« Open Thread 14 August 2016 | Main | The essential Hilly »

14 August 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

michael brenner

Soros has been a vociferous leader of the "war camp" calling for confrontation with Russia. See his essays in the New York Review of Books.



I believe transatlanticist Ulrich Speck seriously misunderstood why the German media failed to be effective in argueing the case for the Ukraine Poroshenko government in Germany.

The main problem was not that the pro-Poroshenko propaganda was not enough, but the case was just too bad. Most Germans tend not want to align with coups, especially when many foot soldiers of the coup are sporting Nazi emblems.

What was described by Ulrich Speck as good reporting by foreign correspondents worked at first, but as more facts (like about the shots on Institutka being false flag, the mass murder in Odessa and Ukrainian activists sporting the Wolfsangel and even the Swastika) appeared, it was perceived by many German people as completely dishonest propaganda, so much, that it fired back on a significant part of the German population which got involved in pushing back the anti-Russian propaganda line.

The same happened with the Borg PR line in general which almost completely dominated the German mass media. In talk shows usually Russian officials with little German language knowledge or allged friends of Russia who failed to put major arguments on display were invited to present an alibi for the Russian view, eloquent Russia-friendly politicians from the SPD like Schröder, Voscherau and their political friends were silenced by the media, and the general media line was Putin is the new Hitler, and what will we do about it? But while many TV consumers bougth that propaganda and their view on Russia changed negative, on the growing group of better informed internet users the propaganda seriously backfired. These people were outraged by the relentless anti-Russian propaganda Ulrich Speck describes as good reporting.

So a serious split appeared in Germany, and even a Russia-friendly right-wing party (AfD) appeared shocking Merkel's CDU and the transatlantic establishment. The trans-atlantic establishment in Germany - to which Speck belongs - is far from defeated, but it is now far less all-powerful as it once was.

In the end the reason however, was not - as Speck believes - Russian propaganda skills or German business interests in Russia, but a bad case for the Ukraine revolutionary government and it's forces. Germans nowadays just dislike Wolfsangeln, Swastikas, murderous false flag attacks and murdering peaceful protesters in union buildings, and the more the people learned about these things regarding Ukraine, the more they disliked the coup in Ukraine.


That would be the Soros whose been banging the drum for war with Russia since forever yes? That George Soros? The George Soros who's the friendly face of war throughout the Balkans and who now wants to do the same in Ukraine and points east? That's the George Soros whose vehicle you're discussing?

As a matter of interest do you speak read or write German? Because if you've paid anything more than even cursory attention to German language German media you'd know that when you wrote:

"The only conclusion I can draw from its content is that the intentions of OSI towards Russia are not benign."

That you were engaging in massive understatement. The man is a war-mongering pig and quite frankly I wish he'd FOAD and take his various hirelings with him.

As a PS: I think Bandolero's comment above is spot on.


thanks, Walrus, highly interesting. If real. Maybe I have not paid enough attention on Ulrich Speck, the journalist. BUT: Unfortunately we don't have Annex 1.

From the top of my head, meaning arbitrary association, and not my favorites after reading it:

A broad majority is in favor of supporting Ukraine, but only with non-military means. In March 2014 58% say that the EU and Germany should support Ukraine, in May 69% are in favor of economic help. But supplying weapons is, in February 2015, supported by only 8%. The view of a EU membership perspective for Ukraine is mixed. In March 2014, 55% according to one poll, 41% according to another poll support future EU membership for Ukraine, while 51% or 34% are against. On NATO membership the view is quite negative: In April 2014 39% against, 20% in favor, in September 2014 even 61% against, 31% in favor, in December 2014 67% against, 26% in favor.

George drew my attention when he surfaced during the latest EU-Greece crisis. In a project he partly sponsored too:


Random cut: But Ukraine is different (then Greece). It is a black-and-white case. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine, in defending itself, is defending the values and principles on which the EU was built.

Yet Europe treats Ukraine like another Greece. That is the wrong approach, and it is producing the wrong results. Putin is gaining ground in Ukraine, and Europe is so preoccupied with Greece that it hardly pays any attention.

There were more explicit ones in which he showed enormous knowledge on what type of the EU's financial tools could solve the Ukrainian debt problems. Or make them go away "via their big pockets". 60 billion, may have felt comparatively little to him at the time, versus the Greek numbers.



Soros does not do "intelligence." Intelligence is about truth telling. Soros does "information operations" i.e., propaganda. This is about getting a result that you want. pl


Sorry, the Soros quote ends here:
"....Greece that it hardly pays any attention. "

In other words should look like this:
Random cut: But Ukraine is different (then Greece). It is a black-and-white case. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine, in defending itself, is defending the values and principles on which the EU was built.

Yet Europe treats Ukraine like another Greece. That is the wrong approach, and it is producing the wrong results. Putin is gaining ground in Ukraine, and Europe is so preoccupied with Greece that it hardly pays any attention.


If you hold that the current Cold War pitches West vs East or America and NATO vs Russia and China you are only partially correct. The conflict is primarily between die hard Globalists against die hard Nationalists. The former are also known as Neo-Liberals. Some Neo liberals pay lip service to American exceptionalism while others are even less emphatic. Protectionists aka Nationalists are struggling to strengthen their borders and the sovereignity of their Nation State.

Brexit, Turkexit, Likudnism (Zionism) and Trump's political platform may be seen in the context of Nationalism opposing the Neo-Liberal Globalists.

George Soros is the most prominent Neo-Liberal Globalist. He is the puppet master behind: Obama, the Clintons, Merkel, etc. He is credited with nearly breaking the Bank of England among many other engineered upheavals. Are we surprised at the success of Brexit? Soros is accused of engineering the regime change in Ukraine and the Migrant's crisis in Europe.

Why would Soros, a Hungarian born American billionaire Jew be opposed to the Likudniks in Israel? Because Likud's settler policies against Palestinians run counter to fully enlisting the Islamic World into the Globalists' agenda.

The rapprochement between Netanyahu, Erdogan, Putin may be seen in this context. Erdogan's loyalty to the Globalists was wavering due to Obama's support for the Kurds. Erdogan decided to make up with Netanyahu and Putin for the survival of Turkey as a sovereign nation. Now Erdogan makes seemingly shocking public statements claiming to also want the integrity of undivided Syria as Putin does.

The mutual sympathy between Trump and Netanyahu may be seen in this context. Likewise, the antipathy between Obama (and the Clintons) against Netanyahu may also be seen in the context of Neo-Liberals against Nationalism. People blame Obama as not friendly enough to Israel but people forget that Obama is just another Soros puppet.

The so called Neocons are also known as Israel firsters in American politics. They may side with the Neo-Liberals tactically in so far as American Interventionism puts Israel first. Yet, strategically Neocons are Zionists and thus Nationalists.



Nationalists when it comes to their country, globalists everywhere else. Sorry, I don't buy this argument about likudniks opposed to sores or vice versa.

robt willmann

Alex Soros, the son of George Soros, had dinner with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine last week--



Apparently Alex Soros also gets around with other politicians of the Democratic Party.

David Habakkuk


It is interesting to look a little more closely at the backgrounds both of Ulrich Speck and Soros.

Putting the former into Google, I discovered that he formerly worked for RFE/RL in Prague and Brussels. And I also discovered a March 2014 interview he gave to Michael D. Weiss, Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Interpreter’.

(See http://www.interpretermag.com/ulrich-speck-on-german-russian-relations/ .)

Explaining Merkel’s disillusion with Putin, Speck tells Weiss:

‘While the west was rolling out the red carpet, hoping to convince the Russian leadership of the virtue of liberal democracy and market economy through a growing web of interconnection on all levels, Russian leadership has put the country on an entirely different course: more autocratic and more capable and willing to project power outside its borders.’

As it happens, the ‘Interpreter’ started as a project of the ‘Institute of Modern Russia’, behind whose foundation were Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his son Pavel. As of January this year, it is ‘funded and presented by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.’

(See http://www.interpretermag.com/about-us/ .)

On Michael D. Weiss, incidentally, a profile which has just appeared on the ‘Unz Review’ site explains his role as a kind of ‘bridge’ between American and British ‘neoconservatism.’ It takes in, among other things, his role as ‘Research Director’ for the ‘Henry Jackson Society’, the principal British ‘neocon’ organisation.

(See http://www.unz.com/article/michael-weiss-and-the-iran-u-s-hardline-nexus-that-led-iranian-american-to-evin-prison/ .)

What unfortunately Michael D. Weiss, Ulrich Speck, and the ‘Henry Jackson Society’ people seem to have difficulty realising is that the result of Western-sponsored ‘shock therapy’ in the former Soviet Union in the ‘Nineties was that the place was systematically looted by a small number of – largely Jewish – oligarchs, Khodorkovsky being one of the most notable. At the same time, the vast majority of the population fell into destitution.

If you really wanted to persuade the mass of the population that Western advocacy of ‘liberal democracy and market economy’ is so much BS, then frankly for RFE/RF to embrace the Khodorkovsky people is the right way to go about it.

Actually, what makes Weiss particularly interesting is that he exemplifies in particularly acute form the intellectual incoherences found in so much ‘neocon’ thinking, alike in the United States and Britain.

The ‘Unz Review’ profile quotes from, and links, to Weiss’s description on a site called ‘Jewcy.com’ (brought to you by Tablet Magazine) of the signing of the ‘Euston Manifesto’ in 2005, in the wake of the bitter arguments among ‘leftists’ and ‘progressives’ in Britain provoked by the invasion of Iraq.

(See http://jewcy.com/post/mutiny_on_the_manifesto .)

As Weiss describes the genesis of the document:

‘Amidst this moral and ideological muddle, a group of graying British Marxists and ex-Communists huddled together in a London pub in May of 2005 and began crafting a manifesto for the 21st century left. Enough was enough.’

Actually, ‘enough was enough’ was what a lot of us felt about all these sometime silly-leftists who morphed into silly-rightists. If people have been as wrong as erstwhile Trotkyists like Irving Kristol – and Christopher Hitchens, who was apparently mentor and role-model to Weiss – were, couldn’t they just shut up?

As to Soros, a critical fact about him is the formative influence of Sir Karl Popper’s arguments about the need to transcend ‘tribalism’ and the virtues of the ‘open society’. Accordingly, he is not a fanatical Zionist, as figures like Weiss are. Rather, he is a fanatical believer in the essentially utopian project of trying to eradicate traditional identities.

What results – as is very evident both in the ‘New York Review of Books’ pieces to which Michael Brenner referred, and the ‘Project Syndicate’ piece to which ‘LeaNder’ linked – is that a very brilliant man ends up living in a total dream world.

To say that ‘Ukraine is a black-and-white case’, and that ‘Vladimir Putin’s Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine, in defending itself, is defending the values and principles on which the EU was built’ is the most complete and utter nonsense.

At the one end one has Galicia, which had never been part of the Russian Empire until the population’s not entirely pleasant experience of the terrorist paternalism of Joseph Stalin following the Nazi-Soviet Pact. At the other one has Crimea, which was part of Byzantine/Rus culture a thousand years ago, before falling to the Mongols in the 1200s, and then reconquered by Russia from the Ottomans in in 1783.

Between the two poles – all kinds of chaotic complexities.

What both Weiss’s reflections on the ‘Euston Manifesto’ and Soros’s arguments about Ukraine illustrate is the intellectual shipwreck of certain kinds of ‘modernist’ project which are premised upon the delusion that one can somehow put the past behind one.

And here, Weiss is incoherent in another way. While at least Soros is a relatively consistent ‘Popperian’, what Weiss seems to exemplify is a common ‘neocon’ predisposition to insist that the ‘goyim’ must put ‘tribalism’ behind them – while taking for granted that Jews, because of the Holocaust, are indefinitely entitled to their own kind of ‘tribalism’: Zionism.

The tensions did not matter so much until recently. But, now the consequences of the ‘invade the world, invite the world’ policy are becoming all too grimly apparent, they quite clearly are liable to produce a revival of anti-Semitism.


On the other hand the currency speculator may have some redeeming features



and so forth. a ton of stories by googling "Soros Israel"


you somewhat loose me post, your question "why would":

Now Erdogan makes seemingly shocking public statements claiming to also want the integrity of undivided Syria as Putin does.

why do you find this statement shocking? Beyond nationalism versus the free flow of money, we don't seem to have a model post nations yet. Do we?

The mutual sympathy between Trump and Netanyahu may be seen in this context. Likewise, the antipathy between Obama (and the Clintons) against Netanyahu may also be seen in the context of Neo-Liberals against Nationalism.

Explain. Could you.

But you remind me, I should urgently finish reading a book on neoliberalism and Russia ....


When you search the Europe list for "Germany" there are more documents related to this one, the two annexi (trivial) and also the contract. Speck got $6,500 plus expenses for the work and agreed to work at least 15 days full time on it. I don't think his report is worth the money, to put it politely. In addition to what Bandolero wrote, I think one point the guy is totally unaware of is that there are still let's say ten million Germans including Merkel who speak, read and write Russian, with many direct contacts into Donbass, so once one got suspicious of the narrative, it was and is easy to find authentic peer-to-peer first hand information from a number of semi-private web outlets reporting in German.


"the two annexi (trivial)"

two, did I miss one? Where didn't I pay attention? When people were grouped into camps, partly based on special or financial interests? Is there more? ... not really serious, maybe.

But if real, Soros no doubt was paid for the endeavor and the paid knew his customer.


Yet, Soros' OSF hacked documents, made public, reveal its funding of anti-Likud initiatives. The Globalist's agenda seeks: to dissolve national borders with visa free travel, to eliminate all remaining sovereign currencies, to combat official religions, to abolish all gender or sexual preference discrimination, to abolish racial discrimination, to promote supranational entities such as WB, IMF, NATO, EU and "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA, TPP, etc.. In contrast Likud defines Israel as a Jewish state. Clearly the Likud and the Globalists hold adversarial views. A nationalist, Yigal Amir, assassinated Globalist Yitzhak Rabin. Likud is sympathetic to the Globalist agenda, only if it cooperates with the implementation of the Obed Yinon plan.


((((((((((((((((Soros))))))))))))))))))) is Hillary's puppet master and a patient zero for insane progressive policies being pushed on the West.

If I wasn't so familiar with lefty doublethink I'd be amazed how the same people here who,bang on about globalism and war mongering go and defend Hillary.

Babak Makkinejad

"Globalist", I think, obfuscates the fundamental character of what is going on.

And I am now going to state my opinion:

The Western Diocletian Civilization, per its claim to Universalism, is trying to impose its political will on other civilizations.

In cases of China, Russia, and Iran, the boundaries of civilization and the boundaries of state largely coincide; or else; the state is the core state of another civilization. This is a civilizational confrontation with no end in sight - in my opinion.

This is a useless and un-needed confrontation; Russia, China, Iran (and many others, like Japan) have been emulating & copying the Western Diocletian civilization for centuries - paying it the highest compliment by doing so.

They have not become Western; in case of Russia - she is a very good decaf.

Moreover, the Western Diocletian Civilization has been singularly unsuccessful in transplanting itself anywhere outside of its historical area in the Northwest corner of Eurasia over the last 200 years among different cultures and civilizations.

In North Africa, in India, in Vietnam - Western Diocletian Civilization failed to take root - even after a hundred years and multiple wars.

(I am excepting the New World for a number of reasons that I could elaborate if asked.)

What these Universalists seek to achieve is patently unachievable - but who is listening?


you somewhat loose me post, your question "why would":

I don't understand your first question

why do you find this statement shocking?
Until now, Erdogan has been supporting the partition of Syria. He had a change of heart after he realized that America is supporting a free Kurdistan entity. My statement used these wording: "seemingly" shocking not "shocking. Emphasis is on "seemingly."

Explain. Could you.
I think I have elaborated elsewhere but let me try again. Netanyahu is Likud and Likud defines Israel as a Jewish state. Trump has stated he will transfer the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In contrast, Kerry has rebuked Israel for announcing the demolition of shanty housing in Susya for settlement building. Likud may support the Globalists only in so far these cooperate with the Obed Yinon plan's implementation.

The neo liberals want to dissolve national borders with visa free travel (not just free flow of money), abolish sovereign currencies, abolish racism and gender bias, abolish sexual preference bias, terminate official religions. Promote supranational entities such as WB, IMF, NATO and "free" trade pacts such as NAFTA, TPP & TTIP.


BM: Western Civilization--particularly, Anglo-Saxon democracy--is very hard to export because it is idiosyncratic. The self-governing American colonies were already fully developed politically and legally before the War of Independence. For example, London booksellers sold more volumes to the American colonies than to the home market. And John Peter Zenger was acquitted of criminal libel long before we had a First Amendment.

Unless we can export Anglo-Saxon history, it's hard to export the institutions.


A rare occasion where I concur with Babak.


I don't understand your first question.

Ah! You're new here? Obviously...


The first (germany debate annex i.rtf) sources the mentioned polling data and the second (osf annex ii.rtf) lists some potential cooperation partners.



In North Africa Western Diocletian Civilization was mostly destroyed at the point of the sword by the Islamic conquest a thousand years ago.

Babak Makkinejad

France was in Algeria for more than a hundred years, treating it as a French "Department". Yet, she failed there - as anyone even remotely familiar with the Algerian scene today could attest.



Actually, three "Departments." I remember a conversation I had with an Algerian ambassador at a cocktail party. The talk was in Arabic. After a while I told him how clear and easy to understand his Arabic was. He replied that he was a Berber and had learned Arabic in school just like me. At home his parents had spoken Berber and French. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad