PCR just noticed how deviously the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been cooking the books. (Continued from below)

---

Update to BLS December Payroll Jobs Report: It is even worse than I reported — Paul Craig Roberts

---

January 9, 2015 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Update to BLS December Payroll Jobs Report: It is even worse than I reported

Paul Craig Roberts

In my column on Friday I reported the unreported facts in the payroll jobs report. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/01/08/another-fabricated-jobs-report-paul-craig-roberts-2/ If we choose to believe the report, it is really very bad news. Good middle class jobs are continuing to decline. The new jobs are jobs that pay considerably less and often are part-time jobs devoid of benefits. Moreover, the new jobs are going to people outside the prime working age. The unavoidable conclusion is that for the majority of Americans, economic prospects are declining.

There is more bad news to be added to this dismal picture. The payroll jobs report provides both the actual numbers of jobs from the survey and the seasonally adjusted number. The news release is always the seasonally adjusted number, which is the number that my column examines. However, the seasonally adjusted number is concocted.

In past reports I have explained that the BLS has a birth-death model that assumes new unreported jobs from new business startups exceed unreported jobs losses from business failures. John Williams (shadowstats.com) has shown that over-estimates from this model can add 750,000 non-existant jobs to the reported annual payroll jobs increase.

Seasonal adjustments can have the same effect. For example, the actual reported gain in new payroll jobs prior to seasonal adjustments was only 11,000. The seasonally adjusted gain was 292,000. In other words, seasonal adjustments accounted for 281,000 of the 292,000 reported jobs. There is a case for making seasonal adjustments, but not when seasonal adjustments account for 96% of the jobs gain. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
 
Probably what we are observing is that the economic house of cards that the Federal Reserve has constructed together with financial deregulation depends heavily on reported jobs gains for its stability, and this stability is provided by the use of the birth-death model and seasonal adjustments to produce reassuring payroll jobs numbers.

As I have pointed out in numerous columns, if the reported jobs claims were real, the labor force participation rate would not be declining. If the reported jobs claims were real, people would be entering the work force attracted by employment opportunities. They would not be leaving the work force from discouragement and frustration in finding employment.

The Obama regime’s claim that the declining US labor force participation rate is the result of rising retirements is contradicted by the fact that the reported payroll jobs gains are primarily accounted for by the oldest age group, 55 and higher.

I am left with the conclusion that the 281,000 jobs produced by seasonal adjustments are the product of the misuse of seasonal adjustments in order to keep alive the appearance of economic recovery.

Keep in mind, also, that payroll jobs are the number of jobs, not the number of employed people. Many payroll jobs are part time with two or more being held by one person.

---

Janet Yellen took office as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on February 3, 2014, for a four-year term. And what does she do? Why, based on the present fabricated jobs report she does what was done in the past when the jobs reports were real, i.e., raise interest rates: Bad news now, because that is only done when the economy is really clicking whereas, as PCR puts it, "the United States is now an economy that only creates Third World jobs in lowly paid domestic services." What a joke!

---

Yet Another Fabricated Jobs Report — Paul Craig Roberts

---

January 8, 2015 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Another Fabricated Jobs Report

Paul Craig Roberts

According to Friday’s (January 8) payroll jobs numbers, almost 300,000 new jobs were created in December. Additionally, the previous two months were revised upward by 50,000 jobs. Apparently, the equity market did not believe the report, with the averages moving down today.

As I have pointed out almost monthly for what I think could be approaching two decades, the alleged job growth always takes place in nontradable domestic services, that is, in areas that do not produce exports and have no competition from imports. This is the job profile of a Third World country.

Twelve years ago I predicted at a major Washington, D.C., conference that was nationally televised that in 20 years the United States would have a Third World economy if jobs offshoring, which benefits only corporate executives and shareholders, continued.

Jobs offshoring has continued, and judging by the payroll jobs reports from the US government, the US is already a Third World economy.

The presstitute financial media—and what they are is a bunch of whores—always reports the alleged jobs increase as if it is a great thing, testimony to the continuing strength of the American economy, and so forth. Only a handful of us look at the data and reveal its meaning. Once again I will strip away the Matrix and show you the reality.

Allegedly, the US economy has been in recovery since, if memory serves, June 2009. If so, it is an unusual recovery. Normally, the rising job opportunities associated with economic recoveries bring entrants into the labor force, but the US labor force participation rate has been declining. In December, 2015, there are 1,185,000 fewer Americans in the labor force than in December 2014; yet, the working age population is higher today than a year ago.

The reported unemployment rate does not include “discouraged workers,” that is, workers who unable to find jobs have ceased looking for work. The reported unemployment rate of 5% only counts non-discouraged workers who are still expecting to find a job. The actual unemployment rate, that is, the rate that includes Americans who have given up hope of finding employment, is 23%. Currently, there are 94,691,000 Americans of working age who are not in the labor force. In other words, the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is deprived of a large percentage of its labor input.

Now, we will pay attention, unlike the financial presstitute media, to the age groups who benefited, according to the BLS, from the 292,000 December new jobs. About half of the alleged new jobs—142,000—went to the 55 years old and over age group. This age group consists primarily of retirees who have found it necessary to supplement their retirement income and of those near retirement who are working in order to compensate for the lack of interest on their savings due to the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy. These are part-time, lowly paid jobs without benefits.

Americans of prime working age, 25 years old to 54 year old, only received 16,000 or 5% of the new jobs.

Those aged 46 to 54 lost 165,000 jobs. In other words, middle aged people are losing their jobs before they can provide for their retirement.

There are 527,000 more Americans working multiple jobs in December 2015 than in December 2014.

Now, as we have done so often for many years, let’s look at the make believe jobs that the BLS claims. Almost all of them are in lowly paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, couriers and messengers, employment services, social services and health care (primarily ambulatory health care services).

The conclusion is that if we believe the payroll jobs report, the United States is now an economy that only creates Third World jobs in lowly paid domestic services.

And yet this non-economy on the verge of collapse is said by the idiots in Washington to be a super-power.

What a total joke!

---

Those who believe US Government propaganda constantly repeated by the despicable mainstream media, must believe that Russia, with the finest army in the world, attacked Ukraine but somehow have not yet reached Kiev. Talk about gullible! The true story is that the US overthrew the freely-elected president and replaced him with a US-manipulated stooge, amounting to a literal coup d'etat. So while Americans take their "facts" from the mainstream medea, the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine have become subjects to ethnic cleansing ...and Russia is sanctioned for allegedly attacking Ukraine. How many lies can you swallow America?

---

Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama

By Eric Zuesse                                                                           Region: Europe, Russia and FSU
Global Research,December 24, 2015                                              Theme: US NATO War Agenda

On December 23rd, Gallup headlines “Ukrainians Disillusioned With Leadership,” and reports that “nearly nine in 10 Ukrainians (88%) say corruption is widespread in their government, and about eight in 10 (81%) see the same widespread problem in their country’s businesses.” 8% of Ukrainians now say they “have confidence … about the national government.” 17% approve of the job-performance of their President, Petro Poroshenko. While the pre-coup President, Viktor Yanukovych, was in office, 2010-2014, that figure had been averaging about 23%, and was never as low as Poroshenko’s is now.

Gallup reports, “fewer Ukrainians now say their leadership is taking them in the right direction than before the revolution,” but that statement calling this coup a ‘revolution’ embodies the propaganda-lie of one of Gallup’s main clients, the U.S. government itself, which calls the U.S. coup in Ukraine in February 2014 a “revolution,” when every honest and knowledgeable person now knows that this U.S. government claim — that it had helped install democracy instead of having ended it in Ukraine on 20 February 2014 — to have been a lie. Even the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor has called the overthrow of Yanukovych “the most blatant coup in history.” It had been that because it was the first coup to be videoed by numerous people from many different angles with their cellphones and by TV cameras, uploaded to the Web by even anti-Yanukovych countries such as the UK’s BBC; and those videos, the best compilation of which is here, make clear that this was, indeed, a coup d’etat, no authentic revolution at all, such as the U.S. government claims.

Furthermore, the EU’s investigator who had been assigned to report to their Foreign Affairs Minister Cathy Ashton about the overthrow, reported to her that it had been a coup, and that even Petro Poroshenko himself said that “our” side — meaning the anti-Yanukovych people, had done it. Subsequently, evidence came to light showing how it had been organized: the organization for it had started in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than March 2013. Then, after all of that preparation, on 4 February 2014, the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland gave the final instruction to the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, to have Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed to run the country after the coup, and he became appointed 18 days later, on 22 February 2014, to run the country as Prime Minister, until a new President would be elected ‘democratically’; but, even the election of President Poroshenko on 25 May 2014 was no democratic event, because the U.S. government didn’t want residents in the area of Ukraine that had voted over 90% for Yanukovych to be voting in that election. That area of Ukraine (which historically had been a part of Russia) was called Donbass, and it had no say whatsoever in determining Ukraine’s President after the coup, because the new coup-imposed Ukrainian government was already bombing it, starting on 9 May 2014. None of this could have happened without that ‘revolution’: U.S. President Barack Obama’s very bloody coup in Ukraine.

Here is the man whom the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, worked with to organize the coup (or ‘revolution’), the co-founder of one of the two racist-fascist, or ideologically nazi, political parties in Ukraine. But Pyatt’s appointee (Andriy Parubiy) left the coup’s gun-play and military planning to that man’s paramilitary friend (Dmitriy Yarosh) who had founded the other of the two Ukrainian nazi parties.

And then, right after the coup, America’s stooge who now was running Ukraine for the U.S. regime, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, installed leaders of Ukraine’s two rabidly anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi parties into all of the top internal security and military positions, in order to carry out what they called the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ (ATO), or program to exterminate and drive out the residents of Donbass. The prestigious fascist U.S. think tank, the Brookings Institution, urged Obama to increase the firebombings of Donbass, but he decided not to follow that advice, at that particular time.

Obama wants ultimately to base American nuclear missiles in Ukraine on Russia’s border (much like the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev had unsuccessfully tried to do to America in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis), and this coup and ethnic-cleansing (to make the coup-regime stick) is how he goes about achieving his goal. Perhaps the next U.S. President will succeed in it. The entire plan had started under U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, in 1990; and every U.S. President since then has advanced it further. The United States, ever since around 1980, hasn’t been a democracy; it’s a dictatorship. That’s why it does things like this.

Back in June 2014, shortly after Poroshenko became Ukraine’s President, a Gallup poll in Ukraine taken for the U.S. government showed (p. 27) a geographical breakdown of the answers to the question “Tell me whether you think Russia has played a mostly positive role or a mostly negative role in the crisis in Ukraine. Percent ‘mostly positive’”. The entire country was broken down into 6 regions there, which included not only the regions that had voted against Yanukovych in 2010 (such as the May 25th election had excluded) but also the two regions that had voted the most heavily for Yanukovych, Donbass (which had voted over 90% for him, and which here constituted the eastern half of the region called “East,” which entire region was shown as having rated Russia’s “role in the crisis in Ukraine” 35.7% as having been “mostly positive”), and also Crimea (which constituted the entirety of one of those 6 regions, and which had voted around 75% for Yanukovych, and which answered 71.3% that Russia’s “role” had been “mostly positive”). The only other region where Russia’s “role” had been rated as “mostly positive” by more than 3% was the area around Odessa, called here “South,” where 28.4% of the people rated it “mostly positive.”

All three of the other regions of the pre-coup Ukraine were the regions where the Presidential election had been held on May 25th of 2014: these were the regions Gallup categorized as Center (2.4% “mostly positive”), North (1.8% “mostly positive”), and West (1% “mostly positive”). So, Poroshenko had been elected as the President for all of Ukraine, but by  only voters in the most anti-Russian half  of that extremely divided country; and now the residents of two of the other areas (areas in the strongly pro-Yanukovych half of Ukraine) had tried to separate from Ukraine and to join again with Russia (of which those regions had long been parts): Crimea, and Donbass. Crimea was accepted by Putin into Russia, but Donbass was not.

U.S. President Obama imposed the economic sanctions against Russia for Russia’s having accepted the pleas of Crimeans to rejoin Russia, and for Russia’s having accepted the pleas of Crimeans to rejoin Russia, and for Russia’s opposition to the Obama-imposed government’s ethnic-cleansing program to exterminate and/or expell from Ukraine the residents of the Donbass region of Ukraine. The same European Union that accepted Obama’s bloody February 2014 Ukrainian coup have also been accepting his ethnic-cleansing campaign there; and Obama insists upon its being ultimately continued, notwithstanding his Secretary of State, John Kerry’s, internal opposition to it.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2015

All Americans who have completed grades one-through-12 believe that they know American history. However, vertually no one truely understands the American history of the 21st Century. You think not? Well test your knowledge against what you will learn by watching this comprehensive intrview with Paul Craig Roberts. Nuclear war is on the horizon, and the first step to stave it off is for Americans to understand today's history. In addition, PCR the superb (and honest) economist points out that US employment is being faked by the government. Those who have given up finding a job have been written off as nonexistant. If the Labor Force Participation Rate had been considered unemployment would be 23%. In fact the middle class has be rapidly shrinking. For example 50% of age-25 Americans are now forced to live with their parents. PCR also explains the senselessness of the recent up-tic in the Fed's interest rates. Educate yourselves folks, before it's too late!

---

US Stupid Enough to Cause Nuclear War-Paul Craig Roberts

By Greg Hunter On December 27, 2015

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com  (Early Sunday Release)

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has a dim view of the so-called “economic recovery.” Dr. Roberts contends, “There has been no recovery whatsoever. . . . If you look at the economy realistically, and that means you don’t use their phony numbers, there has been no recovery whatsoever and, in fact, it continues to worsen. We see that the “Labor Force Participation Rate” continues to sink. . . . When you consider the full measure of unemployment . . . we still have an unemployment rate of 23% after 7 years of an alleged recovery? I think this is the first so-called recovery where the labor force fell. Normally, when you have a recovery, people re-enter the labor force and the participation rate rises. . . . How do you have 5% unemployment when half of all 25 year old people have to live at home with their parents? What kind of a “recovery” is that? They say there is no inflation, but everyone that goes shopping knows that is a lie. . . . It’s all just a package of smoke, mirrors and lies.”

Don’t expect this to turn around anytime soon. Dr. Roberts says, “There is no opportunity for the middle-class. It must be shrinking. I would say the U.S. economy is in long-term decline. 
Rigging the way you measure inflation, rigging the way you measure unemployment, that may fool ordinary people, but that does not fool those of us who look at the numbers.”

On war, Dr. Roberts’ view is dire and goes on to explain, “Everything that previous presidents have done to try to defuse the kind of tensions between nuclear powers that could lead to war, all this has been thrown away by Clinton, George W. Bush and the current White House fool. It’s all due to the Neoconservatives. So, yes, we are in a more dangerous situation than in the worst part of the cold war. Thanks to the Neoconservatives and thanks to the American ‘presstitute’ media with people who lie for a living, we are in more danger than we have ever been. A war could result, and if it doesn’t, then it’s just because Putin has got too much sense. I don’t think Putin is going to absorb these provocations forever, and I don’t think he’s going to put up with any more nonsense in Ukraine. That was a part of Russia longer than the United States has existed. . . .Can you imagine anything more insane and reckless than you go into a part of Russia, that has only been independent for a few years, and overthrow a democratically elected government that is getting along with Russia and stick in an American puppet with all these crazed right-wing Nazi people and cause all this trouble with Russia and tell endless lies about it? What is more reckless and irresponsible? That is the way the United States government is behaving. If you can do things that stupid, you can cause a nuclear war.”
 
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
 
(There is much more in this in-depth interview.)

https://youtu.be/gZx7JWSOqK0

After the Interview:
There are free articles and information on PaulCraigRoberts.org. If you want to support Dr. Roberts, you can do so by clicking here.

Dearest friends, Catherine and I wish you a very joyful Christmas and a Happy New Year.  The pix below are from our home photographed today on Christmas Eve.

I haven’t posted a blog since last Friday because I think that more Americans should first read that one.  Apropos, as a kid our teachers would have drills where we would dive beneath our desks supposedly to save us from a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Fortunately Ronald Reagan, after having termed the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” negotiated a truce based on “mutually assured destruction.” This happy event was almost broken due to the Cuban missile crisis, but it was solved by John Kennedy negotiating a deal with Nikita Khrushchev, once again saving the world from nuclear annihilation.

Now the US neocons that have full command of the US government have broken the Kennedy-Khrushchev truce and are plotting to have a nuclear war with Russia come hell or high water.  Most of you won’t believe this because you can't believe that our government lies about everything and that the “mainstream” media repeat these lies in order to keep their jobs.  For example, the mainstream media scares the pants off Americans thinking of coming to Mexico, whereas we have lived in Mexico for 10 years now and have made around 100 6-hour round trips on the north-south highway to the US without being once stopped by the police, much less being shot by a cop. It's being in the US that scares us...

In fact, the US has now become the “the evil empire,” while Russia (1) has vastly superior nuclear and non-nuclear weapons but (2) is ready to negotiate a truce with anyone thinking of having a nuclear war.  While the mainstream media make Vladimir Putin to be a monster, I’ve watched a 3-hour “state of the union” address to his entire government plus members of the press whose questions he answered thoughtfully in the last half hour.  I was able to follow Putin’s discussion thanks to a near simultaneous English translation, which even if faked, contained no bluster by Putin, and both his government and the press showed no signs of agitation.   

To get a more accurate view of the real Putin, I strongly recommend that you play this short video that I featured in one of my earlier blogs: http://impactglassman.blogspot.mx/2015/10/americans-who-get-their-news-from.html   Enjoy!

Dave 
Tip: Once you have played Putin singing on the blog that I provide above, move past the bottom of that blog and find and click on the word "Home".  This will return you to where you started. Then you may scroll down to my re-post of the previous Friday, which explains what would happen if the US should ever start a nuclear war with Russia.

N.B. The blogger has turned over this space to Paul Craig Roberts: "You Want War With Russia? In this article [below], Pepe Escobar spells out the across-the-board military superiority of Russia over the combined forces of the West. The reckless arrogance of the American neoconservatives has blinded the White House Fool and the dumbshits that sit in the House and Senate to the disastrous consequences for the West of war with Russia. American military procurement has always been an insider’s racket against the taxpayer and the military itself. With the Soviet collapse, the endless over-budget costs were joined by increasingly shoddy work, so that the military budget was siphoned off into junk projects, such as the F-35 and the Navy’s latest ship, which broke down before the new ship could reach its port under its own power. For the corrupt defense contractors, grabbing money is the goal, not producing war-worthy products. We have arrived at the situation where the dumbshits in Washington have threatened Russia with an unloaded gun, and the Russian gun is very well loaded. Washington can either eat crow or get us all killed. Knowing the egotistic bastards, they will get us all killed before their fragile egos let them back down."

---

OpEdNews Op Eds 12/16/2015 at 19:01:27

You Want War? Russia is Ready for War

By Pepe Escobar (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): NATO; Putin; Russia And Turkey; Russia And Us Conflict; Russian Military Strategy; Weapons

opednews.com                                                                Headlined to H2 12/16/15

(image by YouTube)   DMCA

Nobody needs to read Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski's 1997 opus to know US foreign policy revolves around one single overarching theme: prevent -- by all means necessary -- the emergence of a power, or powers, capable of constraining Washington's unilateral swagger, not only in Eurasia but across the world.
The Pentagon carries the same message embedded in newspeak: the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.

Syria is leading all these assumptions to collapse like a house of cards. So no wonder in a Beltway under no visible chain of command -- the Obama administration barely qualifies as lame duck -- angst is the norm.

The Pentagon is now engaged in a Vietnam-style escalation of boots on the ground across "Syraq." Fifty commandos are already in northern Syria "advising" the YPG Syrian Kurds as well as a few "moderate" Sunnis. Translation: telling them what Washington wants them to do. The official White House spin is that these commandos "support local forces" (Obama's words) in cutting off supply lines leading to the fake "Caliphate" capital, Raqqa.

Another 200 Special Forces sent to Iraq will soon follow, allegedly to "engage in direct combat" against the leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, which is now ensconced in Mosul.

These developments, billed as "efforts" to "partially re-engage in Iraq and Syria" are leading US Think Tankland to pen hilarious reports in search of "the perfect balance between wide-scale invasion and complete disengagement" -- when everyone knows Washington will never disengage from the Middle East's strategic oil wealth.

All these American boots on the ground in theory should be coordinating, soon, with a new, spectacularly surrealist 34-country "Islamic" coalition (Iran was not invited), set up to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh by no less than the ideological matrix of all strands of Salafi-jihadism: Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

Syria is now Coalition Central. There are at least four; the "4+1" (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah), which is actually fighting Daesh; the US-led coalition, a sort of mini NATO-GCC combo, but with the GCC doing nothing; the Russia-France direct military collaboration; and the new Saudi-led "Islamic" charade. They are pitted against an astonishing number of Salafi-jhadi coalitions and alliances of convenience that last from a few months to a few hours.

And then there's Turkey, which under Sultan Erdogan plays a vicious double game.

Sarajevo All Over Again?

"Tense" does not even begin to describe the current Russia-Turkey geopolitical tension, which shows no sign of abating. The Empire of Chaos lavishly profits from it as a privileged spectator; as long as the tension lasts, prospects of Eurasia integration are hampered.

Russian intel has certainly played all possible scenarios involving a NATO Turkish army on the Turkish-Syrian border as well as the possibility of Ankara closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the Russian "Syria Express." Erdogan may not be foolish enough to offer Russia yet another casus belli. But Moscow is taking no chances.

Russia has placed ships and submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles in case Turkey under the cover of NATO decides to strike out against the Russian position. President Putin has been clear; Russia will use nuclear weapons if necessary if conventional forces are threatened.

If Ankara opts for a suicide mission of knocking out yet another Su-24, or Su-34, Russia will simply clear the airspace all across the border via the S-400s. If Ankara under the cover of NATO responds by launching the Turkish Army on Russian positions, Russia will use nuclear missiles, drawing NATO into war not only in Syria but potentially also in Europe. And this would include using nuclear missiles to keep Russian strategic use of the Bosphorus open.

That's how we can draw a parallel of Syria today as the equivalent of Sarajevo 1914.

Since mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war games -- as many as 16 times, under different scenarios -- pitting NATO against Russia. All scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations yielded the same victor: Russia.

And that's why Erdogan's erratic behavior actually terrifies quite a few real players from Washington to Brussels.

Let Me Take You on a Missile Cruise

The Pentagon is very much aware of the tremendous heavy metal Russia may unleash if provoked to the limit by someone like Erdogan. Let's roll out an abridged list.

Russia can use the mighty SS-18 -- which NATO codenames "Satan"; each "Satan" carries 10 warheads, with a yield of 750 to 1000 kilotons each, enough to destroy an area the size of New York state.

The Topol M ICBM is the world's fastest missile at 21 Mach (16,000 miles an hour); against it, there's no defense. Launched from Moscow, it hits New York City in 18 minutes, and L.A. in 22.8 minutes.

Russian submarines -- as well as Chinese submarines -- are able to launch offshore the US, striking coastal targets within a minute. Chinese submarines have surfaced next to US aircraft carriers undetected, and Russian submarines can do the same.

The S-500 anti-missile system is capable of sealing Russia off from ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Moscow will only admit on the record that the S-500s will be rolled out in 2016; but the fact the S-400s will soon be delivered to China implies the S-500s may be already operational.)

The S-500 makes the Patriot missile look like a V-2 from WWII.

Here, a former adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations essentially goes on the record saying the whole US missile defense apparatus is worthless.

Russia has a supersonic bomber fleet of Tupolev Tu-160s; they can take off from airbases deep in the heart of Russia, fly over the North Pole, launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from safe distances over the Atlantic, and return home to watch the whole thing on TV.

Russia can cripple virtually every forward NATO base with tactical -- or battlefield -- small-yield nuclear weapons. It's not by accident that Russia over the past few months tested NATO response times in multiple occasions.

The Iskander missile travels at seven times the speed of sound with a range of 400 km. It's deadly to airfields, logistics points and other stationary infrastructure along a broad war theatre, for instance in southern Turkey.

NATO would need to knock out all these Iskanders. But then they would need to face the S-400s -- or, worse, S-500s -- which Russia can layer in defense zones in nearly every conceivable theater of war. Positioning the S-400s in Kaliningrad, for instance, would cripple all NATO air operations deep inside Europe.

And presiding over military decisions, Russia privileges the use of Reflexive Control (RC). This is a tactic that aims to convey selected information to the enemy that forces him into making self-defeating decisions; a sort of virus influencing and controlling his decision-making process. Russia uses RC tactically, strategically and geopolitically. A young Vladimir Putin learned all there is to know about RC at the 401st KGB School and further on in his career as a KGB/FSB officer.

All right, Erdogan and NATO; do you still wanna go to war?

---

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of "Globalistan" (2007), "Red Zone Blues" (2007), "Obama does Globalistan" (2009) and "Empire of Chaos" (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is "2030", also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.

"Would you be willing to defend your country against a foreign invasion? That’s all Putin is doing in Syria." Thus proposes blogger Mike Whitney, who covers the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, 9/11, 'War on Terrorism', US NATO War Agenda, Syria, and in the present case reads the mind of Vladimir Putin who met John Kerry yesterday and no doubt gave him harsh message to carry back to Obama and his neocon masters.

---

Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet

By Mike Whitney                                           Region: Middle East & North Africa, Russia and FSU

Global Research, December 16, 2015        Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', US NATO War Agenda

CounterPunch 25 December 2015                              In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

         

Would you be willing to defend your country against a foreign invasion?

That’s all Putin is doing in Syria. He’s just preempting the tidal wave of jihadis that’ll be coming his way once the current fracas is over.  He figures it’s better to exterminate these US-backed maniacs in Syria now than face them in Chechnya, St Petersburg and Moscow sometime in the future.  Can you blame him? After all, if Washington’s strategy works in Syria, then you can bet they’ll try the same thing in Beirut, Tehran and Moscow.

So what choice does Putin have?

None. He has no choice.  His back is against the wall. He has to fight.  No one in Washington seems to get this. They think Putin can throw in the towel and call it “quits” at the first sign of getting bogged down. But he can’t throw in the towel because Russia’s facing an existential crisis.  If he loses, then Russia’s going to wind up on the same scrap heap as Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. You can bet on it. So the only thing he can do is win. Period. Victory isn’t an option, it’s a necessity.

Do you think that Putin and his advisors have had their heads in the sand for the last 15 years, that they haven’t noticed the US rampaging around the globe bumping off one country after the other leaving behind nothing but anarchy and ruin? Do you think they don’t know that Russia is on the top of Washington’s hit-list? Do you think they haven’t noticed NATO inching closer to Russia’s borders while foam-at-the-mouth politicians in Washington wave their fists and growl about Hitler Putin and evil Russia?

Of course they’ve noticed. Everyone’s noticed. Everyone knows Washington is on the warpath and its leaders have gone stark raving mad. How could they not notice?

But all that’s done is focus the mind on the task at hand, and the task at hand is to whoop the tar out of the terrorists, put an end to Washington’s sick little jihadi game, and go home. That’s Russia’s plan in a nutshell.  No one is trying to cobble together the long-lost Soviet empire. That’s pure bunkum.  Russia just wants to clean up this nest of vipers and call it a day. There’s nothing more to it than that.

But what if the going gets tough and Syria becomes a quagmire?

That doesn’t change anything, because Russia still has to win. If that means sending ground troops to Syria, then that’s what Putin will do. If that means asymmetrical warfare, like arming the Kurds or the Yemenis, or the Taliban or even disparate anti-regime Shiites in Saudi Arabia, then he’ll do that too. Whatever it takes. This isn’t a game, it’s a fight for survival; Russia’s survival as a sovereign country. That’s what the stakes are. That’s not something Putin takes lightly.

Keep in mind, that Russia’s situation is entirely different than that of the US. The US is engaged in a vast “pivot” project to remove secular regimes that are hostile towards Washington, control vital resources from North Africa through the Middle East and across Central Asia, establish military bases wherever necessary, maintain the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and redraw the map of the ME in a way that best suits the commercial and strategic interests of its core constituents; the banks, the multinational corporations and the big weapons manufacturers.

Russia doesn’t have any grandiose plans like that. Putin just wants to sell oil, make money, raise living standards in Russia, and get on with life. He figured that if he played by the rules– Washington’s rules– joined the WTO, then he’d be okay. But that’s not the way it works. The WTO’s rules, like the IMF’s rules are only upheld as long as they suit Washington’s strategic objectives. And when they don’t, well, then they’re dumped like a hot potato just like they were when the US implemented its economic sanctions on Russia or when the IMF allowed Ukraine to stiff Moscow for $3 billion in loans.  The point is, it’s a free market when Washington says it’s a free market, otherwise all bets are off.

The same rule applies to terrorism. For example, On Saturday, a group of terrorists detonated a car bomb near a hospital in the Syrian city of Homs. 22 people were killed and more than 70 were injured. So the Syrian government asked the UN Security Council to condemn the attack. Naturally, the Security Council said “Yes”, right?

Wrong. In fact, the UNSC refused to make any statement at all about the attack because, to do so, would be seen as supportive of the Syrian government that the US wants to topple. The bottom line: Blowing up civilians with car bombs is hunky-dory as long as the US benefits from it.

By the way, the Security Council is currently chaired by the US who made sure the draft was never even put to a vote.

Does that sound like a country that’s seriously committed to fighting terrorism or a country that is run by hypocrites?

The reason I ask this now is because, on Tuesday [NB two days ago], Secretary of State John Kerry is [was] scheduled to attend an emergency meeting in Moscow with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss issues that are too sensitive to reveal to the public. There’s a lot of speculation about what the two men will talk about, but the urgency and the secrecy of the meeting suggests that the topic will be one of great importance. So allow me to make a guess about what the topic will be.

When Kerry arrive[d] in Moscow tomorrow [yesterday] he’ll be rushed to meeting room at the Kremlin where he’ll be joined by Lavrov, Putin, Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu and high-ranking members from military intelligence. Then, following the initial introductions, Kerry will be shown the evidence Russian intelligence has gathered on last Sunday’s attack on a Syrian military base east of Raqqa that killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded thirteen others. The Syrian government immediately condemned the attack and accused US warplanes of conducting the operation. Later in the day,  Putin delivered an uncharacteristically-harsh and threatening statement that left no doubt that he thought the attack was a grave violation of the accepted rules of engagement and, perhaps, a declaration of war. Here’s what he said:

“Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.”  This was followed shortly after by an equally disturbing statement by Putin to the Russian Defense Ministry Board:

Special attention must be paid to strengthening the combat potential of the strategic nuclear forces and implementing defense space programs. It is necessary, as outlined in our plans, to equip all components of the nuclear triad with new arms.

Why would an incident in the village of Ayyash in far-flung Deir Ezzor Province be so important that it would bring the two nuclear-armed adversaries to the brink of war?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because there were other incidents prior to the bombing in Ayyash that laid the groundwork for the current clash. There was the ISIS downing of the Russian airliner that killed 224 Russian civilians. Two weeks after that tragedy, Putin announced at the G-20 meetings that he had gathered intelligence proving that 40 countries –including some in the G-20 itself–were involved in the funding and supporting of ISIS. This story was completely blacked out in the western media and, so far, Russia has not revealed the names of any of the countries involved.

So, I ask you, dear reader, do you think the United States is on that list of ISIS supporters?

Then there was the downing of the Russian Su-24, a Russian bomber that was shot down by Turkish F-16s while it was carrying out its mission to exterminate terrorists in Syria. Many analysts do not believe that the   Su-24 could have been destroyed without surveillance and logistical support provided by US AWACs or US satellites. Many others scoff at the idea that Turkey would engage in such a risky plan without the go-ahead from Washington. Either way, the belief that Washington was directly involved in the downing of a Russian warplane is widespread.

So, I ask you, dear reader, do you think Washington gave Turkey the greenlight?

Finally, we have the aerial attack on the Syrian military base in Deir Ezzor, an attack that was either executed by US warplanes or US-coalition warplanes. Not only does the attack constitute a direct assault on the Russian-led coalition (an act of war) but the bombing raid was also carried out in tandem  with a “a full-scale ISIS offensive on the villages of Ayyash and Bgelia.”  The coordination suggests that either the US or US allies were providing  air-cover for ISIS terrorists to carry out their ground operations.  Author Alexander Mercouris– who is certainly no conspiracy nut–expands on this idea in a recent piece at Russia Insider which provides more detail on the incident. The article begins like this:

    Did Members of the US-Led Coalition Carry Out an Air Strike to Help ISIS? Russia Implies They Did. Russian statement appears to implicate aircraft from two member states of the US led coalition in the air strike on the Syrian military base in Deir az-Zor….This information – if it is true – begs a host of questions.

    Firstly, the Syrian military base that was hit by the air strike was apparently the scene of a bitter battle between the Syrian military and the Islamic State.  It seems that shortly after the air strike – and most probably as a result of it – the Islamic State’s fighters were able to storm it.

    Inevitably, that begs the question of whether the aircraft that carried out the air strike were providing air support to the fighters of the Islamic State.

    On the face of it, it looks like they were. After all, if what happened was simply a mistake, it might have been expected that the US and its allies would say as much.  If so, it is an extremely serious and worrying development, suggesting that some members of the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition are actually in league with the Islamic State.  (“Did Members of the US-Led Coalition Carry Out an Air Strike to Help ISIS?” Alexander Mercouris, Russia Insider)

So there it is in black and white. The Russians think someone in the US-led coalition is teaming up with ISIS. That should make for some interesting conversation when Kerry sashays into the Kremlin today.

Does Kerry have any clue that Putin and his lieutenants are probably going to produce evidence that coalition warplanes were involved in the bombing of the Syrian military base?  How do you think he’ll respond to that news? Will he apologize or just stand there dumbstruck? And how will he react when Putin tells him that if a similar incident takes place in the future, Russian warplanes and anti-aircraft units are going to shoot the perpetrator down?

If I am not mistaken, Kerry is in for a big surprise on Tuesday. He’s about to learn that Putin takes war very seriously and is not going to let Washington sabotage his plans for success. If Kerry’s smart, he’ll pass along that message to Obama and tell him he needs to dial it down a notch if he wants to avoid a war with Russia.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

The original source of this article is CounterPunch 
Copyright © Mike Whitney, CounterPunch, 2015

Paul Craig Roberts' blog is the number-one source of the important things we should all know but which our lying government won't tell us. In this case he opens with an appeal to support his endeavor, because he is no longer in a high place in the government (e.g. with Ronald Reagan) and tells the truth (mainly that our government is the "Evil Empire" but doesen't want We to People to know it). In this very important post he reminds us all that he needs donations to keep up his blog (fortunately I dropped him a sizable contribution a couple days ago). But donation or not, be sure to read the rest of this important post and subsequent related material that I've added.

---

Kerry’s Moscow Meeting: A Hopeful Sign?

---

December 16, 2015 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Kerry’s Moscow Meeting: A Hopeful Sign?

Paul Craig Roberts

As those of you who support this website know, the deal we made is that this is your site, and it will remain up as long as you support it. Many of you have kept our bargain.

Today this website alone has hundreds of thousands of readers, and millions more from the many websites in the US and abroad that republish my columns. But only a relatively few readers financially support the website. The reluctance of Americans to support those who give them truth is one reason Americans have so little of it.

Columns on the website created at your request are translated into many languages: Chinese, Russian, Iranian, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Romanian, and perhaps others of which I am unaware. Japanese readers tell me that my columns are discussed in Japan.

Three books have originated from columns I have posted on this website. One is The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism And Economic Dissolution Of The West. This book has been pubished in German, English, Czech, Chinese, and Korean.

Another book is How America Was Lost. This book has been pubished in German, English, French, and is forthcoming in Russian.

My most recent book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War For Hegemony. This book has been pubished in English and in German.

Recently, former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama used my articles about the alleged ISIL Paris attack to raise questions in Japan’s parliament about the official story of the attack.

Also recently, a prominent French commentator, Philippe Grasset, wrote about my warning that Washington has the planet on the road to destruction in nuclear war. Grasset agrees about the road that we are on, but hopes that Washington will collapse from economic and political dysfunction before Washington can initiate nuclear war.

We must all pray that the French writer’s hopes are on the mark and that the evil in Washington collapses before it can destroy life on earth.

In the meantime we must face reality, which can be discouraging. Yesterday, December 15, US Secretary of State John Kerry met in Moscow with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Defense Minister, Sergey Shoygu, followed by a meeting with President Putin. The day before the meeting the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Washington of failure to comply with the Russian-American agreement designed to avoid conflict between Russia and NATO in Syria.

The combination of Russian diplomacy and the West’s presstitute media makes it unlikely that we will learn what Lavrov, Shoygu, and Putin told Kerry. It is likely that Kerry was presented with evidence that Washington is the culprit that attacked a Syrian military base in the area of Russian operations, and that the Russian government sees this as a violation of the accepted rules of engagement, to which Washington had agreed, and perhaps as an indication that the crazies in Washington intend war against the Russian/Syrian coalition against ISIS.

Additionally, more evidence has materialized that Turkey’s attack, which downed the Russian SU-24, had the logistical support of US AWACs aircraft or US satellites. http://russia-insider.com/en/natos-got-brand-new-syrian-bag/ri11846

In other words, Russia has Washington cold on Washington’s involvement with, and support of, ISIS and Turkey’s act of war against Russia.

We will not know if a confrontation occurred, but Kerry came out of the Moscow meeting talking a different talk: “We see Syria fundamentally very similarly, we want the same outcomes.” “The US stands ready to work with Russia.” “Russia and the United States agree that you can’t defeat Daesh (ISIL) without also deescalating the fight in Syria.” “Syrians will be making decisions on the future of Syria.” “We don’t seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy.”

From the Russian side, things don’t sound as well. Today, according to Reuters, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova said that serious differences remain between Russia and the US. Still, it is not completely clear that the Russian government and media understand that behind the evil of ISIL is the greater evil of Washington. How many more times will Russia be burned as a result of trusting Washington?

Hopefully, the meeting in Moscow helped Kerry understand that the Obama regime’s neoconservative policies have created a momentum toward war that needs to be broken. As the Syrian drama unfolds, the Russian government will learn whether Kerry’s words are for real or just more of Washington’s dissembling. 

---

Here are some key statements from the meeting between Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov, and John Kerry in Moscow on the 15th of December to which Paul Craig Roberts refers in the preceding post. However, it remains to be seen that "isolation of Russia is not included in the plans of the United States," given our government's propensity for lying.

---

Key statements following meeting between Putin, Lavrov, and Kerry in Moscow

The Kremlin website may have more substantial information, at least on what the Russian delegation said.

Hopefully, the Kremlin counted the silver before the US delegation left. With Nuland, Tefft and company, no telling what they would lift as souvenirs.

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
15th December, 2015

U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry confirmed to the President of Russia Vladimir Putin that Washington is ready to work with Moscow to defeat the terrorist organization ISIS.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry after his talks in Moscow with Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

In the meeting, which lasted more than three hours, the Russian side was also attended by the Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, on the American side assistant Secretary of state Victoria Nuland, special assistant to the U.S. President for Russia Celeste Wallander and the US Ambassador to Russia John Tefft.

On the situation in Syria:

The parties agreed to continue work on compiling the list of terrorist organizations operating in Syria.

We agreed to continue to work in terms of compiling a unified list of terrorist organizations and to assist the UN in forming the delegations of the opposition – Sergei Lavrov

We found some areas of agreement in the classification of terrorist groups, but I can’t talk now about what we have agreed on a bilateral basis, because, as he said Sergei (Lavrov), the whole support Group Syria should participate in this discussion and it is important that all contributed to the decision – John Kerry

U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry confirmed to the President of Russia Vladimir Putin that the United States stands ready to work with Russia to defeat Russia banned terrorist organization “Islamic state” (is, formerly ISIS).

I confirmed to President Putin that U.S. ready to work with Russia to defeat the ISIL – John Kerry

Confirmed today the agreements that were reached between the military of the Russian Federation and the United States, and agreements that apply to the United States led a coalition to combat “Islamic state” (ISIS is a terrorist group banned in Russia). In practical terms agreed on some further steps that will help to make the fight against terrorism more effective – Sergei Lavrov

The parties agreed that the agreements reached in Vienna on Syria was approved by a UN resolution.

We agreed to continue work on the terrorist problem and on the organization of negotiations between the government and the opposition, we nevertheless deemed it appropriate at this stage to confirm the agreements that were reached in Vienna on October 30 and November 14 in the form of a resolution of the UN Security Council – Sergey Lavrov

During the negotiations was also affected by the military operation HQs of the Russian Federation in the SAR.

A recent report to the UN contained the assertion that the Russian operation in Syria has led to increased suffering of the civilian population. In these statements there were no references to facts. We requested the UN present such facts – Sergei Lavrov

Isolation of Russia is not included in the plans of the United States:

At the conclusion of the talks, Kerry said U.S. President Barack Obama about Russia’s isolation and explained that they were caused by the situation with the Crimea. Also the parties expressed unanimity in commitment to the Minsk agreements on settling the situation in Ukraine.

We exchanged assessments regarding the challenges to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. The Russian Federation and the USA are building on the agreements in principle reached between presidents Putin and Obama reaffirm their support of the Minsk agreements, we support “Normandy format” and will use their opportunities to achieve full implementation of the Minsk agreements – Sergei Lavrov

The USA does not have a specific policy on the isolation of the Russian Federation. We have a position related to the fact that we defend our principles and values. But, like I said, it is important for us to find areas of agreement and constructive behaviour – John Kerry

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/12/key-statements-following-meeting.html