcome Moscow’s post-Cold War totalitarian design and the west’s apparent partial cooperation with it, possibly, up to the Syrian gambit of spring 2011 when Obama tested Putin’s navigational tendencies.

In Russia’s persistent feudal mode, states serve power, and power need see no difference between property and persons, sovereignty in the politically absolute mode implying the right — more: even the obligation and demonstration — to destroy either with impunity and without explanation.  A little foolery with political perception and CIA “rendition” programs (to fight al-Qaeda and others) would be one thing, but to travel further with Moscow and Damascus in their tyrannous journey appears to have been something Washington could not bring itself to do. 

The “KGB Playbook” — “Active Measures”; “Perceptual Control”; “Hybrid Warfare”; playing both sides for fun and profit — listen to the BBC’s interview with Admiral Gorchkov on the instigating of the Ogaden War between Somali militia and Ethiopian defenders; the loss of boundaries and limits (that dovetails so well with the “malignant narcissism” concept) that would seem to have licensed surreptitious poisonings (in Great Britain) straight out of 007 Bond fantasia; and the complete loss of compassion, conscience, and empathy for others — has turned out a still living evil, and one that even the paternally and narcissistically  authoritarian Trump Administration cannot dismiss while doing its duty to defend America’s Constitution.

Additional Assorted Fast Reference Related to Russia’s Encouragement of Conflict





Posted to YouTube November 14, 2011.