Three things this morning:
1) Iraq cancels a 4.2 billion dollars Russian arms deal, alleging that there are allegations of possible corruption.
2) US denies Russian request for the extradition of Viktor Bout.
3) David Petraeus resigns are Director of CIA following the FBI’s discovery of his extra-marital affair.
Now in translation:
In the first case we have something totally unheard of: the cancellation of a major weapons deal only one month following its signature. This is unheard of not only because no responsible country would ever act in such a flimsy way, but also because the excuse is particularly ridiculous: it is well-known every single major international arms deal involves kickbacks, and big ones at that, for some key players. This does not depend on the countries involved – everybody plays by the same rules. The same goes for any major energy deal, or major construction project. What has really happened here is crystal clear: the USA has vetoed this arms deal and Maliki caved in. What is remarkable here is that Russia (under Medvedev) agreed to cancel the same of S-300 SAMs to Iran under US pressure, only to be “thanked” now with this US veto. Bottom line: the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.
The second case, in stark contrast to the first one, is purely symbolic. The entire “Viktor Bout the Merchant of Death” is a US fabrication cooked up with the sole purpose to show the planet (and Russia) that the USA can do whatever the hell it wants with a Russian citizen and that there is nothing Moscow can do about it. It would have cost nothing to let the man go now, but instead Uncle Sam as thrown Victor Bout in a dungeon located as far as possible from any Russian consular representation (the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois). Yet another sign that the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.
In the third case, we have a major development masquerading as some trivial extra-marital infidelity issue. “The Director of the CIA is forced to resign because the FBI uncovered that he has had a lover”. Does that make sense to you? Think about it: how does the FBI work for? The Department of Justice or, in other words, for the Executive Branch, aka the White House and the Presidential administration. For the FBI to dare investigate the emails of the DCIA without a direct Presidential order is unthinkable. Thus, in reality, what happened is this: Obama kicked Petraeus out. Why? Well, I cannot say for sure, but I remember that Admiral Fallon – truly a top notch officer – called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” because the main characteristic of Petraeus was his abject subservience to his political bosses and his willingness to parrot whatever the hell the current administration would say. Maybe now that he has been reelected Obama does not need a spineless sycophant in his corner?
It looks to me like the USA and Russia are both preparing for some type of confrontation and that they are both quite committed to what looks to me like a collision course.
It is a pity what happened in Iraq. It seemed that this country was beginning to turn into a genuine sovereign one, and perhaps even starting to drift away from Washington, but the US noticed this and did what was necessary to prevent it in the making.
@It is a pity what happened in Iraq. Very. Because if they cannot even sign a contract with Russia, they are even going to be less likely to help Syria which makes the words of Assad that “Iraq is our main ally” sound rather hollow.
I sense an across-the-board “hardening” of the Empire which does not even bother to maintain a pretense of friendliness towards Russia. That feeling is, however, also very mutual in Russia where it is almost impossible to express a favorable opinion about the US, NATO or the EU without being immediately subjected to a verbal barrage of anti-Western arguments. The kindest thing that pro-Western pundits can say is in Russia nowadays is something like “yeah, they are pretty ugly, but they are not a real danger to us” and even that would get shouted down (not that I disagree).
Coming back to the Maliki government, it is trying to play the Iranian, Russian and American interests at the same time, but my sense is that the cancellation just proves that, at least for the time being, Uncle Sam is still in control.
There is still a small change that they might renegotiate some deal since Russia is now threatening a multi-million dollar lawsuit for breach of contract and since the USA has no equivalent of the Mi-28 to offer anyway…
Cheers,
The Saker
I believe the term “merchant of death” was coined by the Labour minnister Peter Hain who denounced Viktor Bout from the floor of the House of Commons naming him and I think several others as arms dealers who were breaking a UN arms embargo and supplying weapons to UNITA rebels in Angola thereby prolonging the civil war in that country.
Peter Hain is someone who came to Britain from South Africa and was involved in the anti apartheid movement. He was significant enough for the South African intelligence agency BOSS to try and frame him for armed robbery back in the day. He’s someone who I believe to be a man of integrity, something I wouldn’t say of all the New Labour ministers.
Of course the Western powers are also merchants of death and are happy to sell arms to dodgy regimes. David Cameron toured the Middle East recently attempting to win arms contracts for the UK arms industry with the Saudis and others. But even so I’m not sorry that Bout is in jail even if there are others out there equally guilty.
In this video, CBS News explains that the reason Petraeus’ communications came under FBI scrutiny is that a foreign intelligence service knew of extramarital affair, thereby making him susceptible to blackmail:
Why would the FBI investigate Petraeus?
So which unnamed foreign intelligence service had gained access to Petraeus’ intimate, personal communications or was aware of his sexual trysts?
CBS News declines to say who it was.
Who do you think it was?
Btw, his girlfriend’s maiden name was Paula Kranz. She took the name Broadwell after she married her phsician husband.
One other comment about Petraeus:
If Obama wanted him out he could have accepted his resignation without releasing any details of a ‘scandal’ surrounding Petraeus. It would have been taken as just another post-election reorganization of top intelligence staff. No one would have blinked if they had announced this without citing any cause other than Petraeus’ desire to ‘spend more time with his family’.
The point is that he wanted Petraeus to be discredited, even if only for some vague excuse tangentially connected with a lapse in good judegment or some minor security breach.
@Nationalist:The point is that he wanted Petraeus to be discredited, even if only for some vague excuse tangentially connected with a lapse in good judegment or some minor security breach.
I fully agree.
Dear Saker,
I fully agree with your conclusions Re: Russia.
I would add concerning Betrayeus…that it is glaringly obvious that there are TWO very distinct camps at CIA…and they are at odds with each other…
There was stories months and months prior to the election, to the effect that Betrayeus was working on an October Surprise…, in order to favor a Republican candidate because he is a ZIOCON at heart…
Best,
Joe