Sunday, November 23, 2014


"After the destruction of the Berlin Wall, our Western colleagues missed a historic opportunity when they ignored Russia's proposals to jointly develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic space."

Ambassador Derek Fraser said Lavrov's and Putin's speeches "have perhaps not received all the attention they deserved." We have been trying to correct that.

I thought just now of the above passage, which received attention in post XVI below and gave it some additional attention, especially Lavrov's use of the term "missed." No mis-translation there, the text being used is official, from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"Missed." Hmmm. Literally, that would mean there is no security in the "Euro-Atlantic space" now. Has not been since the West "ignored Russia's proposals," which I believe refers to Medvedev's proposed "European Security Treaty" in 2008.

Which means Lavrov believes NATO does not secure Europe from Russian attack.
Rooski! I ask query: Is Rooski more better off now or during Cold War?

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XVI.

"Despite drastic worldwide changes, Western states have not stopped trying to “swim against the tide”, and continue holding dominant positions in the world, contrary to the objective processes leading to a multipolar world. This policy has had a major negative impact on the situation in Europe. After the destruction of the Berlin Wall, our Western colleagues missed a historic opportunity when they ignored Russia's proposals to jointly develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic space. 

Boy, I don't know what that was. "Destruction" of The Berlin Wall wasn't complete until 1992, "destruction" of the Soviet Union happened in 1991, so he's saying this was "Russia's" proposal...I just googled this every which way I could think and there is nothing like this proximate to 1992; there was a proposal by Medvedev called the European Security Treaty but that wasn't until 2008, looks like.

I’m confident that with goodwill, this problem is quite solvable, especially if we strengthen the corresponding mechanisms within the OSCE and make it a truly international organisation with strong authority. Instead, we saw successive waves of NATO's eastward expansion, with NATO infrastructure being moved closer to the Russian border."

You're right, NATO shouldn't have expanded, gotitgotitgotitgotitgotit. What bad security things did Russia "get" out of NATO expansion?

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XV.

"With regard to Afghanistan, our NATO partners have for the past 10 years stubbornly declined our proposals to establish working relations with the CSTO, even though it would be a natural alliance. NATO provides the bulk of the forces that operate inside Afghanistan, whereas the CSTO regularly conducts anti-drug and anti-terrorism operations on Afghanistan’s outer perimeter. Joining our efforts in real time would have increased the effectiveness of the efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. But for purely ideological reasons, NATO categorically refused to cooperate with the CSTO. Of course, this does not help the cause."

CSTO: Collective Security Treaty Organization of (currently), Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. Observers: Afghanistan, Serbia. "Possible candidates": Iran.

Ambassador Fraser said we should always talk to the Russians as we always talked to the Soviets. Russia was helpful on Syria, CSTO and NATO do seem like a "natural alliance" here, NATO, don't be "stubborn." Seriously, if it would do any good, it would be great if NATO could work with Russia here.It would give Russia "respect," and it so desires respect, it would treat Russia as a "partner," and neither Lavrov nor Putin has ever stopped referring to America as a partner.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XIV.

"...modern problems, including regional conflicts, can only be resolved based on comprehensive approaches providing for the active involvement of all stakeholders. We have always called our partners’ attention to this, in particular, when Iran was not invited to the Geneva Conference on Syria, and when Iran and Syria were not invited to the Paris Summit on Fighting Islamic State, although both countries are clearly our allies in combating this threat."

Never heard "stakeholders" before; broader than "partners;" sort of like "interested parties," no? And since Iran and Syria are (pro-Russian) "stakeholders," they are "our" (meaning the U.S. as a "partner") "allies!" No.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XIII.

"We are confident that antiterrorist efforts have to rest on a solid foundation of international law under the auspices of the UN Security Council – the body that shoulders the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The US tactic of air strikes on the Islamic State positions in Syria without prior coordination with the Syrian government does not fit with these principles. As you know, the strikes against terrorists in Syria are accompanied by the armed support rendered to the opposition forces fighting the Bashar Assad regime alongside the Islamic State. Yet, the US considers this support ‘moderate’ and therefore acceptable. Its purpose is to help the Syrian opposition achieve the potential to overthrow the current regime in Syria. The controversial and paradoxical nature of these actions is obvious, in my view. We have been discussing this with our US counterparts, trying to understand their logic, but have not received any clear explanations so far."

He does not understand U.S. "logic," he only understands Russian "logic."

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XII.

"Russia provides consistent support to the governments of Iraq, Syria and other countries of the region in their fight with religious extremists vying for power, by large-scale weapons and military hardware supplies, which greatly improves their combat capabilities. We advocate the consolidation of international efforts to counter the common threat of terrorism."

There you go. The State (if it is pro-Russian) cannot perpetrate terrorism. Syria is a (pro-Russian) state, ergo, Syria cannot perpetrate terrorism. The corollary follows equally: Any group, even a non-violent, civilly disobedient "color revolution" group, opposing a (pro-Russian) state is a terrorist group.

Since terrorism is "the common threat" of all states, it is a threat to the Russian state; since "combatting terrorism" is a "universal principle," any state, e.g. the United States, that supports an opposition group, is supporting terrorism.

Right now, there are 12 pageviews from Poland. I use Poland as an example here of the flawed Russian thought. Poland was invaded by the Nazis when the Nazis were Soviet allies and then Poland was invaded by the Soviets when the Nazis were Soviet enemies. Poland was then subjugated by the Soviet Union until there was no more Soviet Union. Now, Poland is a NATO member. Did the United States "get" Poland as a result? What did the United States get out of  Poland as a result?

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. XI.

"In most cases, not only does interference fail to help end the conflict, it actually exacerbates armed confrontation, making the plight of civilians even worse.

I think that is true, unfortunately.

Notorious double standards are employed to attain geopolitical goals. Of particular concern is the tendency to deviate from the universal principle of combatting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

Bullshit. The U.S. employed no "double standard" in his examples below nor did the U.S. have any "geopolitical goals" in mind. What "geopolitical goal"? To make Libya or Iraq or Syria the 51st state? That is utter nonsense.

Lavrov and Putin believe that anytime the U.S. intervenes in any way, militarily, economically, via hard power or soft power, we do so in our "interests," from some realpolitik motive. That is the end of their thought on it! They do not look to see if that were true what the United States got from those interventions. Oil? Territory? We got nothing! They never consider the human rights pilar of American foreign policy; never consider that the U.S. may intervene to try to do good.

The Russians also have a zero-sum view of U.S.-Russia relations and a knee-jerk reaction. If it is good for the U.S. it is bad for Russia; whatever the U.S. does, it does in its own selfish interests. Ergo, we must support the other side. It is the Cold War mentality.

Lavrov doesn't want to acknowledge that the State can perpetrate terrorism, as Assad does, as Qaddafi did, as Saddam Hussein did, as Russia does in Ukraine. And that is why he doesn't want to see it, because Russia is doing it and because Assad, Qaddafi, and Hussein are or were all friendly to Russia. As Egypt now does. What Lavrov and Putin want is stable regimes that are friendly to Russia! It does not matter if the regime leaders are thugs and state-terrorists, if they're friendly to Russia any attempt at resistance, a "color revolution" or violence, is "terrorism."

For instance, several Western nations armed and supported extremist groups that fought to overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi. Later the French military had to fight these same radicals in Mali whom the West, France included, had recently armed and encouraged. The West was so anxious to overthrow Bashar al-Assad that it turned a blind eye for four years as extremists strengthened their hold on Syria, allowing the terrorist group known as the Islamic State or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to flourish and seize huge swaths of Iraq and Syria, which they rule according to Sharia. This has been extensively covered by the media, on television and online.

The situation in Iraq where US forces were present for more than a decade is living proof of the absurdity of the concept of artificial implantation of some form of government and socio-economic development model from beyond. Today this our friendly country, which America has tried to turn into an example of modernisation achievements and a model democracy for other Arab nations to follow, is struggling with a deep political crisis, which poses a real threat for its future integrity.

Lavrov is right, there, unfortunately. 

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. X.

"The United States actively employs techniques to destabilise countries whose governments do not satisfy it for various reasons, and has effected regime change in a series of “colour revolutions.” This continues to be US policy."

From Wikipedia:

Colour revolution (sometimes called the coloured revolution) or color revolution is a term that was widely used by worldwide media[1] to describe various related movements that developed in several societies in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans during the early 2000s. The term has also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East. Some observers[who?] have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines.

Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been intended protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements generally adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative non-violent resistance.

Such movements have had a measure of success, as for example in the former Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000); in Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003); and in Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Some events have been called "colour revolutions" but are different from the above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005); and Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005).

Government figures in Russia, such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have charged that colour revolutions are a new form of warfare.[2][3] President Putin said Russia must prevent color revolutions, "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia."[4]
No, Lavrov is wrong. The Blue Revolution? The Bulldozer Revolution? The United States did not "effect regime change" in any of those. In addition: The U.S. should have! If Lavrov thinks that anything he or anyone says about U.S. support for people in other lands who are attempting to "effect regime change" nonviolently and through civil disobediance, then he imputes to himself too much influence. The American people would not stand for such non-interference. Our country was founded upon the revolutionary change! Violent, too! America has never been an imperial power, never invaded another country to get it land, its resources or to subjugate its people.  Ask FDR the U.S. position on independence of India from Britain! Ask Ike the U.S. position on Egyptian independence from Britain! Ask Jimmy Carter the U.S. position on supporting human rights abroad! Since Carter's presidency support for human rights abroad has been a pilar of United States foreign policy, many times in conflict with the realpolitik pilar and we use our best judgment to resolve those conflicts but support for human rights is a real pilar of American relations with the rest of the world. Ask Henry Kissinger! Lavrov should re-read On China. The American people would not stand for an abandonment of the human rights pilar even if an American president were to propose it. TAIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. IX.

"Washington continues to openly declare its right to use force unilaterally in any part of the world when US interests are at stake. The US National Security Strategy of 2010 states outright that Washington will not necessarily follow UN Security Council resolutions when its interests demand otherwise, and this applies to the use of force."

I assume that that is true since it amounts to a quotation, a citation. If that is true as Lavrov states it, that is wrong.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. VIII.

"The United States and its allies have claimed the right to interfere, sometimes brazenly, in the events of other countries under the mantle of protecting human rights* and promoting democratic values, up to an including sanctions and the use of force. The military interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya were either not backed by UN Security Council resolutions or exceeded the original mandate."

*I think Lavrov is referring here to the "responsibility to protect:"

The three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) and formulated in the Secretary-General's 2009 Report (A/63/677) on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect are:

The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;

The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;

The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The work of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, should be viewed in conjunction with the closely related work of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect who focuses on developing the conceptual, political and operational aspects of the Responsibility to Protect. In order to eliminate redundancy and maximize effective use of resources, the Secretary-General directed the two former Special Advisers in 2007 to form a joint office and merge their functions and activities. This decision was referred to in the Secretary-General’s letter to the President of the Security Council of 31 August 2007 (S/2007/721), as well in his statements and reports to the General Assembly on the Responsibility to Protect in 2009 and 2010 (A/63/677, A/64/864). These followed extensive consultations with Member States and United Nations entities, including multiple meetings of the Secretary-General’s Policy Committee dedicated to the Responsibility to Protect. This merger has resulted in changes to the conceptual framework, methodology and operational activities of the Office.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. VII.

"Yielding to an unjustified sense of euphoria in connection with the end of bipolar confrontation, the United States tried to implement the concept of a unipolar world, where it could reformat the situation in all regions and any state in accordance with its own ideas and interests." (emphasis added)

By advancing this concept, the United States calls into question the core principles of the UN Charter, which forms the cornerstone of international law – sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts."

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. VI.

"Unfortunately, the desire of our US colleagues and the US-led Western alliance to rely on unilateral approaches, and to act from the standpoint of supremacy, exceptionality and domination is at variance with this compelling and objective need." (emphasis added).

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. V

"The commitment of nations to preserve and strengthen their respective cultures, religions and civilisational identities was one way of responding to this challenge. Whenever such commitments are not recognised as legitimate and justified, there are risks of aggravated international tensions, especially at the junctions of so-called civilisational blocs, as Samuel Huntington pointed out in his Clash of Civilisations.

"Clash" was written in direct response to "End of History." "Clash" the essay was an epiphany to me with regard to America and Islam:  "Islam has bloody borders." When I read the book which grew out of the essay I did not have an epiphany. I thought Huntington had extended it too far. There were twelve or something civilizations? No. If I recall correctly I even wrote that it did not explain Russia! with whom America had no conflict at the time. It explained Russia to the Russians!
It is contradictory for one who believes in a pluralistic and diverse society to make the following argument: The differences among the peoples of the world are worth preserving.

It is not difficult for the Chinese, the Russians--or the French--to make that argument however.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. IV.

"The efforts to build a new world..."

Nothing less than "to build a new world" is in order.

Lavrov's October 20, 2014 Speech. III

"The “end of history” proclaimed in the early 1990s failed to materialise. It became clear that the present stage of international relations can be described in terms of competition, not only in economics and finance, but also in values and development models.

"In this context, constraints of the liberal economy became clearly visible. Following the Cold War, the economy shrugged off much of its state controls, which led to large-scale crises."

The financial crisis that led to the Great Recession was harder felt in Russia. There were runs on banks, people lost their savings. It was worse than in the U.S. The 2008-09 crisis worked a gestalt shift on Russia's leaders. They had had no experience with liberal capitalism. When they tried it after the collapse of the Soviet Union it wreaked too much havoc, as they saw it, and then a decade later the Great Recession. I remember reading at the time American economists writing that this was all new to the Russians, that they did not have the requisite patience, hey had no experience with the ups and downs of capitalism and the downs came as shocks. In Lavrov's own words here, the Great Recession worked a gestalt shift in Russia's leaders. Western liberal capitalism was not what they wanted if they could avoid it and when they looked to their left they saw a working example of an alternative way, one that had ridden out the 2008-09 crisis better than they had. And better than the Americans had.

The years since have only proved to the Russians the correctness of their gestalt shift. China is now the world's largest economy and Western economists, most recently Lawrence Summers, have been saying repeatedly this entire millennium "It can't last." It's like the boy who repeatedly cried Fire! After a while, in Russia's case after the Great Recession, you stop listening to him.

China has broken all the West's rules: Economic growth for 38 consecutive years is impossible: cuò, nepravil'no, wrong. Democracy and capitalism go hand-in-hand: Méiyǒu, nyet, and no. A command economy can't work: Tóngshàng, to zhe samoye, ditto. And the, national, cultural, racial aspect of it. America is the most polyglot society on earth and China the most homogeneous. Putin would be "lost" without Russia. Which one is he going to emulate? Duh.

China was proof to the Russians, and to the Chinese, that the "end of history" had not happened. 

Lavrov's Speech, October 20, 2014. II.

"The global financial and economic crisis acted as a catalyst for change, and drew a line under the reasoning about the global victory of the liberal capitalist model and the imperative need for everyone to fit that mold."

Lavrov's Speech, October 20, 2014. I.

I am going to post this bite size rather than whole, as I did Putin's Valdai speech, to render it less daunting and to allow us more time to reflect.


"...the current international situation is defined by the fact that the world is going through a transition period. We are dealing not just with the beginning of another historical stage, but, it would seem, with a change of eras."
"...realignment, or, I would even say, the deconcentration of the global balance of forces, is a hallmark of our time. Most clearly, this can be seen in the greater economic power and increasing political clout of the Asia-Pacific Region. These countries have largely assumed the role of a driver of global economic growth, a role which was traditionally performed by the United States,Western Europe and Japan. As we can see, China achieved the greatest success on this path and, according to the latest report issued by the International Monetary Fund, has for the first time become the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity Based on the findings of the IMF experts, the seven largest so-called “emerging economies,” including our country, outdid the seven industrialized Western countries in terms of combined GDP. That’s a totally new picture of the world that does not fit into the centuries-old notion of Western dominance in the global economy, finance and politics.

"The East wind is prevailing over the West wind." The are good grounds to see that! Russia no longer looks to the West as the way, or as the sole way, of advancing economically, culturally, politically. Look at China! they say. And they are moving east, to a future with a more homogeneous population, a more prideful, nationalistic population, less democratic, more centralized control over that population, and, they hope, more economic growth. 

In Memoriam

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
May 29, 1917-November 22, 1963.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Putin's Speech at Valdai.

Five times I counted, in the sixteen pages of the speech I excerpted, Putin's use of the term, or its equivalent, "respect:"

1. "Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements."

2. "I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation."

3. "Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion."

4-5. "The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected."

And America sees itself as "exceptional," the flip side of the "respect" coin, which is also disrespectful. Addressing the American people via the op-ed he wrote for the quasi-official New York Times, Putin also used the word.

1. "Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case."

2. "In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends."

For a man who would be "lost" without Russia, this is too bitter to swallow. There are grounds for Putin's feelings! I think Madeline Albright was the first of Official America to use the term "exceptional" and it has been repeated by Official America routinely. Obama used a near-synonym, I believe in a U.N. speech, something very close to "America is the one indispensable nation." I believe Americans, official and unofficial, believe that they are exceptional, that is, in the moral sense, America is the "shining city on the hill." However close to the truth that is, it is an un-generous thing to say and to repeat and to repeat. Official America should be more modest in its statements.

Add triumphalism to disrespect and exceptionalism for the United States "declared itself the winner of the Cold War..." and Putin is a resentful man.

Putin believes America is being exceptional in another sense sense in addition. He believes America has acted since the end of the Cold War as an exception to the rules on international behavior. He has grounds there too! We put together a "coalition of the willing" for the Iraq invasion, before that in the Balkans. We went beyond the U.N. mandate in Libya. But there Putin's worldview fails.

From those and other examples Putin's argument, his worldview, loses cohesion and coherence. 


Below are extensive excerpts from an article in Canada's National Post by Derek Fraser, formerly Canada's Ambassador to Ukraine

In late October of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, delivered major foreign policy addresses that have perhaps not received all the attention they deserved. Their principal message, as Lavrov declared on Oct. 20, was that the West had to stop acting unilaterally and start taking Russian security and other interests into account...

Lavrov stated that, after the Cold War, the West had not responded to Russia’s proposal to develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security for the Euro-Atlantic space. Instead, it had expanded NATO towards the Russian border. Russia and the West, he said, should now strengthen the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to make it a strong organization with international authority. Russia and the EU should also, according to Lavrov, gradually develop “a common economic and cultural space from the Atlantic to the Pacific where no country would strengthen its security at the expense of the others.”

For Lavrov, the Ukrainian civil war could have been avoided if Russian-proposed treaties on European security had been concluded, or Russia had been party to the negotiation of the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine. Russia, according to Lavrov, had no intention of complying with Minsk ceasefire agreement of Sept. 5, whereby foreign troops were to be withdrawn from Ukraine, and OSCE observers allowed on the Russian border. Instead, it was up to Ukraine to begin a dialogue with the rebels on the terms of a settlement. This is consistent with the Russian desire to see Ukraine negotiate with the rebels a highly decentralized system of government whereby the regions would have competences in foreign political and economic relations, as well as a veto on Ukraine’s foreign policy, so as to prevent Ukraine from moving West.

Putin, in his speech, stated that the Ukrainian civil war was an example of a conflict “at the intersection of major states’ geopolitical interests,” “and I think it will certainly not be the last” without a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements....

If the West was prepared for dialogue, Putin indicated that Moscow was ready for “the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament” and military interventions in third countries.

The proposed treaties on European security to which Lavrov referred appear to be two treaties the Russians put forward in  2008 — a European Security Treaty and a Union of Europe between Russia and the EU. The West did not accept those Russian proposals for good reason. The Russian initiative of a European Security Treaty largely duplicated agreements already in force, notably the OSCE and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Besides giving Russia a veto on the expansion of NATO, the European Security Treaty would have weakened the OSCE. It would have revoked the OSCE principles of the inviolability of borders, the non-interference in internal affairs, the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

The EU rejected also the Russian proposal for a bilateral Union of Europe. The Union would have formed a single energy complex, which could have prevented Europe from diversifying its sources of energy. The Union would have also co-ordinated military, political and strategic matters. North America would have been excluded. So would have been the other former Soviet republics, unless they were part of one of Russia’s organizations.

While the Russian revival of their old proposals for East-West security treaties appears to offer little, perhaps the West should respond to it with counter-proposals of our own. Otherwise we run the risk of slipping further into a new Cold War. One of the Western practices during the Cold War was always to maintain dialogue with the other side. Another was to look seriously at Soviet overtures, however unpromising they might be, to see whether they might be turned into something positive. It was out of initially strongly opposed viewpoints that were negotiated the Helsinki Accords of 1975, which marked a major step towards eventually ending the Cold War. Perhaps Western experience in negotiating the Helsinki Accords should serve as a model for our actions now.

Putin's "late October" speech  referred to by Ambassador Fraser has to be the Valdai magnum opus which the undersigned broke his back and went temporarily blind reading but besides that--besides that!--the speech got no more attention here. It should have, I admit. I had intended to write on it. Did not read Lavrov's speech, was not aware of Lavrov's speech. 
I saw this in my inbox a couple of days ago. It's from Revolution Books in New York City. It was so revolting I didn't publish it and hesitate now. Even considering it comes from communists it is shocking:

Take to the Streets When the Ferguson Grand Jury 
Announces Its Decision


"...When the decision comes down, people need to pour into the streets immediately. If the authorities let this murdering pig walk, America must be brought to a halt...Students should walk out of school when they hear that another murdering pig has gone free."

And now it's Friday, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

China Posts.

I am so energized, I am so happy, I just have to post one more thing.

Search keywords of the day.

-mao zedong march to ara painting. No. The painting reproduced here a couple of times a few years ago was "Chairman Mao Goes to Anyuan."  I guess "mao zedong march to ara painting" is good enough for a Google prompt "Did you mean?..." But that really isn't very close and the person who searched for that needs to keep in mind that water is for drinking and alcohol sharpens the intellect. 

Then there was:

-franciscan sisters. And that had me convinced for hours it was just a non sequitor and I had dismissed it but with the stimulus of additional "fuel" I DO recall one image of a CR struggle sessions against nuns and I believe they WERE Franciscan. I can see them in my alcohol-revved brain on the platform in their white habits and Flying Nun headwear (If that's what Franciscan nuns wear.).

And finally today there was:

-cambodia torture. On that one I'm beat. Never remember writing about Cambodia torture, torture of or torture by. 

Debida, debida, debida, that's all folks!

Water is for bathing.


"Most Heavy Drinkers Are Not Alcoholics."

Wait, how many days in a week?...15/7=2.14285714. Per DAY?? That's heavy? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Sheet. O! wait, it says "or more."  OR MORE! So, it could be 12.14285714! Or even more! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Today-ay-ay-ay...I am the happiest man-an-an-an...on the face of the earth-rth-rth-rth. From the bottom of my glass heart, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the esteemed Centers for Disease Control who have always been esteemed by me and who will be further esteemed now.

"Most Heavy Drinkers Are Not Alcoholics."-New York Times.

"Drinking heavily is defined as having eight or more alcoholic drinks in a week for women, and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Binge drinking, on the other hand, is defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as consuming four drinks for women and five drinks for men in a single occasion.  To be considered an alcoholic, one should be unable to stop or reduce drinking, having the need to continue drinking even if it causes problems with family or work, and excessive time spent drinking on a daily basis."

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Stella Elizabeth Williamson.

I just checked the website of the cemetery,where Williamson is buried and there is at least one virtual memorial note that has been posted since I have been writing about this. There are also, for the first time, memorial notes left for each of the five baby murder victims. I have no direct evidence that anything written here has been read by anybody in Gallitzin or Cambria County but someone is reading them. With hope, or at least in hope, this open letter is written:

Residents of Cambria County, Pennsylvania:

Stella Elizabeth Williamson's headstone in your Richland Cemetery is a monument to a serial killer. It is a monument to the perpetrator of the murders of five living babies, one nine months old, "chubby," old enough to sit up. It is a monument to evil. 

Williamson's headstone mocks you. It mocks your ignorance. It is monument to your indifference and callousness. It is a shameful and embarrassing stain upon you. It marks you. For thirty-four years each of you has worn a red granite stain of Williamson's name on your faces. 

Remove it. Remove the stain, remove the headstone. Petition Richland Cemetery, petition your governments, but remove it. When Penn State hesitated to remove the shameful stain of Joe Paterno's statue some Penn State people threatened to remove it themselves. And it was done. Whatever it takes, just remove that headstone.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

What a photograph. My oh my. It's got everything, beauty, ugliness, destruction, danger, innocence, vulnerability, nature, civilization, composition. Beauty and pathos. Looks like a Romantic painting yet it's real, a photograph. Never saw anything like it. 
Man oh man, I was in Boston for the Blizzard of '78 and just six months before was in Johnstown, Pa. as a volunteer right after the 1977 Johnstown Flood. Never put those two together before. Bad weather that year, hooo-doggie! 

Got to see Tanneryville Girl again.
Hey. There are 60 inches of snow already on the ground in Lancaster, New York, near Buffalo.

There is a photograph of my own self in about the same predicament that gent is in. I lived in Boston during the "Blizzard of '78." I see on Wikipedia that "only" 27 inches of snow fell in Boston during that storm. I don't know where the heck they measured that but in Somerville where I lived...Well, I got the pic, man, there were more than 27 damn inches in Somerville.

That was the only time in my life I ever got a little concerned during a snow storm. It seemed to go on for days, not a blizzard with the wind blowing crazy, just steady coming down and steady piling up. I got concerned because the stores were running out of food. I remember walking to a store, I think it was a CVS, to get some milk, and the shelves were pretty bare. You couldn't drive, you couldn't get your car out, so if the local store ran out of food, you were in deep doo-doo.

I remember--this is an absolutely true story--walking to the store and tripping over something, like a boulder or something, and looking down and it was the top of a parking meter. Of course schools were closed and I remember being told that the last time Harvard shut down was during the War of 1812. I was going to MIT at the time but it happened that my first class back was at Harvard and I remember the professor was flustered. Normally, you'd just ignore a "totally contingent event," as he put it, like a snowstorm but that storm flustered him. Flustered everybody. Never been in anything like that. 

Scholars. I give.

The Beach. University of Central Connecticut State?

Get outta town. There's a University of Colorado at Colorado Springs? Isn't that where Colorado State is? Or the Air Force Academy? Or Something? Never, ever, heard of UCCS. "The Corporation of the Trustees of..."   Some university in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Every damn university Down Under has that web address so I have no idea which one. Mississippi State!

Damn it. I suck today. Wheaton University.

Ha-ha. Got one. Whoa! No, that's Wheaton Illinois. I need Wheaton Massachusetts. Damn it.

The "Lyons?"

That is the lamest damn group of scholars I ever saw, s'I.

Sporting Public Occurrences.

The college tackle football season in America is just about done. The Official Team of Public Occurrences, Mississippi State, lost this weekend to Alabama.

For former scholars now practicing their profession in the National Concussion League the season is not as far along. The best team so far is Arizona, the worst is Oakland.

The NBA season has only just begun, only 13% of games played so far, but the Los Angeles "Lakers," so-named for the abundance of bodies of fresh water in southern California, SUCK! Kobe Bryant is the most selfish player in the sport.

The English Premier League: 29% done. Unofficially, DONE. Chelsea will win the league. Manchester City don't have their heads in it yet, they look bored, distracted, and they've dropped too many points already to have a reasonable chance of overtaking unbeaten Chelsea. Jose Mourhino really is a "Special One."

Last season's runners-up, Liverpool, currently sit 11th in the table. LFC had a harmonic convergence last year, it says here that even if they had the same team back they would not have matched that performance, but they DON'T. They had to sell the Cannibal, bought the Mohawk as replacement (zero goals so far), lost second-leading scorer Daniel Sturridge to an injury, were due to get him back in time for this weekend's match against Child Porn andthensturridgehurthimselfagainyesterday. Liverpool fanatics are about ready to drink the purple Kool-Aid.

Chevrolet United of Manchester have played better of late. They're all the way up to 7th place on four wins, four draws and three losses. CUM have a reasonable shot to slip into the Champions League next year since...

...There is no way Southampton and West Ham, currently 2nd and 3rd, are going to be able to maintain their form. No way.

The most disappointing club seems to be Arsenal. They are still 6th in the table, well-positioned for their customary 4th place finish and a re-up in the lucrative UCL but they are so erratic, their confidence is shot, they are plagued by injuries, and their manager, Arsene Wenger, has lost it. Given the weaknesses of the clubs now at the top of the table it is probable Arsenal will finish in the top four again but that is a shaky forecast. Never have they been further from winning the league.

The "Niagara Frontier" is feeling it today. Above is a pathway as it looks today through the Frontier. Hooo-doggie.

The Niagara University women's basketball team were stranded in a bus on such a path, took some selfies de rigueur...

...and were rescued.

Frontierists, keep in touch.

"Senate Republicans Block USA Freedom Act Surveillance Reform Bill."-Guardian.


Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Hey. 17 South Korean pageviews today. A week or so ago 50+ one day. Didn't believe it. Said it was b.s. Told Google stop sending me b.s. Hey. There's a South Korean stats correct. Cool.*

*Five countries in d.d.'s today: U.S., South Korea, Slovenia, Ukraine, Poland. Don't know if publoccs in others. Besides U.S. Blowing popsicle stand. Night.

How many serial murderers get to rest in peace under a nice, normal tombstone?
Pisses me off.
OFF! Tombstone begone! Good morning!
Gettin' worked up, gettin' worked up, say good night Ben. Good night Ben.
What is the penalty for grave desecration in Pennsylvania, anybody know? By chance?
God! it pisses me off that there is not even a photograph of Williamson on the internet. As I had with Dr. Jennifer Ruth I have a pretty precise picture of Williamson in my mind. With Jennifer that image turned out to be very accurate and I had nothing to go on. With Williamson I know she was a big woman, weight, but as I recall height too, taller than average, and I know she had a leg amputated late in life. I don't picture her standing as a result. I picture an old fat woman sitting, wearing a matronly shapeless, formless dress, a flower-print.

I picture her with thin hair, I don't picture her hair white with age, that's just not in my head for some reason, maybe one of those half-hearted dye jobs but I just don't have hair color fixed in my mind, thin hair, short. I don't see a lot of attention or care to her appearance. No eye glasses. Unsmiling. She does not have a butt-ugly face, no big nose with a mole for instance, not an attractive...That isn't even the right word for an old person...not a pleasant face, plain, homely, homely is better; fat face, not balloon face but a few chins. Sort of a cold facial expression, better, an unexpressive face, and unexpressive eyes.

Anyway, that's how I picture that cunt.

The Day.

The day has just ended UTC, 109 pageviews, three countries in double figures, US 54, Ukraine 17, Germany 16 and the most-read post, "The Day," October 29, 7 pageviews. Crazy, s'I.

Monday, November 17, 2014

And, done. Americans are a crazy people, s'I.
Clemens/Twain put the novel aside for, as I recall, three years and then finished it. When he came back to it, he didn't so much edit what he had written, he tacked on the remainder. The earlier manuscript ends at a precise point and you can tell, you can tell. The writing style is different, it does not flow from the earlier manuscript.

You get into a "mood" in writing that is reflected in what you write. If you start out all broke out with outrage as I often do and don't finish, when you come back to it, say the next day, you're not in the same mood, you're rested, mellow, maybe you're hung over instead of drunk--I said maybe--you're thinking about something else, and your new mood is reflected in your writing and jars with the previous mood and writing. Clemens/Twain went 1,000 days before he came back to Huckleberry Finn.

Huckleberry Finn is a deep book. There are more morality plays than in a Woody Allen movie. I thought the character young Huck Finn could be a stand-in for young America, how he and hence America sorted out the moral choices that had to be made to make before the Civil War. It was tremendous! But when Clemens/Twain came back to it he changed the substance. First he added on that Hatfield and McCoy scene; that didn't flow at all. It was different stylistically and substantively. Just when you've gotten over What! on the Hatfields and McCoys he brings back Tom Sawyer. So Huck Finn was no stand-in for America. Now we had, if we still had at all, those morality plays played out by two American boys with two completely different personalities. No. That is not good. It is not good writing, it is not good story-telling. A novel is going to require the reader to excuse some liberties, overlook some details, ignore some exaggerations, in the interest of the story and its flow. The earlier Huckleberry Finn requires the reader to do that, it is a great yarn and has a Pilgrim's Progress feel and flow to it; it is well-told, that is, well-written.

Mark Twain wrote a transcendent book, one with real meaning, deep depth. And then he made a burlesque out of it.

But I haven't finished it...
“All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since.”
-Ernest Hemingway.


Stella Elizabeth Williamson.

Had a pageview on one of those posts today. They continue to trickle in. 23 pageviews on one, 14 on another, 13 on two more, Oh! 29 on one. That's a lot for Publocc. I bet, haven't checked but I bet, that 29-one is the most-read post on any subject since then. If a single post gets double-digit readership that's a good post.  Unless I write about China or hit the jackpot like with LeBron James (~17,000), that Citizenship post (>7,000) or Kiribati (2,000), we're lucky to get into double-digits.

Nobody is going to do anything about Williamson unless its from the outside. Very similar to Bian Zhongyun. There is not one mo-fo homo on the planet who tried to investigate Bian's murder besides here. Honest Injun, not one. I still failed. Tried though. Really tried. It's the same with Williamson. The babies were buried before the "investigation" was complete! They didn't investigate shit. Pennsylvania, Cambria County and Gallitzin didn't investigate shit. 

In the post that was read today I wrote that it is "impossible" that no homo in God...blessed Gallitzin knew that Williamson had given birth (much less five times). Impossible. It is impossible.

It's not going to get done unless from the outside. I don't think I've got the energy anymore. Spent my wad on Bian. Ya me canse. Hope somebody does though. 

Poot-Poot Sleepy, Skedaddled.

First, he was going to leave early, no reason given.
Then, he was staying for the whole thing.
Then, he left on accounta there were "meetings" in Moscow. Monday.
Now, he left early on accounta he had to catch some sleep before the meetings in Moscow Monday. He had a good time in Osstrayleeya, the meetings with Western leaders were "constructive." Yeah. He can probably watch tapes of the stuff he missed. Yeah.

Good weekend for the West. Bet the coming week isn't so good for the West. Putin is pee-issed. Bet he takes it out on Ukraine.