1074 THE MAISKY DIARIES: Book Review and Commentary

From: bronek <bronekc@me.com> Subject: DIPLOMATIC WORLD:  THE MAISKY DIARIES

THE MAISKY DIARIES: Book Review and Commentary

by B. Chapski

Newsletter published on November 8, 2019

The Maisky Diaries are a must read for all those interested in global
diplomacy or WWII. His labour is for those who have read a plethora of
bureaucratic records from the West and wish to see what elite cognitive
Soviet minds compiled. Most elite figures simply disappear due to a lack
of networking. This work reminds one of similar dissertations. At this
minute the Ponary Diary sticks out. I'd like to touch on Ponary,
networking, Maisky's background, contacts, work and life. A conclusion
refers to the ending of his life's adventure. The labour of this brief
condensed nearly 600 pages into 9.

The Ponary Diary is an obscure account of murder. Essentially, like the
Maisky Diaries, it's the result of networking concerns. It's message
emanated from notes contained in a few bottles. It's alleged data is by
Kazimier Sakowicz. He did not survive WWII. Thus, much about his
allegations can not be secured from him, or honestly verified.

Regarding this topic, it's worthy to note that activists, from around
the world, spent a great deal of time searching for info about their
1940s Ponary brethren. In this book we see that a Rachel Margolis spent
much effort, with her husband, searching for info about WWII Hebrews.
They collaborated with Jewish museum personal and others around the
globe, such as Abraham Sutskever. As a result, despite an apparent lack
of primary source substantiation, they were able to elicit their message
about suffering inflicted by Germans and Lithuanians.

After the war Madame Margolis was director of the Lithuanian historical
section of a state museum. She give out a plethora of negative info
pertaining to the Lithuanian nation where she resided.

She had obtained 16 bottles of messages about the suffering of her
brethren. These bottles also contained a document and a picture. No
doubt people were killed. In the scope of numbers the Hebrew team
deciphering the info came up with a figure that was vastly enormous and
oscillated around 60,000. It's an  extraordinary figure considering the
local population variables. The Ponary Diary was edited by Yitzhak Arad.
Now let us return to our related topic of collecting data from those
turbulent years.

The huge Maisky book of 584 pages came about due to the efforts of those
similar to the above. Itamar Rabinovich, of Tel Aviv University secured
funds for translations. Also, the help by John Donatich's global network
contributed.  The author, Gabriel Gorodetsky, from Tel Aviv University
and other schools, refers to Princeton University and additional
assistance sources. He notes his wife (Ruth Herz) who also deserves
credit as a resource. The success of these individuals is encompassing.
Unlike the Ponary Diary, the Maisky Diaries are becoming widely distributed.

As noted, the era under discussion was turbulent. If one read the recent
1,154 page classic entitled Stalin: Waiting for Hitler,  by Prof.
Stephen Kotkin, it's verified that many within the Soviets' elite were
liquidated. Thus, Maisky kept copies of his diary. My view is he wanted
to insure his legacy, but at the same time believed in Red commie utopia.

Ivan Maisky was born Jan Lachowiecki to a Jewish family in Poland.
Maisky's dad, became a tutor in Germany. Maisky bettered his dad's
accomplishments, he had a long and illustrious career. He even was a
major actor involved in the decision to support Jews during the
partitional plan for Palestine in 1947. This is fascinating due to a
recent congresswomen comparing the Holocaust to the Palestinian tragedy.
Media has attacked the argumentation and indicated Palestinians had been
anti-Semites. Seems in the study of humankind ethnicity is a leading
chapter.

Like all people, Maisky had his loves and hates. He seemed to despise
Germany. Although he had an adversity towards the Baltic States, his
dad's birth place of Poland and other countries, few could argue about
his love for England. The city of London seems to have held his heart.

In addition to having a close relationship with Churchill and Lloyd
George, he was very intimate, socially, with such famous individuals as
Bernard Shaw, who by all indications, was a communist. One of Maisky's
closest friends, the Hebrew publisher Victor Gollancz, remembered that
Maisky used to tell Jewish stories that he called  "Armenian."

Maisky, by all scales of measurement, seems to have been one of the most
influential world diplomats. One of his closest friends was Aleksandra
Kollontay, the famous Soviet militant female ambassador in Sweden and
Norway. Kollontay was a feminist who believed in free love. As for
background, earlier writings note Kollontay was of Hebrew Heritage. Wiki
notes she was Russian. Some infer her nationality was "Soviet."

As for Maisky's years in the city of Big Ben, he was almost an icon to
the British press. Maisky also had relations with the banking industry.
Further, not only did he converse with five British Prime Ministers, he
had immense backing from the Soviet foreign relations sector. In
addition to all of this, the head of the Soviet foreign relations,
Maksim Litvinov (Meir Moiseevich Wallach), a Slavic Hebrew, elicited
cardinal support for Tovarish Ivan Maisky.

Litvinov,  Peoples' Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, was more than just
one of Maisky's comrades. He was a rare and unique fellow and
exceedingly powerful. His signature was seen on the treaty of
Brest-Litovsk. It has been said that because of him Washington
eventually recognized the USSR. He had also been an ambassador to the USA.

Litvinov was born in Bialystok, Poland, to a rich Jewish banking family.
He could function in Yiddish, Polish, English, German and Russian. He
had taught foreign languages in the Jewish Jaffe school and was a world
traveller. During the Bolshevik Revolution he was a roommate of Joseph
Stalin. For years Litvinov ruled the roost of Moscow's foreign
relations. Like Aleksandra Kollontay and numerous others, he wrote his
nationality was Soviet.

Regarding support, it would be unfair not to mention Litvinov's wife. He
had a faithful and loyal spouse. Her name was Ivy Low. She was the
daughter of a Jewish professor. They had met in England. She was
intelligent and rather attractive, but more about her later.

The heights that Maisky had reached are almost unbelievable. The reason
for this is astounding because during the revolution he was in amongst
the Hebrew members of the Menshevik wing of the revolt. In other words,
he was not a Bolshevik. Later, he was arrested, sent to Siberia and
eventually was in the West. It is no secret that he told others he was
blessed to be forced out of his Russian birth place. Apparently it was
one thing to serve Soviet ideas and another to reside in Russia.

While abroad he finished his studies at the Univ. of Munich. Earlier, in
1912, while in GB, he wrote his mother that London was dirty and
permanently settled in fog. His road in life's travel changed after the
Czar lost power. It was in 1917 that he returned to Russia. It was an
adventurous time in his life. He even fought against Bolsheviks. When
Admiral Kolchak gained control over large sections of Russian territory
Maisky fled to Mongolia. Seeing the writing on the wall he joined the
Bolsheviks. It might have been the best move he ever made.

Maisky's serendipity remolded his life. It was due to friendship with
Litvinov and the premature death of the Soviet ambassador in London. He
discovered he enjoyed labor in the London Embassy. Next he spent two
years at the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo. Maisky's third wife, Agniya, did
not relish being the wife of an ambassador in Japan. Consequently, there
was correspondence with his buddy Litvinov, and it was suggested that
Maisky be transferred to Kovno, the capitol of Lithuania. Litvinov said
that Kovno was the fourth most important post after Berlin, Paris and
Warsaw. Maisky spent three years in Finland. He said that the people
there were anti-Russian. Then, unexpectedly, in September 1932 he was
told he would be transferred to London. He became ecstatic and wrote to
his dad that London was a world center. The ambassador to London,
Sokolnikov, a Russian Jew, was transferred to Moscow.

Maisky was not your average Ivan. Amongst other acquaintances that
Maisky held close was Sergei Borisovich Kagan (Samuil Bentsionovich),
first Secretary at the USSR's Embassy in London, from 1932 to 35.  Kagan
was promoted to Counselor and served Maisky faithfully. It was around
this time that the Soviet diplomatic road became rocky. Hitler had
become master of the Germans. In 1934 Litvinov emphasized to Stalin that
eventually there had to be war. The Soviet dictator brushed him off.

When Stalin was liquidating thousands of top military brass, Maisky
emphasized his value. He "psychologically" calmed vital British
acquaintances. Seems all would be well in what would develop into a
potential red utopia. (p. 26)

In February 1935 Maisky was informed that GB was concerned with the
welfare of Czechoslovakia. This was a time when Lloyd George, a lover of
the Soviet Union, had been spending time with Maisky and one could say
they were close in communist sentiments. Maisky suggested that Anthony
Eden go to Moscow. Eventually there was a meeting with Stalin and Maisky
was pertinent, as a translator. Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, was even
given the honor of having the first ride on Moscow's Metro. (p. 47)
During this period Churchill informed Maisky that he sought better
relations with Stalin because he feared Hitler's fanatical militarization.

It seemed that the entire region was becoming fearful of Hitler.
Litvinov visited Warsaw. We read, from those high on the diplomatic
ladder that  "… despite the pro German attitudes remaining strong in
Poland, there are signs that will eventually change…"  Hitler sought
lebensraum.  The British representative emphasized that, "You are a
friend of the Poles, so try to persuade them that they're playing a game
that will bring disaster…" (p. 52)

Maisky was perturbed about diplomatic opinions that Hitler would break
up Czechoslovakia and then annex Austria. Many within GB's parliament
believed the League of Nations could solve these problems. When Maisky
spoke with GB's king he was told GB was interested in relations
pertaining to Berlin and Warsaw. As for communism, he inferred that
Trotsky was an international communist whereas those in Russia were
national communists.

In January 1936 Litvinov arrived in London. Conversations pertained to
military dangers of Hitler. In a meeting with Eden it was emphasized
that you couldn't hug the bear, but good relations were desired. We also
read that during this period Maisky met with Wickham Steed, the
notorious anti-Semite, who endorsed The Protocols of Zion. Steed was
fearful of Hitler's hostile intentions. (p. 57) As a side issue within
the diplomatic world, we discover that Litvinov's wife, Ivy, was unpset
at her husband for running around with a beautiful nubile 17 year old
female. (p. 71)

The British felt France with the USSR could defeated Germany. Yet, they
feared, that if that occurred, neighboring Paris could become communist.
Then, on March 7, 1936, Hitler moved troops into the demilitarized
Rhineland. A new non-diplomatic era had arrived. Fear was in the air and
Eden flew to France. Hitler was gambling with war.

The League of Nations was losing its theoretical importance. The entire
English media favorited negotiations over any potential conflict. In May
1936 it was noted that if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia, GB would be
unable to do anything unless the USSR helped.

Here, there's a gap in the diary. It's noted Hitler was wooing GB by
fanning flames of a potential red scare. At the same time, Europeans saw
that Stalin was cleaning his house of military elite, including Marshal
Tukhachevski who spoke perfect German. He was the leading expert on
Germany's military. Contemporary finds verify executions were due to
successful info plants by skillful Germans.

Maisky indicated that the British have been poisoned by the policy of
compromise and balance of power. At the Soviet Embassy the Japanese
ambassador paid a visit. Maisky was critical of Tokyo's aggressive
behavior. It was during this period, in March 1937, that the King had a
gathering that included foreign diplomats stationed in London. Maisky
sat at the same table as Ribbentrop. He believed that Herr Ribbentrop
had the manners of a Prussian and was "like a Maniac." (p. 75)
Ribbentrop actually saluted the king. World news referred to that behavior.

In 1937 Maisky recorded a shift in GB's diplomatic behavior. Neville
Henderson, a Germanophile, was sent to Berlin. In July Maisky had a long
conversation with Lloyd George. LG was full of positive remarks toward
the Soviet Union. George also emphasized Stalin was a decisive man. (p.
81) He even stated that Chamberlain was "a narrow, limited and fruitless
individual." LG referred to a visit he had with  Hitler. According to
him, Hitler seemed reasonable until he became deranged when referring to
Communism. (p. 81)

In a meeting with Chamberlain Maisky believed the PM would bequeath
Spain, Austria, Czechoslovakia and others for reconciliation with
Hitler. In diplomatic sentiments he was completely opposite to Eden.
Other studies show that Chamberlain referred to Maisky as a clever
little Jew. He was more than clever. He had an astounding network.

Maisky was a man of the world. He conversed with powerful figures,
including King Leopold of Belgium. It was at a banquet where the
nobility ate with gold utensils. It was there that Churchill gave him a
welcome and King George shook their hands.  Churchill stated he thought
Trotsky was a devil. Here, we could note that Maisky also met with
Hsiang-hsi F'ung, the Chinese foreign minister of finance. F'ung found
Goring to be completely against the Soviets.

Halifax is depicted as an individual not willing to sell out
Czechoslovakia. During this time Stalin had liquidated 62% of top
diplomats and Maisky was full of trepidation. Two prominent men in the
Soviet's London Embassy were recalled and executed.  Maisky's wife
nearly suffered a nervous breakdown. (p. 91)

Halifax flew to Berlin. He was lectured by Hitler about the need for
colonies (lebensraum?). Halifax insisted that policies must be
negotiated peacefully. We learn that Eden was against concessions.
Harold Nicholson (I have his memoirs) believed that Eden was correct and
continued appeasement would only lead to conflict.

In December Maisky was with Bernard Shaw, a world famous author and
afectionardo of Soviet ideas. Shaw was a vital contact, He was worth
more than his weight in gold as media loved him. Shaw rubbed shoulders
with the crème de la crème of European and American society.

With the Europeans concerned over Hitler's aggressive innuendos, Maisky
notes that Chamberlain had decided to sell out Spain. Maisky thought
Chamberlain was ignorant. On March 12 Hitler annexed Austria. Tensions
heightened among Europeans. Around this time Maisky visited US
ambassador Kennedy. Kennedy told him that the Red army would be unable
to adequately assist if little Czechoslovakia were attacked by Hitler's
huge growing military.

Maisky discovered that Churchill was certain a strike against the Soviet
Union would occur.  While Washington's Uncle Joe was terrorizing Soviet
elite, Lloyd George gave a warm message of admiration for Stalin. He
believed Stalin was the greatest statesman alive. (p. 113) Due to
Hitler's rhetoric, war was in the air.  In a meeting with Halifax,
Maisky asserted that if Prague was attacked and GB and France defended
Czechs, the USSR would join them.

Maisky learnt Henderson had told Ribbentrop that troops near
Czechoslovakia could have consequences. Ribbentrop responded that the
British Empire was an empty shell. Ribbentrop emphasized, "That Britain
was governed by Jews."  (p. 115)  Most authors on this topic agreed that
while Konrad Henlein, leader of the Sudeten Germans, was negotiating
with Prague, Hitler utilized every pretext to ensure that the two sides
would not come to an agreement. Prof. Richard Evans and numerous others
have plenty on that topic in best selling books.

Masaryk and others informed Maisky that they feared a lack of support
for Prague. A good section of the world leaders, including Roosevelt,
were not happy campers. A vast multitude of diplomats inferred that this
would only wet Hitler's appetite.  On September 13 Maisky thought this
was the foundation for war. On September 16 Prague was asking if it
could count on Soviet assistance.

Chamberlin forwarded a proposal to Hitler about the Sudetenland, where
the German population exceeded 50%. Reasoning could be done providing it
would have guarantees for the rest of Czech territory. Chamberlain
conceded that eventually the English might have to fight, but they were
now not ready. Halifax sided with the Czech, Masaryk.  Chamberlain
insisted Hitler would be an honest broker; He only desired the
Sudetenland. (p. 139)

On January 19,1939 Maisky became 55 years old. In his diary he perceived
Hitler's long-term goals were to disassemble the Soviet Union.  A few
weeks later on March 2, 1939 there was a reception at the Soviet
Embassy, with 500 elite guests. Included among these were Chamberlain
and Lloyd George. LG echoed that talking to Chamberlain was useless.
Chamberlain admitted his policies had failed.

On March 19 the world was stunned by Hitler's ultimatum to Romania.
Halifax sent out inquiries to Warsaw, Paris, Moscow and other capitals.
He was seeking opinions. Due to the fear of Hitler, the British
suggested a declaration from France, Poland and the USSR.  London, Paris
and Moscow were willing to sign. However, we read that the Polish
representative was thinking about the League of Nations. (p. 166)   GB
noted that if Hitler moved on the USSR, "decisive steps against Germany
would be postponed."

Maisky wrote that Hitler, having hoodwinked Warsaw, might now bring his
military against France. Then, the British diplomatic corps obtained
info that the next target would not be France, but Warsaw. At this
point, London's diplomats promised Poles assistance  (if independence
were threatened). This took Stalin off the hook. The Bottom Line:
Renewed savvy between Berlin and Moscow could be attempted. Yes,  Hitler
hated the Soviet Union, but eventual conflict could be postponed.

Maisky notes that Poland now became the center of attention. The German
press suddenly was raging a violent rabid campaign against Warsaw. (p.
168)  Masses of German troops were on Poland's borders. This gave Stalin
a key for opening treaty possibilities. It would be worthy if Hitler was
preoccupied with France and Poland. Molotov thought that this was the
time to reopen negotiations with Berlin.

The Maisky Diary has no mention of the May 1939 plans by Hitler to
attack Poland. Prof. Poganowski wrote articles about Hitler's desire to
secure Polish troops for an invasion of the USSR. The Third Reich in
Power, by Prof. Evans, has plenty about prior invasion plans. Hitler
reiterated it was not for Danzig, but  "Lebensraum." Prof.  Evans wrote
that Stalin was aware of Hitler's plans in August 1939. Soviet expert
Prof. Kotkin and a slew of others touch this.

Lloyd George asked Chamberlain what his second front would be. The
reply: Poland.  It was stated Warsaw didn't have the aviation nor
equipment to hold up. It had only been independent for 20 years (after
being occupied for 123 years). Thus, it missed the Industrial Revolution
and had a weak economy. Maisky wrote that a guarantee for Poland without
the Soviet Union was "irresponsible."

Halifax asked Maisky if the Soviet Union would contribute ammunition and
aviation without land forces. Maisky did not answer. (p. 172)  Next
Maisky was summoned to Moscow. Litvinov did everything to prevent his
recall. He insisted that in dire times the embassy would cease to
adequately function without Maisky.

Governments were scared of Hitler. Romania feared open agreements with
Moscow would provoke Berlin. As for the British, the general attitude
was now overwhelmingly hostile towards Berlin.  During these turbulent
times Molotov was instructed to purge the ministry of most questionable
Jews.

War was in the air. Seems everyone was afraid of Hitler. Halifax and
Maisky went from Paris to Geneva. A conference was held on how to avoid
war. Many theories were elicited. During the debates Halifax got way off
track; he went into verboten realms, questioning Maisky about religion
in the USSR. He did this because he was religious.

The English, French and Soviets considered a triple alliance (May 1939).
It was like a circus. Seems everyone was trying everything to keep
peace. The Kremlin was suspicious of Chamberlain. Henderson flew to
Germany and gave Hitler a document stating that if there's aggression
against Poland GB would fulfill obligations of assistance. Hitler
responded that Germany had to secure her own future interests.

On September 1, 1939 Poland's civilians were being Stuka-strafed and
cities bombed. Poland was attempting to put up resistance. Maisky met
with world leaders. Everyone was horrified.  On September 3 Henderson
handed Ribbentrop a note informing about possible war.. During this time
Maisky's survival was hanging by a thread. (p. 225) He was worried and
spent hours with Lloyd George. On September 17, 1939 the Polish
ambassador was given a note. It stated that since Poland had
disintegrated, the Soviet-Polish nonaggression pact was no longer valid.

Lloyd George now changed his tune and emphatically stated that Hitler
could not be trusted. Halifax wondered if a Polish buffer state would be
formed by Stalin. After all, the Poles were part of the European family
for over 1,000 years. A worried Churchill stressed that it was in the
interest of London or Moscow not to engage in conflict with one another.
As for Chamberlain, he reiterated that he no longer believed a single
word from Hitler. "If he wants peace, he'd have to prove it in deeds,
not words."

In January 1940 GB was given to understand that the Soviets harboured no
animosity towards Finland. However, Leningrad required land and distance
for protection. Maisky complained about GB's support for Finland.
Churchill told him he had hopes Finnish-Russian argumentation would not
turn into conflict (p. 238).

On April 5, 1940 Maisky met Frederick Engels. At this time panic was
everywhere.  At the Soviet Embassy an NKVD official, who laboured at
tractor work and had never done anything intellectual, was assigned as
an overseer. (p. 270)   In April Hitler's troops invaded Denmark and
Norway. In May 1940 Chamberlain resigned from the government. On May 15
Lloyd George stated that the Allies could not win the war. In June
France capitulated.

Maisky dinned with the world's creme de la creme. On June 25 Maisky had
lunch with US ambassador, Joseph Kennedy. JK elicited that GB was in for
gloom. He expected invasion and that Britain would be destroyed. (p. 289)

Seems discussions pertaining to Poland were everywhere. In the past
Poland had been partitioned for 123 years and continuously revolted.
Maisky said now things were different. He wrote if Hitler completely
occupied Poland, ethnic Poles would not survive. However, if Polska went
over to the Soviet Union it would exist.

We read that Maisky now found himself barred from Kremlin
decision-making. This was because he was Jewish and there was romance
between Berlin and Moscow. (p. 290)  During this period, Moscow feared
Britain might try to change course so that Russia would be fighting Hitler.

On November 4 Churchill mentioned that Hitler had a weakness at sea and
he was also too weak to overcome GB's sea power. In November Joseph
Kennedy was called back to the USA. Lloyd George changed his mind about
losing the war. Now he emphatically stated, that GB could achieve
victory. England had to be like a snake, cast off her capitalist skin
and become essentially a socialist state. (p. 326) On December 30 about
150 German bombers showered London. Europeans were destroying each other
like flies facing the swatter.

In February 1941 Maisky wrote that he had a distinguished guest. It was
the world renown Zionist  Dr. Weizmann. With the war raging he was
concerned that Palestine had no market for her oranges and the USSR
could assist with trade. He also spoke about Soviet Jews. He said that
his brethren there were on safe ground. He was worried about the Hebrews
West of the Soviet Union. He also wondered what a British victory could
do for Jews. He thought about moving 4 - 5 million Jews from Poland to
Palestine and then relocating the indigenous Arabs to Iraq. (p. 330)

As for Zionism, later in the year Ben Gurion also met Maisky. He tried
to enlist him in the Zionist cause.

On March 13 Maisky met with the new US ambassador.  The Ambassador
heaped complements upon the Soviet  representative. Like Roosevelt,
Harriman seemed to be a lover of the USSR. (p. 340)

On April 6, 1941, Maisky referred to Germany attacking both Yugoslavia
and Greece. Soviet officials stated that Berlin was forcing the USSR to
solidify its front. (p.342)  The Yugoslavs and Moscow had a friendship
treaty. (p. 343) Hitler didn't care.  Besides that, Russian intelligence
documented a colossal German deployment increasing upon the Soviet
border. The prevailing joke was that Ukrainian road signs should be removed.

On April 29, with things heating up, Maisky said he was sure of one
thing; that was the present Polish government will never be riding into
Warsaw. (p. 348)   The Chinese ambassador, Quo Tai-chi told him that
there were 17,000 strong members of the Polish armed forces defending
part of Scotland. (p. 349)  Maisky was also informed about an admirer of
Hitler, a former US ambassador to Belgium. He said Nazis wanting to
attack the USSR was gossip.

In the same month John Cudahy, US Ambassador to Warsaw (1933 -'37)
informed that he had been conversing with the Fuhrer. He was also a deep
admirer of Hitler. According to him, the Fuhrer spoke in harsh terms
about the USSR. It was kinda like conflict verba within AH's book (Mein
Kampf). Maisky learned that others, such as Friedrich Schulenburg, the
last German Ambassador to  the Soviet Union (before Operation
Barbarossa), sincerely believed that  a war between Berlin and Moscow
was inevitable. (p. 351) This was in May of 1941. Maisky wrote that
Churchill was convinced that war between Hitler and Stalin's USSR was a
sure thing. Also, in May it seemed all ideas were thrown to the wind;
the number two ranked Nazi, Deputy to AH, Rudolf Hess, landed in
Scotland (May 10, 1941). Governments were on overload with opinions. The
diplomatic world was in a frenzy.

In June Maisky was being flooded with war info. For example, Anthony
Eden laid out intelligence reports. Later, Churchill gave Maisky actual
detailed maps pertaining to massive Nazi tank and troop buildups.

Lloyd George again told Maisky GB would lose the war against Hitler's
military. (p. 359)  During this time Stalin was supplying trainloads of
raw goods and food to the Nazis. On the other hand, Berlin was not
sending the technology agreed-upon (in their mutual cooperation treaty).
There's lots of info about this in recent books by Prof.  Richard Evans
and Stephen Kotkin. As far as occupying Russia, Poland and later
Napoleon discovered that it's one thing to conquer Moscow; another to
hold it during Mother Nature's winter atonements. (p. 364)  On June 22,
1941 Maisky was awoken from his sleep. He was informed that the Nazi
steamroller had invaded the land of his birth.

The British war department believed Soviets could only hold out for 4 to
6 weeks. Just prior to the invasion Joseph Stalin had liquidated the
crème de la crème of the Soviet military. His troops had no experienced
leaders. On July 12 Moscow and London signed a military alliance. After
reeling defeats, Stalin required all the help he could get. Thus, a
Polish-Soviet treaty was signed. Polish General Sikorski met with Eden
and Maisky. Sikorski, who could function in Russian, German and English,
addressed Maisky  -for some strange reason-  in French.

Maisky's diary notes, So it is war. Is Hitler seeking his own death. We
did not want war; we did not want it at all. We did all we could to
avoid it. German fascism imposed war on us.  The higher-ups within the
Soviet elite believed London and Berlin would eventually obtain peace
amongst themselves. Litvinov believed the British fleet would join the
Fuhrer in an attack upon Leningrad. (p. 367)  The British ruling class
feared communism.

In August 1941 we read that, despite victories, Hitler's military
machine was unable to grind down the Russian army. Tens of thousands of
Red Army soldiers escaped encirclements. Nevertheless, in September the
Germans were outside of Leningrad. Maisky tells us, "Nobody helps us in
this struggle." Churchill commented that only God could help the
Soviets, and they don't believe in him.

Maisky indicated that  Stalin requested 30 divisions. He told Churchill
that if GB  could not open up a second front, it could at least send 30
divisions to the east. In February 1942 Maisky was convinced that the
English were biding their time; they were preparing for 1943. In April
1942 Maisky had a meeting with Rothschild, the rich banker.

A minor bone of contention was the Baltic States. GB and Washington
accepted the status quo (unofficially). A major bone of contention was
cooperation on the Polish border. Stalin insisted it remain as it was
after Sept, 1939.

When speaking about nations, Churchill said that India was not an
historic nation.  According to him, "Whoever came to India from the
north became her master."  He continued,  "Look at the Indian villages:
each stands on a hill. Where did the hill come from? Every year the
rainy season washes the huts away. The old ones are replaced with new
ones. In turn they are washed away. As a result, the hills grow higher
and higher. What kind of people is it that have not been able to invent
something better over the course of millennia?" (p. 420)   Churchill
said if GB were to leave India fighting would breakout, there would be a
civil war. He believed that Moslems would win because they are warriors.
He said that the Hindus were wind bags.

During this time Molotov found Churchill to be unsympathetic to Soviet
requests. Also, we read that Churchill was deterring Roosevelt from
committing to any second front.  Molotov, like Litvinov and Maisky, was
seeking to have at least 40 German divisions deterred. Roosevelt asked
Marshall if he could tell Stalin the Americans were preparing for a
second front. The general replied in the affirmative. However, he said
all depended on GB's position. (p. 434)

Roosevelt was insisting on opening a second European front. Churchill
convinced him that he should not be in any hurry. (442)   It was better
if Ivan and Gerry were killing each other.

Maisky's diary notes that, he believed that in the 21st or 22nd second
century communism would be established everywhere. (445)  On July 12
Maisky wrote that the Germans have had undeniable success sinking
convoys to Russia. Shipping had to be suspended. Hundreds of tanks and
planes were resting on the sea floor. Maisky wondered about having
better escorts.  He was worried. On July 26, 1942 Maisky wrote, that the
fascist were drawing ever closer to Stalingrad. He wondered if they
could be contained. (p. 455)   Could over extended supply lines take
Stalingrad?  He believed that if the Allies created a second front the
situation could immediately change.

With no second front achieved, Churchill was convinced that Stalin would
recall Maisky. Maisky wrote a long letter to Stalin. Churchill wrote in
his diary that he didn't like the idea that an entire nation was held in
Stalin's hands.  Stalin, Molotov and Churchill met, ate and drank until
3 AM. Churchill assured Stalin, that after the war, Prussian military
would be dissolved. Prior to 1871 Germany had consisted of over 300
competitive states.

The German defeat in Stalingrad further reduced the likelihood that the
allies would be creating a second European front. We read once again
that the British elite wanted the Nazis and the communists to
exterminate one another. (p. 462) That seemed the desire since 1941.

Despite the lack of a second front, Maisky was allowed to stay in
London. Maybe his relationships with Churchill, Lloyd George and elite
figures played a part in decision making. Perhaps the key to this puzzle
was Stalin and Maisky's feelings towards Germans. Still, Maisky was
full of trepidation. Thus, Maisky clung to Churchill writing him
numerous private letters. Churchill was reminded of their long enduring
bonds. (463) Was he in Churchill's pocket?

Churchill and Roosevelt wanted Stalin to engage in their Casablanca
conference. Stalin did not desire attending.

On January 1,1943 Maisky wrote that if you compared Nazi strength with
that of the Allies the outlook was positive. He did not believe Hitler
could win his war. He thought that the war's end might arrive near the
close of 1944. He believed that the Soviets would recapture pertinent
cities. He figured that if the Red army reached the Polish border in the
winter, the British and Americans would race to open up a second front
in France. He said that the world recognizes the turning tide and
obvious victory. He deemed that at the end of the war the Red Army would
be the strongest land force on earth.

On January 3 he wrote about the Donbas being liberated. He also referred
to the enormous loss of life within the German army. He said colossal
losses in men were matched in material losses. The Red army had recently
captured 2,000  undamaged tanks and more than 500 undamaged planes. (p. 466)

We read that Maisky's chances of staying in London were dependent on his
ability to obtain cooperation between GB and the USSR in post WWII
reconstruction. On January 17 Maisky wrote Lloyd George a long letter.
He said George might have been the best PM statesman that GB had
throughout this era. The letter is understandable. Was Maisky preparing
him psychologically, because of potential recall danger? Could Maisky
find a safe haven in GB?

On January 26 he wrote that the German masses knew very little about
their catastrophic losses on the front. This was due to effective
propaganda. Maisky thought generals on the front did not share Hitler's
mysticism. They knew that victory was impossible. Their only hope was to
manipulate a deal. The Germans were trying to split the Allies.

On February 9, 1943 Maisky's diary tells us that Eden was delighted with
the Soviet victory at Kursk. The Anglo-American forces would intensify
bombing Germany.  Churchill referred to the Polish 1920 victory over
Soviets: Commies were stopped from entering Germany and joining Berlin's
reds. He said how the wheel of history can turn.

On February 26 it's written that there was a speech in the House of
Commons. It was noted that no second front was needed. After all, there
was GB's Sea accomplishments and her unstoppable massive air strikes.
(p. 489)

On the first and second of March, 1943 700 English bombers raided
Berlin. The Germans responded with a retaliatory raid of only 40 planes.
Only 40.  Two days later Maisky wrote that Poles want to retain their
1939 borders. Eden believed Germany should be weakened so she could not
again be aggressive towards other Europeans. He thought that meant a
federation of German states. There was also concern about what should be
done with Poland.

Anthony Eden expressed much concern for the future of Poland. It
comprised millions of Central Europeans. Maisky told Eden that Soviets
stood for an independent and free Poland. He said that the Soviets would
maintain friendly relations with it. He then spoke of relocations. He
said he was not against bringing East Prussia into their future, with an
exchange of populations. As for the fate of the Baltic States, that was
not up for debate. They would be Soviet.

In the philosophizing it was noted that the threat from Finland has to
be eliminated. On March 16 Maisky handed Churchill a message from
Stalin. If concerned the US desire to participate in talks between the
USSR and Finland. Churchill's reaction was that if Helsinki sought
peace, she had to address this.

On April 23 Maisky obtained info from Stalin. Because the Poles were
suggesting that Soviets might be responsible for the horrific Katyn
massacre, relations with them had been broken off. Churchill said that
although the Polonians in GB, the USA and around the world acted in a
provocative manner, after news of the Katyn massacre, those within the
USSR should be allowed to leave. (p. 508)

Brendan Bracken, one of Churchill's closest friends, chimed in that
there are millions of Polonians and Catholics in the US and they
represent a large part of the electorate. Thus, Roosevelt could not
ignore the Polish issue. Churchill stated Poles needed their full
attention. Churchill also had some reservations concerning Katyn.
Maisky criticized Churchill about his suspicions regarding Katyn and
Soviets.

On April 27 Stalin wrote to Churchill that the Polish question had been
settled. April 29, 1943 Anthony Eden said that England recognizes
Poland's 1939 borders. Later, he changed his mind. On April 30 Churchill
indicated Moscow was intending to set up a Polish government. He said
that both the USA and GB look to supporting Poles. Maisky insisted that
control over Poland was rumor. The Soviets had no intention of becoming
involved in Polish politics.

On May 27 the Soviet ambassador to London visited his close friend Lloyd
George. LG expressed negative opinions about Poles and stated that there
was not one sensible man among them. They were all dreamers. According
to Lloyd George, in WWI the Poles were supported by the French and
especially his nemesis Clemenceau. Lloyd George believed that the
Soviets would be better off ignoring them. In the book Paris 1919, the
great granddaughter of Lloyd George had plenty about LG's take on
Germans, Greeks, the Irish, Poles and others. It's a good read.

June 14, 1943. Sir Arthur Harris, Chief Air Marshal, head of the RAF
bomber command, came with his wife for lunch. He stated that Germany
could be defeated from the air. He believed that, if he had more
bombers, he could defeat Germany in months, "at the most." The next few
pages indicate that Churchill did not want to finish the war in 1944.

Conclusio- On September 15, 1943, Maisky was recalled to Moscow. We read
that Molotov had been seeking the removal of Maisky from London and also
Maisky's buddy Litvinov (from Washington). Averell Harriman said that he
had never seen a man collapse so completely as Litvinov, when he
discovered he had to return to Moscow. His wife told friends she was
fearful she would never hear from him again. In her unpublished memoirs
Ivy stated that her husband almost went crazy. She begged friends not to
send him books. As for Maisky, when hearing that he was being recalled,
he composed his political will. Seems Stalin had been in bed with Jews
and no longer wanted them.

Maisky, on his way to Moscow, arrived in Cairo. He had seven large
trunks and some 70 pieces of heavy luggage. These required 63 ton
trucks. The convoy with his possessions also consisted of 11 cars. When
he was in the Middle East he tried to draw the Zionist Yishuv into the
Soviet orbit. He  had connections with the president of the World
Zionist Organization. On his way home, he spent crucial days in what was
then called Palestine. This gave him first-hand knowledge of
transnational Zionist movements and that country's ability to absorb
Jewish immigration.

Defying the British, he revisited Jewish religious areas in Jerusalem.
Further, he met with Ben-Gurion and Golda Mier, among other Zionistic
leaders. His wife wanted to know about everything that was referred to
in Hebrew. Most of the World Zionist leaders she spoke with were fluent
in Russian. They were confident that they could create a great future
Jewish state. This would be done once the British were disposed off.
(pp. 542 -544)

We read that Maisky had tried to convince Stalin to cooperate with the
networks of transnational Zionism. Such an endeavor perhaps had cost him
dearly. In all probability, he was not executed because Stalin expired.
  We read that Maisky could see his diplomatic potential would be
hindered. Thus, he decided to take care of his own destiny. He entered
harmless academia. In January 1947 he was stripped of his candidate
membership within the Party's  Central Committee. He had turned from a
world renowned diplomat into a sphere of narrow academics.

Back in Moscow Maisky turned down invitations by the famous sculptor
Epstein to have a bust made. People from all over the world tried to
bestow honors on him. However, he sought to stay out of the limelight.
It's worthy to know that, for some strange reason, Maisky told Anthony
Eden he was opposed to Russians who sought camaraderie with other Slavs.
Why? Maisky dreaded Pan Slavism. (p. 540)

In 1952 Litvinov and Kollontay, his close comrades, died. In 1953
Vyacheslav Molotov (ne Skryabin) convinced Khrushchev that Maisky was a
spy, in English pockets. Thus, Maisky's arrest coincided with the
so-called 1953 Doctors' Plot. Maisky underwent interrogations until
Stalin's death. He had escaped repressions that liquidated hundreds of
thousands. Now he was subjected to more than harassment.

It's possible his Beria connection might have saved his life. A phone
call from Beria wanted Maisky in his office immediately.  Beria promised
to rehabilitate him. He sought to place him in charge of Moscow's
British intelligence. However, after Beria's coup de d'etat failed,
Maisky was placed in custody. After that, he tried to hide their
association. After being rearrested Maisky had a nervous breakdown.

The USSR Supreme Court, on December 24, 1953, stated that Beria was
involved in espionage along with Maisky. It was alleged that Beria was
planning a coup d'etat and that Maisky would provide contacts with
foreign elite. For two years Maisky pleaded with Khrushchev, begging to
be rehabilitated. Eventually he was given clemency.

He wrote his memoirs and suffered a stroke at 81. His criticism of
Stalin's behavior during the Nazi invasion was not appreciated. At the
age of 91 his manuscript about Churchill's inner circle was rejected. It
was then allegedly "lost" by his publishers. Maisky expired Sept. 3, 1975.


I was in Central Europe, at a party, when Maisky expired. At the event
were a few authors, journalists, an editor of either a weekly or monthly
(I can't remember), a director of a think tank, a member of parliament
and a film director. They indicated that diplomatic networks similar to
those within Maisky's era today thrive in Washington, European and other
Embassies.

1

1073 Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers"; says 'Russian asset' remarks are 'smear campaign'

Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'

Newsletter published on November 11, 2019

(1) Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'
(2) Gabbard Hammers Hillary
(3) Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults - WaPo
(4) Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'
(5) Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same
(6) Trump’s Chaotic Syria Exit Puts Anti-War 2020 Democrats In A
Delicate Spot
(7) Economist protests US departure from Syria
(8) Democrats attack Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want U.S. to
pull out of Afghanistan - Peter Beinart
(9) Democrats in an awkward position of defending U.S. forever wars
(10) Kurdish PKK/YPG troops join the Syrian army; MSM beatup Trump's
withdrawal

(1) Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrat-candidates-hillary-clinton

Gabbard says Clinton 'Russian asset' remarks are part of 'smear
campaign' as 2020 Dems voice support

By Julia Musto, Vandana Rambaran | Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard blasts Hillary Clinton for suggesting Russia is grooming
her to run as third-party candidate

Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary Clinton represents
warmongering and corruption.

Rep.Tulsi Gabbard, D-H.I. accused Hillary Clinton "and her proxies" of
starting a "smear campaign that has been waged against me and my
candidacy and my campaign from the very first day that we began,"
pushing back on accusations that she is a "Russian asset."

"This smear campaign is coming from people like Hillary Clinton and her
proxies, the foreign policy establishment, the military industrial
complex, who obviously feel threatened by my message and by my campaign
because they know that they can't control me," she told an NBC reporter
on Saturday.

When asked if she would disavow support from foreign entities, including
an official Twitter account of the Russian Embassy who has circulated
support for the candidate online, in order to quell American fear of
foreign interference in elections, Gabbard responded: "This is not about
Russia."

"Foreign interference in our election is not a good thing. But what
we're seeing, this is not about Russia," she said.

"I don't control them. I don't control what anyone else says or does.
All I can do is focus on the message that I am bringing to this
campaign," she added.

In a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe, Clinton said she
wasn't "making any predictions, but [she thinks Russians] have got their
eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate."

"She's the favorite of the Russians" she added, saying they "have a
bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."

Gabbard lashed out at Clinton on Twitter Friday calling her the "queen
of warmongers [and the] embodiment of corruption" in response to the
allegations.

She also told Fox News' Tucker Carlson on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that
the former Secretary of State is waging a smear campaign against her
because "she knows she can't control me."

She accused Clinton of having "blood on her hands" after the Iraq war
she "championed."

"Their blood is on her hands. That's why she's smearing my character and
trying to undermine my campaign," Gabbard said.

Gabbard received an outpouring of support from fellow 2020 Democratic
candidates including  Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang and Beto O'Rourke.

Yang wrote in a tweet: "Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and
thanks than this. She literally just got back from serving our country
abroad."

  Andrew Yang?? @AndrewYang
Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She
literally just got back from serving our country abroad.

11:47 AM - Oct 19, 2019

Williamson chimed in: "The Democratic establishment has got to stop
smearing women it finds inconvenient!" Adding, "the character
assassination of women who don't toe the party line will backfire."

  Marianne Williamson @marwilliamson
The Democratic establishment has got to stop smearing women it finds
inconvenient! The character assassination of women who don’t toe the
party line will backfire. Stay strong @TulsiGabbard . You deserve
respect and you have mine.

2:08 PM - Oct 19, 2019

"You deserve respect and you have mine," she told Gabbard.

Meanwhile, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker posted a wide-eyed gif
reacting to Gabbard's rebuttal.

  Cory Booker @CoryBooker
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 …

Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from
behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a ...

6:53 AM - Oct 19, 2019

O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman, defended Gabbard as well telling
reporters "Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person.
Obviously has served this country, continues to serve this country in
uniform, in Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those
facts speak for themselves."

  The Hill @thehill  .@BetoORourke on @TulsiGabbard:
"Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person. Obviously
has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in
Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for
themselves."

Clinton has since backed out of a speaking appearance at Fortune's Most
Powerful Women Summit, where Gabbard was scheduled to speak.

Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com

(2) Gabbard Hammers Hillary

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-stand-against-everything-she-represents-gabbard-hammers-tired-sick-fragile-hillary

Sat, 10/19/2019 - 12:00

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,

Tulsi Gabbard has stones. She has the kind of stones born of a life
dedicated to the cause of serving others.

She is the direct opposite of Hillary Clinton, for whom all causes serve
herself and her enormous narcissism and pathology.

So seeing Gabbard go directly after Hillary Clinton after her debate
performance the other evening where she explicitly called out both the
New York Times and CNN (the hosts of the debate) for the hit jobs on her
puts to rest any idea she’s someone else’s stalking horse.

Two weeks ago I asked if five tweets from President Trump changed U.S.
foreign policy for good, Gabbard does him two better with these three
tweets of absolute, Oscar Wilde-like beauty.

     Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from
behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a ...     — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

     ... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who
was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your
proxies and ...     — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

     ... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid
of the threat I pose.

     It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t
cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.     — Tulsi
Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

There is so much goodness to unpack in these tweets it is almost beyond
my ability to do so.

Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president
but she’s learned very quickly from him that the best way to deal with
Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy.

Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind
behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to
fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible.

This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in
hand, and declare herself the savior of the Democratic Party’s chances
to defeat Donald Trump next November.

Remember that leading up to the debate Gabbard was going to boycott the
event because it was such a corrupted event and stage-managed to
showcase the chosen ‘front-runners’ — Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.

It makes sense to me that she decided at the last minute to join the
debate after the Times piece just to ensure she got the national
platform to openly call out the corruption in the same breath as
attacking Trump for his, to this point, disastrous foreign policy mistakes.

She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral
compass capable of pointing in a single direction. Warren made a fool of
herself responding with bromides about leaving in the ‘rightt way’
indistinguishable from any other presidential puppet of the last twenty
years.

This is two debates in a row where Gabbard came out blazing at the
front-runner, claiming a moral and ethical high ground on foreign policy
that, at just over half the age of her rivals, that shows a maturity
well beyond her years.

Her calling Hillary the "Queen of Warmongers" is so self-evidently true
that it will reverberate far beyond Twitter into votes.

And it tells Hillary that Gabbard has zero fear of her and her political
machine.

You can’t cow a person without fear who has nothing to lose.

[ZH: And Gabbard was not done - she ripped into Hillary's terrible
legacy in a Friday night "Tucker Carlson Tonight" interview.]

     During her discussion with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Gabbard
framed Clinton’s opposition as being not only against her candidacy, but
against "every veteran in this country, every service member, every
American, anyone watching at home fighting for peace and who was calling
for an end to these regime change wars."

     "Ultimately she knows she can’t control me," Gabbard said,
responding to Carlson’s question about why Clinton is taking aim at her.
"I stand against everything that she represents and if I’m elected
president, if I’m the Democratic nominee and elected president she will
not be able to control me. She won’t be able to manipulate me. She won’t
be able to continue to work from behind the curtains, to continue these
regime change wars that have been so costly."

     The Democratic presidential candidate said the blood of her
"brothers and sisters in uniform" killed in Iraq, a "war she
championed," is "on her hands."

     "I am calling for an end to these regime change wars. This is why
she’s speaking out strongly and smearing my character and trying to
undermine my campaign," she said.

     "Just as she is doing this to me, this is what will happen to
anybody who is doing the same."

     Responding to a question from the Fox News host about the massive
media and political opposition from both parties to her foreign policy
positions, Gabbard noted that it happened as soon as she announced her
candidacy.

     " And now we know exactly why. It’s because I am standing up and
speaking out strongly against the Hillary Clinton legacy, the
warmongering legacy of waging these regime change wars, continuing to
escalate these tensions between the United States, nuclear armed
countries like Russia, China, this nuclear arms race bringing more
profits to the military-industrial complex. "

Bullies like Hillary never learn that lesson until they are humiliated
beyond recognition.

Moreover, when you look at this sequence of events it’s clear that the
DNC, Hillary and everyone else close to the corridors of power fear
Gabbard’s rise. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be putting out smears in
the New York Times.

They wouldn’t be spending millions on social media trolls to discredit
her in the public fora.

The first rule of politics is "You never attack down."

Well, Hillary attacked down. The Times attacked down. The DNC, by gaming
the debate rules, attacked down. And that spells disaster for anyone who
does it.

Just ask Rudy Guiliani.

(3) Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults - WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/battle-lines-drawn-after-clinton-and-gabbard-exchange-insults/2019/10/19/14e43e5c-f27a-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

Battle lines drawn after Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) reacted after 2016 Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton suggested Russia was grooming Gabbard to disrupt
the 2020 race. (Reuters)

By Colby Itkowitz

Oct. 20, 2019 at 6:13 a.m. GMT+10

There are fresh battles lines in the 2020 presidential campaign,
reflecting an unpredictable rivalry between two Democratic politicians —
one who isn’t even running this cycle and another who is polling at
barely 1 percent.

It began when former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
suggested this week that current primary contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of
Hawaii is being used by the Russians, who could be plotting a third
party run to siphon votes from the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s a
scenario that Clinton is sensitive to, since she blames Russian election
interference and Green Party candidate Jill Stein for her loss to
President Trump.

Gabbard, in a scathing response, called Clinton "the queen of
warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot
that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long."

"It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me," Gabbard wrote
on Twitter. "Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race
directly."

Hillary Clinton compares Russian electoral 'attack' to 9/11 Hillary
Clinton said Russian election inference "altered the outcome in enough
places," and contrasted President Trump's response to Bush's reaction to
9/11. (The Washington Post) Clinton has not directly responded, but her
spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits."

Merrill, in an interview Saturday, said Clinton was "not saying
Americans are Russian spies but that Russia has found ways to take
advantage and is not being held responsible by anyone in government."

Few outside Clinton’s immediate orbit defended her comments. The closest
anyone came was Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who retweeted Gabbard’s
reaction to Clinton with a viral GIF from the June debate when he
glanced "side eyed" — a look that often conveys shock or disdain — at
another candidate. That garnered a reply from Clinton — a viral GIF of
her own from a 2016 debate where she exhales, says, "okay," smiles and
shimmies her shoulders.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, whose Iowa bus tour had been overshadowed
by the Gabbard-Clinton fight, told reporters on Friday that Clinton
could "defend herself, and will." Asked about the story again on
Saturday, she pivoted to talk about her election integrity legislation.

"This is something I’m not getting into right now," she said. "I will
talk about election security, because I think that’s much more
significant than any Twitter fight going on right now."

But two of the nonpoliticians in the Democratic primary, entrepreneur
Andrew Yang and author Marianne Williamson, sided with Gabbard.

Yang tweeted that Gabbard, a veteran, "deserves much more respect and
thanks than this." Williamson accused the Democratic establishment of
"smearing women it finds inconvenient."

"The character assassination of women who don’t toe the party line will
backfire. Stay strong @TulsiGabbard. You deserve respect and you have
mine," Williamson tweeted.

Notably, Clinton — who made the comments on a podcast hosted by David
Plouffe, a former adviser to President Barack Obama — never used
Gabbard’s name. But Gabbard is the only female candidate in the
Democratic primary who has been accused of having ties to Russia.

"I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on
somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her
to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said.

Gabbard has repeatedly ruled out running as a third-party candidate. But
she has been courted to run in the general election outside the
Democratic Party by activists who believe the two-party system is
corrupt and should be cast aside.

Stein has suggested in the past that Gabbard "should become a Green"
because her comments were "similar to our message."

In the podcast interview, Clinton also accused Stein, who won more votes
in several states than Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton, of being
a tool of the Russians.

"Yes, she’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally," Clinton said. "They know
they can’t win without a third-party candidate."

President Trump weighed in on on the dispute Saturday afternoon, urging
a third party Green Party candidate to run in 2020, which would benefit
him by peeling off Democratic voters.

"Crooked Hillary Clinton just called the respected environmentalist and
Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, a ‘Russian Asset.’ They need a Green
Party more than ever after looking at the Democrats disastrous
environmental program!" Trump tweeted.

While it’s unclear why Clinton initiated this fight, the bad blood
between her and Gabbard goes back to 2016, when Gabbard quit her post as
a Democratic National Committee vice chair so she could endorse
Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont.

Gabbard is an unconventional Democrat, whose message of an isolationist
foreign policy and willingness to buck the party establishment has
gained her fans among the far right. She’s a frequent guest on Fox News,
often Tucker Carlson’s show. She went on Friday night to talk to Carlson
about her clash with Clinton.

She has also gained a following with some white nationalists. A neo-Nazi
website called Daily Stormer said it deserved credit for getting her the
support necessary to qualify for the first two debates.

But the main reason many Democrats, including Clinton, are wary of her
is because she’s a favorite topic on Russian websites and social media.

"Hillary is absolutely going to continue to call balls and strikes as
she sees them because while she knows she was on the receiving end of it
in 2016, our 2020 nominee will face the same threat," said Philippe
Reines, a former Clinton adviser.

Gabbard was back on the campaign trail Saturday, holding two town hall
meetings in Iowa, including one in the town of Clinton.

David Weigel in Ames, Iowa and Michael Scherer contributed to this story.

(4) Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/19/gabbard-clinton-rot-democratic-party

Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'

2016 candidate implies 2020 hopeful ‘favorite of the Russians’
Congresswoman fires back in extraordinary intra-party spat Associated
Press in Washington

Sat 19 Oct 2019 23.21 AEDT Last modified on Sun 20 Oct 2019 04.55 AEDT

In an interview, Clinton said she believes the Russians have "got their
eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate".

The former senator, secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential
candidate did not name Gabbard directly.

But in tweets on Friday, Gabbard called Clinton the "personification of
the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long". Gabbard
also alleged there has been a "concerted campaign" to destroy her
reputation since she announced her presidential run in January.

"It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me," Gabbard
tweeted about Clinton. "Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join
the race directly."

There is lingering trepidation in the Democratic party of a repeat of
the 2016 race, when Russia interfered in an effort to help Donald Trump
defeat Clinton. US intelligence agencies have warned that Russia intends
to meddle in 2020. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has mocked
that possibility, joking earlier this month that Moscow would
"definitely intervene".

During a Democratic debate on Tuesday, Gabbard criticized a commentator
who she said called her "an asset of Russia". She called the comments
"completely despicable".

Clinton seemed to echo the commentator’s remark during a podcast
appearance this week on Campaign HQ with David Plouffe. Plouffe was
campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2008 and a senior adviser to the
president.

"She’s the favorite of the Russians," Clinton said, referring to the
person she had earlier identified as a woman "who’s currently in the
Democratic primary".

"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so
far."

Clinton also called Trump "Vladimir Putin’s dream". She went on to say
Trump’s inauguration speech was "like a declaration of war on half of
America". Clinton also described the 2016 Green party presidential
candidate Jill Stein as "a Russian asset".

Gabbard said on CBSN she "will not be leaving the Democratic party. I
will not be running as an independent or a third-party candidate."

Stein, who ran against Trump and Clinton, received about 1% of the vote
in the 2016 election. But some Democrats said her candidacy syphoned
votes from Clinton and helped Trump win, particularly in states like
Wisconsin.

The Senate intelligence committee asked Stein for documents as part of
its inquiry into Russian interference in the election because she
attended a 2015 dinner in Moscow sponsored by the Russian television
network RT, with Putin. Stein has said she attended "with a message of
Middle East peace, diplomacy and cooperation".

In a tweet on Friday, Stein accused Clinton of "peddling conspiracy
theories to justify her failure instead of reflecting on real reasons
Dems lost in 2016".

(5) Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/no-warren-and-sanders-are-not-the-same/

OCT 16, 2019

No, Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same

When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had two heart stents inserted into his
arteries in early October, media pundits were quick to foresee the end
of his pioneering, movement-based candidacy. Some questioned why it took
three days for his family and campaign to confirm the details of his
medical condition and others wondered whether age and health would be
important factors in his candidacy. Given the documented media bias
against Sanders, it is certainly not surprising to see Sanders’ health
scare exploited to undermine his candidacy. (Sanders, on the other hand,
in his typical fashion, exploited his situation to demand that health
care ought to be "a human right.")

Los Angeles Times opinion writer Rich Benjamin pushed the bias further
by saying, "any perception of fatigue and frailty can undercut his
effectiveness in competing for the nomination and in the dogfight
against Trump if he does beat the rest of the Democratic field."
Benjamin demanded that it was time for "Bernie and his bros"—using a
sexist, racist and discredited smear that assumes Sanders’ supporters
are mostly pig-headed white men—"to get behind Elizabeth Warren." In
fact, men and women are roughly evenly split among Sanders’ supporters,
and people of color are more likely than whites to back him.

Benjamin is echoing a sentiment that has been gaining traction: that
Warren is a good enough emulation of Sanders and has adopted enough of
his progressive policy proposals for Sanders’ supporters to unreservedly
support her. But while a Warren nomination would certainly be a strong
sign of progress, particularly in the era of Donald Trump, there are
serious distinctions between Sanders and Warren that should not be
dismissed.

For example, on health care, although they both back the idea of a
"Medicare for All" plan, Warren and Sanders do not take identical
positions. Health care is the most important issue for the American
electorate. During Tuesday’s Democratic presidential candidate debate,
Warren repeatedly avoided admitting that backing a Medicare for All plan
would mean that taxes would go up across the board. She sidestepped
questions twice, saying, "I will not sign a bill into law that raises
their costs, because costs are what people care about."

But in fact, people care about getting the health care they need more
than anything. According to a new poll released on the same day as the
debate, "Fifty-six percent of Americans think providing access to
affordable health care coverage for all Americans is the responsibility
of the federal government, and two-thirds favor the creation of a
national, government-administered health insurance plan similar to
Medicare that would be available to all Americans." Vox.com writer Tara
Golshan explained that although Warren has endorsed Sanders’ health care
plan, "she speaks about Medicare-for-all more in terms of expanding
public options for health care, rather than eliminating private
insurance altogether."

Sanders, on the other hand, was far more candid about the cost of his
plan during the debate, saying, "I do think it is appropriate to
acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly
for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay
will be substantially less — substantially less than what they were
paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses." By acknowledging that
taxes will go up while premiums, co-payments, deductibles and "all
out-of-pocket expenses are gone," Sanders was far more honest about what
his bill to expand Medicare to every American would entail while also
demolishing the right-wing argument about high costs. Later in the
debate, he went further and slammed the Democratic Party, challenging it
to have "the guts to stand up to the health care industry, which made
$100 billion in profit."

There are differences in other policies too. For example, Sanders’ plan
to tax the wealthiest Americans goes much further than Warren’s. His tax
rate for billionaires is more than twice that of Warren’s, leading one
commentator to declare that Sanders’ plan to tax extreme wealth "makes
Warren’s wealth tax look moderate." Sanders has even said he doesn’t
think billionaires should exist.

It has become more and more apparent that Sanders is the only Democratic
candidate to have a lengthy track record on progressive politics,
compared to those who have discovered their progressive backbones more
recently, because they know it plays well to the party’s left-leaning
base. Seven years ago, Warren did not back Medicare for All, and 23
years ago she was a registered Republican. In fact, she maintains she is
an avowed capitalist. Meanwhile, Sanders has been backing the idea of a
Medicare plan expanded to all Americans for at least 10 years. He has
been calling himself a socialist for decades, and he most recently
distinguished himself from Warren’s self-proclaimed capitalist label in
an interview.

When Sanders ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016,
media outlets ignored him until he began winning primaries, and even
then, experts routinely underestimated his pull and popularity.
Progressives were thrilled to finally see a bona fide leftist candidate
on a national stage echoing the issues that we longed to hear about,
analyzed in ways that targeted corporate profiteers.

After the election ended, the movement that was borne from his candidacy
flourished and proliferated into multiple organizations determined to
challenge establishment politics from inside and outside the electoral
system. Among the successes of that movement was the 2018 election of
the outspoken and staunchly progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of
New York.

While recent polls show Sanders’ popularity as a candidate dipping a few
percentage points behind Warren, his performance this week during the
Democratic debate (including his characteristic dismissal of concern
over the state of his health, saying only that he was "healthy" and
"feeling great"), may bump his numbers up in the next poll. Perhaps even
more important is the announcement that Ocasio-Cortez will be endorsing
his candidacy. Both Warren and Sanders had sought the endorsement of the
young and very popular progressive Democrat, and now that Sanders has
clinched it, it may well boost his standing.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who are
considered part of the four-member "squad" of prominent progressive
congresswomen of color, have also decided to throw their weight behind
the Vermont senator. Sanders and Omar just co-sponsored a bill to feed
all schoolchildren three free meals a day regardless of income. Clearly
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib see a distinction between Warren and Sanders.

There is one thing Warren has going for her over Sanders: She’s far more
charismatic than he is. At a recent LGBTQ event in Los Angeles, Warren
won over the crowd when she was asked how she might respond to a
supporter who claimed that marriage should be between one man and one
woman. She replied, "I’m going to assume it is a guy who said that. And
I’m going to say, ‘Well, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with
that.'" With the perfect timing of an improv artist, she waited for
applause and added, "Assuming you can find one"—which of course resulted
in even more applause.

Yes, Warren’s candidacy would be huge step in the right direction for
the United States in the Trump era—especially if she were the most
progressive front-runner in the race. But she’s not. In fact, she is
arguably being pulled to the left by Sanders’ candidacy. CNBC’s Jim
Cramer suggested that if Sanders dropped out of the race, "she doesn’t
have to be worried about that [far-left] flank anymore." So, do
progressives want the candidate who may be feeling pressured to move to
the left or the person whose candidacy is setting the progressive standard?

(6) Trump’s Chaotic Syria Exit Puts Anti-War 2020 Democrats In A
Delicate Spot
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/15/syria-troop-withdrawal-trump-democrats/

Alex Emmons

October 16 2019, 5:31 a.m.

THE PENTAGON announced on Monday that the U.S. was pulling all of its
troops out of northeastern Syria at President Donald Trump’s direction,
completing a withdrawal he had started by Twitter declaration a week
earlier. The move further clears the way for a full-on invasion by
Turkey, whose soldiers have already been accused of executing
noncombatants. In the chaos, hundreds of Islamic State detainees have
reportedly escaped.

Trump defended his decision in a series of early-morning tweets on
Monday. "The same people who got us into the Middle East mess are the
people who most want to stay there!" he wrote. "Never ending wars will end!"

Trump’s abandonment of eastern Syria and the U.S. military’s Kurdish
allies has put progressive Democrats — many of whom also favor
withdrawing from overseas military operations — in a delicate spot. Over
the past week, they have been trying to thread the needle between
condemning Trump for recklessly abandoning an ally and emphasizing that
withdrawing U.S. troops should be an eventual policy goal.

Trump’s decision has showcased what a worst-case scenario for expedited
military withdrawal could look like, making it harder for progressive
Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren to press their cases against "endless wars" on the
campaign trail. The question of how progressives can go about drawing
down U.S. military commitments without repeating Trump’s calamitous
actions would be an obvious pick for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate.

So far, the Democratic candidates have been critical of Trump but light
on specifics about what they would do differently. Last week, Sanders
condemned Trump’s withdrawal from Syria, telling reporters that "as
somebody who does not want to see American troops bogged down in
countries all over the world — you don’t turn your back on allies who
have fought and died alongside American troops. You just don’t do that."
But when George Stephanopoulos asked Sunday morning on ABC for Sanders
to explain the difference between his and Trump’s approaches, Sanders
responded simply that Trump "lies. I don’t."

Warren’s response was similarly vague. She tweeted that "Trump
recklessly betrayed our Kurdish partners" and that "we should bring our
troops home, but we need to do so in a way that respects our security."

Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California and co-chair of
Sanders’s 2020 campaign, told The Intercept that progressives urgently
need to make the case for a "doctrine of responsible withdrawal."

"I don’t believe that withdrawal from a progressive perspective means a
moral indifference to the lives of the places that we leave," Khanna
said in a phone interview. "It’s not an ‘America First’ approach that
says our interests and our American lives are the only things that have
moral worth. Rather, our withdrawal is based on an understanding of the
limitations of American power to shape and restructure societies. It
emphasizes the need for effective diplomacy and understands our moral
obligations in these places."

The U.S. should not have withdrawn troops without negotiating a deal
that would have kept Turkey from invading Syria, backed by a threat to
withhold future arms sales and economic assistance, Khanna told The
Intercept. "We could have used all those points of leverage to get their
commitment that they wouldn’t slaughter the Kurds."

Another key difference between Trump’s approach and that of progressives
is their level of trust for civil service expertise, Khanna said. "What
this shows is that it’s not enough to have a president with certain
instincts. Foreign policy requires great expertise. You need a
progressive president who understands the importance of military
restraint, but who also has the ability to put together an extraordinary
foreign policy team to implement the goals that they may have."

Far from admiring Trump’s approach to Syria, many anti-interventionists
and foreign policy experts in D.C. view it as a blueprint for how not to
withdraw from a conflict, according to Adam Wunische, a researcher with
the Quincy Institute, a new pro-diplomacy, noninterventionist, and
nonpartisan think tank.

"What we should have been doing from the very beginning is once we
achieved the limited objective of destroying ISIS territory, they should
have immediately begun contemplating what kind of peace or settlement
could come afterwards," Wunische told The Intercept. "To my knowledge,
the U.S. is one of the only actors that can effectively talk to both the
Turks and the Kurds. So they should have been trying to find an
acceptable political arrangement for all the parties involved that
doesn’t involve an endless, ill-defined military presence for the U.S."

The Quincy Institute is working on a report outlining a possible plan
for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan that would avoid the type
of disorder on display in northeastern Syria, Wunische said, though the
timing of the report remains unclear.

Throughout the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, a number of candidates
have railed against "endless wars." But in a conversation that has been
defined by intricate domestic policy proposals and detailed outlines of
how to structure a wealth tax, candidates have said little about the
rest of the world and even less about how they would wind down overseas
conflicts.

Sanders, for example, has called for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from
Afghanistan "as expeditiously as possible." Warren has said "it’s long
past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so
immediately." Joe Biden has said he would bring "American combat troops
in Afghanistan home during my first term," but left the door open for a
"residual U.S. military presence" that would be "focused on
counterterrorism operations." When asked during a July debate whether he
would withdraw from Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency,
Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend mayor and Navy Reserve veteran who spent
seven months in Afghanistan, answered emphatically in the affirmative.

But aside from seeking a diplomatic solution, candidates have said very
little about their policies for ending the war. And as in Syria, stakes
for U.S. allies in Afghanistan are high.

A January study by the Rand Corporation found that a "precipitous U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan" would have far-reaching consequences. The
legitimacy for the U.S.-backed Kabul government would plummet, the
report argued, and the Taliban would extend its control and influence.
People all across the country would turn to regional militias and rival
warlords for basic security.

"I don’t think that anyone, whether they promise it or not, is going to
get out of Afghanistan in a week," said Wuinsche. "What we need to focus
on is, what is the political solution that we think is possible, and how
do we get there? That requires marshaling all of these different tools
of foreign policy, not just the military."

Kate Kizer, policy director for the D.C.-based advocacy group Win
Without War, stressed that one of the most revealing differences between
progressives and Trump is how they would treat a conflict’s refugees.
Under Trump, the U.S. has accepted historically low numbers of refugees
and closed the door on future Syrian immigrants applying for Temporary
Protected Status.

"One of the cruelest parts of Trump’s policy is the fact that, in
addition to fueling more bloodshed with this decision, he’s also banning
any types of civilians who would be fleeing from the conflict," Kizer
said. "In a situation like Syria and even Afghanistan, there’s a way to
responsibly withdraw and then there’s a way to cut and run, which is
what Trump has shown he has a predilection for. But I’m not sitting here
saying that any type of military withdraw will necessarily be bloodless."

(7) Economist protests US departure from Syria

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/10/14/turkeys-invasion-has-thrown-a-once-stable-corner-of-syria-into-chaos

Things fall apart Turkey’s invasion has thrown a once-stable corner of
Syria into chaos Less than a week after America removed its troops, a
Kurdish-run fief has collapsed

Oct 14th 2019 | ABU DHABI

ALL OF IT was foreseeable: the death and displacement, the atrocities,
the flight of jihadists and the return of a brutal regime. But it has
happened more quickly than almost anyone predicted. In the days since
Turkey invaded north-east Syria on October 9th, scores of people have
been killed and more than 100,000 displaced. A brief Syrian Kurdish
experiment in self-rule has come to a crashing halt. Their entity, known
as Rojava, is now a carcass to be picked over by the Turks and the
regime of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s dictator. Hundreds of Islamic State
(IS) supporters, once held by the Kurds, have escaped into the desert scrub.

Small though it may seem, President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to
withdraw some 100 troops from north-east Syria has reshaped the Levant.
It cleared the way for a long-threatened Turkish invasion meant to
dislodge the Kurdish-led militia in control of the region. Turkey views
the group, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), as a mortal foe because
of its ties to the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has
fought a long insurgency against the Turkish state.

With America gone the Turks, backed by Syrian rebels under their command
(mostly Sunni Arabs), swept across the border and quickly seized a
swathe of central Rojava. They control a stretch of the M4, the main
east-west highway about 30km south of the border, allowing them to
bisect the Kurdish enclave and cut the YPG’s supply lines. Advancing
Syrian rebels have already been accused of atrocities. One gruesome
video circulated on social media showed giddy militiamen executing a
bound Kurdish prisoner on the battlefield. "Photograph me," one rebel
urges the cameraman, before he turns a sniper rifle on the captive.

  Though known as fierce fighters, the Kurds lack armour or air power.
Their light infantry stands little chance against a modern Turkish army.
Instead of fighting to the death they have asked Mr Assad for
protection. For years the YPG, perhaps hedging its bets, tried to avoid
open conflict with the regime. And on October 13th the Kurds struck a
deal to bring the regime back to the north-east. "If we have to choose
between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely
choose life," the Kurdish commander, Mazloum Abdi, wrote in an op-ed for
Foreign Policy, an American magazine. Mr Assad wasted little time. His
troops are already fanning out into territory formerly under YPG control.

While his men moved in, America moved out. On October 13th the defence
secretary, Mark Esper, said America would withdraw all 1,000 troops
deployed across northern Syria, fearing they would be caught between the
Turkish and Syrian armies. Hopeful Pentagon officials still think they
might maintain a presence elsewhere. This is wishful thinking. It will
be hard to protect and resupply troops. One group of American soldiers
already had to flee under Turkish shelling. America does hope to
maintain its outpost at Tanf, in the badlands of south-east Syria, which
is meant (rather improbably) to constrain Iranian influence in the
region. Even that may be impossible, too.

Faced with a crisis of its own making, a flailing superpower has turned
to economic sanctions to pretend it is still relevant. Senators have
drafted a bill that takes aim at Turkey’s leadership and its armed
forces, with apparent support from the president. "There is great
consensus on this," Mr Trump tweeted. Set aside the hypocrisy of America
punishing Turkey for an offensive that Mr Trump himself acquiesced to
earlier this month. Sanctions will not compel Turkey to halt its
invasion. Nor will condemnations from European powers, some of which
have also restricted arms sales to Turkey, a fellow NATO member.

If anyone can stop the fighting, it is Vladimir Putin. The Russian
president finds himself in an awkward spot. Mr Assad is a client, and
Russia is happy for his regime to retake territory. On the other hand,
Turkey is a valued friend, and part of a Russian-led effort to find a
political agreement that ends Syria’s wider civil war. "Losing Turkey
means losing a solution to the Syrian problem," says a former Russian
diplomat. Mr Putin will try to push both sides towards a modus vivendi.
Having thrown away his last bit of leverage in Syria, Mr Trump will be a
mere bystander. Eight years after Barack Obama called for Mr Assad to
go, it is America that is ignominiously leaving Syria.

(8) Democrats attack Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want U.S. to
pull out of Afghanistan - Peter Beinart

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/democrats-want-out-afghanistan-so-why-not-syria/600253/

Democrats Are Hypocrites for Condemning Trump Over Syria

Presidential hopefuls blasted Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want
the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan under similar conditions.

6:00 AM ET

Peter Beinart -  Professor of journalism at the City University of New York

On Tuesday night, the Democratic presidential candidates vied with one
another to offer the harshest condemnation of President Donald Trump’s
abrupt withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria. Joe Biden
called it "the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern
history … in terms of foreign policy." Elizabeth Warren said Trump "has
cut and run on our allies," and "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian
crisis." Kamala Harris announced, "Yet again Donald Trump [is] selling
folks out."

Pete Buttigieg’s denunciation was the most personal. Recalling his
military service in Afghanistan, the South Bend, Indiana, mayor asked
whether America’s wartime allies would ever trust it again. "When I was
deployed," he declared, "not just the Afghan National Army forces but
the janitors put their lives on the line just by working with U.S.
forces. I would have a hard time today looking an Afghan civilian or
soldier in the eye after what just happened over there" in Syria.

It was a powerful statement—but also an ironic one. Because if Trump’s
unilateral, non-negotiated withdrawal from northern Syria makes it
harder for Buttigieg to look America’s Afghan allies in the eye, the
same might be said of the unilateral, non-negotiated withdrawal that
Buttigieg and the other leading Democratic candidates are proposing in
Afghanistan itself.

At this week’s debate, Warren explained that the United States should
only have withdrawn its troops from northern Syria "through a negotiated
solution." But speaking about Afghanistan last month in Houston, she
rejected that very same principle. ABC’s David Muir asked whether she
would "bring the [American] troops home starting right now with no deal
with the Taliban." Warren replied, "Yes."

In Houston, Warren’s rivals also refused to condition America’s
withdrawal from Afghanistan on a negotiated deal. When Muir asked
Buttigieg whether he would stick to his pledge to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Afghanistan in his first year despite warnings from top
American commanders, Buttigieg ducked the question and insisted that "we
have got to put an end to endless war." Turning to Biden, Muir cited
"concerns about any possible vacuum being created in Afghanistan." But
Biden brushed them off, declaring, "We don’t need those troops there. I
would bring them home."

What makes these statements so remarkable is that experts warn that if
the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan in the absence
of a peace agreement, Afghanistan will suffer a fate remarkably similar
to what is happening in northern Syria. In this week’s debate, Warren
denounced Trump for having "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian
crisis." But earlier this month, the International Crisis Group warned
that, if American troops unilaterally leave Afghanistan, "Afghans could
pay a heavy price" as that country’s war "would likely intensify and
become more chaotic." A Rand Corporation report in January predicted
that following a unilateral American withdrawal, "civilian deaths will
spike, and refugee flows will increase significantly," and that "the
major advances that Afghans have achieved in democracy, press freedom,
human rights, women’s emancipation, literacy, longevity, and living
standards will be rolled back." In September, nine former American
diplomats with experience in Afghanistan pleaded, "A major withdrawal of
US forces should follow, not come in advance of [a] real peace
agreement," or else the United States might "betray all those who have
believed our promises or stepped forward with our encouragement to
promote democracy and human rights."

Peter Beinart: The two psychological tricks Trump is using to get away
with everything

Afghans themselves have offered equally ominous warnings. In February,
two Afghan women—Mariam Safi, who runs the Organization for Policy
Research and Development Studies in Kabul, and Muqaddesa Yourish, a
commissioner on Afghanistan’s Independent Administrative Reform and
Civil Service Commission—predicted that "a hasty American withdrawal
will jeopardize for Afghans the future of hard-won gains such as
constitutional rights, freedoms of citizens and democratic
institutions." In March, Palwasha Hassan, the executive director of the
Afghan Women’s Educational Center, urged "a responsible withdrawal that
is not at the expense of women’s rights." And in July, Akram Gizabi, a
leader of Afghanistan’s Hazaras, a Shia minority, noted that his people
had suffered under the Taliban in "brutal, vicious and unimaginable
ways" and that "women and Hazaras [had] thrived after the Taliban." Now,
Gizabi said, Taliban victims "watch with amazement that the United
States is busy finding the fastest way out of Afghanistan, while leaving
the Afghans to the wolves."

The parallels between Afghanistan and northern Syria aren’t merely
humanitarian. In condemning Trump’s actions in Syria, Warren accused him
of having "helped ISIS get another foothold, a new lease on life." But
experts forecast a similar terrorist resurgence if Warren carries out
her proposed Afghan withdrawal. Following a unilateral American
departure, the Rand report predicts, "extremist groups, including Al
Qaeda and the Islamic State, [will] gain additional scope to organize,
recruit, and initiate terrorist attacks against U.S. regional and
homeland targets." In their joint statement, the nine former American
diplomats envision "an Afghan civil war in which the Islamic State (IS)
presence could expand its already strong foothold" and "the Taliban
would maintain their alliance with al-Qaeda. All of this could prove
catastrophic for US national security as it relates to our fight against
both al-Qaeda and IS."

In Houston, Warren suggested that in the absence of American troops, the
United States and its allies could combat terrorism in Afghanistan
through "economic investment" and by "expanding our diplomatic efforts."
But Rand maintains that, if American troops leave Afghanistan before a
peace agreement, the resulting insecurity will spark "the departure of
foreign diplomats, aid agency officers, and other civilians," including
"many of Afghanistan’s most educated and capable citizens."

In another ugly echo of the current chaos in northern Syria, leaving
Afghanistan unilaterally could endanger American troops. The
International Crisis Group warns that if the U.S. leaves without a deal,
the Taliban "might then be unwilling to allow departing U.S. forces safe
passage. Those forces might end up fighting their way out." The thousand
or so personnel at the U.S. embassy in Kabul might have to be evacuated
from the building by air, as happened in South Vietnam.

There are, of course, differences between Afghanistan and northern
Syria. Afghanistan hosts about 14,000 American troops at an annual cost
of roughly $45 billion. And in each of the past five years, the Afghan
war has claimed roughly 20 American service members’ lives. In northern
Syria, where the United States stationed only 1,000 troops prior to
Trump’s recent withdrawal, the financial and human costs were lower. In
Afghanistan, U.S. forces are battling a homegrown Taliban rebellion
(aided by foreign support), whereas the recent bloodshed in northern
Syria is largely the result of a foreign invasion by Turkey (aided by
local Syrian allies). In Afghanistan, the United States is defending a
government it installed when it overthrew the Taliban in 2001. In Syria,
by contrast, the United States was, until Trump’s withdrawal, defending
an autonomous zone—known as Rojava—that the Kurds carved out themselves,
and then expanded with American help during the war against the Islamic
State.

Daniel Nexon: Trump’s a paper tiger, and everyone knows it

If pushed to distinguish their positions on Syria and Afghanistan
(which, sadly, didn’t happen at this week’s debate), Democratic
candidates might survey these differences and declare that America’s
presence in Rojava was sustainable in a way the Afghanistan mission is
not. The best argument for a rapid, unconditional American troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan is also the harshest. It’s that Afghanistan
is doomed either way. Rand, the International Crisis Group, and the
former diplomats all suggest that, if the United States makes a deal
with the Taliban that conditions America’s withdrawal on a peace
agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government, then
Afghanistan might survive an eventual American troop departure without
collapsing into civil war and again becoming a terrorist sanctuary. At
least Americans won’t have to be ferried off the embassy roof via
helicopter.

But to the skeptic, all this sounds suspiciously like Henry Kissinger’s
request that the North Vietnamese allow a "decent interval" following
America’s departure before conquering Saigon. Since America won’t keep
its troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, and since the Afghan army will
likely crumble once they leave, neither Washington nor Kabul possesses
the leverage to make the Taliban keep its promises, even if there is a
peace deal. According to a recent report by the Institute for the Study
of War, Afghan warlords are already preparing for the civil war they now
expect. So why, leading Democratic presidential candidates might ask,
should the United States wait around for a negotiated agreement that is
unlikely to make a difference? It’s not worth sacrificing any more
American lives and spending tens of billions more dollars to delay for a
couple of years—and perhaps reduce from 95 percent to 85 percent—the
likelihood that Afghanistan descends into hell.

Intellectually, this is a defensible answer. But it’s not an answer the
Democratic candidates can easily give. They can’t give it because
Democrats aren’t comfortable with the brutal language of unvarnished
national interest. They aren’t comfortable acknowledging tragic
tradeoffs between the welfare of ordinary Americans and the welfare of
vulnerable people overseas. Donald Trump is. He genuinely doesn’t care
what happens to the Kurds or the Afghans—or any other group of people
who can’t offer him votes or money or project his image onto the side of
a luxury hotel. Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden do care,
which is why they found it so easy to offer ferocious moral
denunciations of Trump’s Syria policy at this week’s debate. They just
don’t care enough to ask Americans to sacrifice to reduce the chances
that Syria’s horrors repeat themselves in Afghanistan.

The trauma of America’s post-9/11 wars, and the reduction in America’s
resources, are pushing Democrats toward policies of retrenchment that
can only be coherently defended in the language of realism, a language
few Democrats speak. And because they don’t speak it, the Democratic
candidates for president had better hope that no enterprising moderator
asks them about Afghanistan and Syria at the same time.

(9) Democrats in an awkward position of defending U.S. forever wars
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/democrats-have-no-answer-for-trumps-anti-war-posture/

Democrats Have No Answer for Trump's Anti-War Posture

OCT 17, 2019 OPINION |

I hate to say I told you so, but well … as predicted, in the wake of
Trump’s commanded military withdrawal from northeast Syria, the once
U.S.-backed Kurds cut a deal with the Assad regime. (And Vice President
Mike Pence has now brokered a five-day cease-fire.) Admittedly, Trump
the "dealmaker" ought to have brokered something similar before pulling
out and before the Turkish Army—and its Sunni Arab Islamist
proxies—invaded the region and inflicted significant civilian casualties.

One must admit that a single phone call between Trump and President
Erdogan of Turkey has turned the situation in Syria upside down in just
over a week. The Kurds have requested protection from Assad’s army,
Russian troops are now patrolling between the Kurds and invading Turks,
and the U.S. is (for once) watching from the sidelines.

The execution has been sloppy, of course—a Trumpian trademark—and the
human cost potentially heavy. Nonetheless, the U.S. withdrawal
represents a significant instance of the president actually following
through on campaign promises to end an endless American war in the
Mideast. The situation isn’t simple, of course, and for the Kurds it is
yet another fatalistic event in that people’s tragic history.

Still, while the situation in Northeast Syria constitutes a byzantine
mess, it’s increasingly unclear that a continued U.S. military role
there would be productive or strategic in the long term. After all, if
Washington’s endgame wasn’t to establish a lasting, U.S.-guaranteed
Kurdish nation-state of Rojava, and it hardly appeared that it ever was,
then what exactly could America expect to accomplish through an
all-risk, no-reward continued stalemate in Syria?

What’s truly striking, though, and increasingly apparent, is that
President Trump possesses—as a foreign policy autocrat, of sorts—the
power to derail the Democrats and place 2020 hopefuls in an awkward
position of defending U.S. forever wars. It’s already happening, at
least among mainstream "liberal" media and political personalities
who’ve flooded the networks with anti-Trump vitriol since the Syria
withdrawal.

Lest we confuse Donald Trump with a consistent antiwar dove, it’s
important to remember that his behavior is erratic and often turns on a
dime. Take, for example, his decision to impose sanctions on Turkey
right after greenlighting the very invasion he now seeks to punish. He’s
also prone to contradictory moves. Also, just as he pulled troops from
Syria, he added an even larger number to Saudi Arabia, justifying the
move on the grounds that the Saudis will foot the entire bill, making
rather official the U.S. military’s gradual transformation into a
mercenary force ready to serve the highest bidder. Trump has also
surpassed, in his first two years, the number of drone strikes his
predecessor Barack Obama launched overseas during the same phase of
Obama’s presidency.

Nonetheless, Trump’s Democratic opponents have bet big on using Syria to
attack the president without providing any real alternatives to
withdrawal. In doing so, they might just hand Trump a winning hand for
2020. In fact, I haven’t seen so much foreign policy coverage of a U.S.
war by the establishment media for over a decade, at least since
Democrats finally turned against Bush’s failing war in Iraq as a tool
for midterm electoral success.

The attention suddenly focused on Syria is rather cynical, of course,
with the country’s civil war only receiving notice now because it’s a
cudgel used to reflexively attack Trump. It’s not about Kurdish ethnic
rights or women’s, rights—and it never was. No, this is all about
partisan political advantage. And it might just backfire on the Dems.

Trump isn’t all that scared of criticism on Syria, even from the
establishment wing of his own party. Firing back at critics this week,
Trump tweeted: "Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the
other [in Syria]. Let them!"

See, this president knows what many congressional Republicans do not
appear to realize: that the old conservative coalition—which included a
powerful hawkish national security wing—is breaking down. The Republican
base, well, they’re just about as sick of endless war as is Trump
himself. Consider this remarkable turnaround: In recent polls, 56% of
Republicans supported Trump’s Syria withdrawal, while 60% of Democrats
opposed it.

Which brings us back to the mainstream Democratic machine and the
potentially awkward position of even the most progressive of the 2020
presidential hopefuls on the "left." By flipping the script and
demonstrating that Trump and his conservative backers constitute the
only serious antiwar coalition, he could expose that establishment
Dems—who’ve almost all stood tall with the neocon retreads against
Trump’s move—represent little more than Sen. Lindsey Graham lite. He
could show that they’re hawks too, opportunistic hawks at that, figures
mired in the Washington swamp. Disgust with that bipartisan beltway
elite is exactly what got Mr. Trump elected in 2016 (along with a
peculiar outdated Electoral College, of course), which is exactly why
responding to Trump’s (tentative) war-ending propensity will be
sensitive and awkward for Democratic leaders and presidential candidates.

Look, even America’s usually conservative, if (purportedly) apolitical,
soldiers and veterans are now against these forever wars that Trump
ostensibly seeks to end. A series of polls this summer indicated that
nearly two-thirds of post-9/11 vets say they believe the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and the military engagement in Syria "were not worth
it." This should have been an alarm bell for both major parties, but
expect the Democrats to once again squander the opportunity presented by
these frustrated, alienated troopers.

By ignoring foreign policy—generally having ceded that political
territory to the Republicans since midway through the Cold War—the Dems
have ensured that most of these antiwar veterans won’t find a home, or
land in the Democratic Party.

I personally know dozens of these sorts of exhausted veterans. Almost
none have followed my own journey toward the left. In fact, the vast
majority tell me they trust Trump, warts and all, over figures like
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the other Democratic elites that
they find even more corrupt than the reality-TV-star-in-chief. My
friends and colleagues may be wrong, may be off-base, but most truly
believe it, which ought to worry Democrats. Only it won’t, or at least
not in enough time.

So, while I’m cautious about giving sensible advice to Trump (luckily,
he doesn’t read Truthdig, or read much at all), I think there’s
potential for him to craft a winning strategy for 2020.

Here’s a modest proposal on just how it might go: He could end one of
America’s illegal wars, particularly those clearly not covered by the
post-9/11 AUMFs [Authorization for Use of Military Force], every three
months. Little-to-no warning, ignoring the complaints of senior generals
and national security officials; just pick an ill-advised military
intervention (there’re plenty to choose from) and announce its end.

Not only would this distract from impeachment, but it would force
Trump’s potential 2020 opponents to perform some awkward intellectual
gymnastics. They’d be obliged to double-down and promise to end even
more wars, even more quickly, than Trump. Or, more likely, they could
join the bipartisan swampy establishment and half-heartedly (and
disingenuously) defend continuing the very unwinnable wars with which
the American people have grown so tired.

I know all of that’s unlikely, but it’s not unthinkable. Trump could
even wrap himself in a new brand of patriotism and emphasize his concern
for America’s beloved troops. Now, this president isn’t known for his
sincerity, but he has previously claimed that signing condolence letters
for the families of fallen servicemen "is the hardest thing he does." So
in my fantasy, Trump would address the nation in prime time, and, noting
that 18-year-olds have begun to deploy to Afghanistan, assure the people
that he intends to end these wars before a kid born after 9/11 dies in
one of them.

————

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to
Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The LA Times, The
Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post and The Hill. He served combat
tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and
critical analysis of the Iraq War, "Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge." He co-hosts the progressive
veterans’ podcast "Fortress on a Hill." Follow him on Twitter at
@SkepticalVet.

(10) Kurdish PKK/YPG troops join the Syrian army; MSM beatup Trump's
withdrawal

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/10/media-and-pundits-misread-the-everyone-wins-plan-for-syria.html

October 18, 2019

Media And Pundits Misread The 'Everyone Wins' Plan For Syria

The U.S. media get yesterday's talks between U.S. Vice President Mike
Pence and the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan all wrong. Those
talks were just a show to soothe the criticism against President Donald
Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria.

The fake negotiations did not change the larger win-win-win-win plan or
the facts on the ground. The Syrian Arab Army is replacing the Kurdish
PKK/YPG troops at the border with Turkey. The armed PKK/YPG forces,
which had deceivingly renamed themselves (vid) "Syrian Democratic
Forces" to win U.S. support, will be disbanded and integrated into the
Syrian army. Those moves are sufficient to give Turkey the security
guarantees it needs. They will prevent any further Turkish invasion.

The Washington Post reports:

Turkey agreed Thursday to a cease-fire that would suspend its march into
Syria and temporarily halt a week of vicious fighting with Kurdish
forces, while allowing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to
carve out a long-coveted buffer zone far beyond its borders.

The agreement, announced by Vice President Pence after hours of
negotiations, appeared to hand Turkey’s leader most of what he sought
when his military launched an assault on northeastern Syria just over a
week ago: the expulsion of Syrian Kurdish militias from the border and
the removal of a U.S. threat to impose sanctions on Turkey’s vulnerable
economy.

Pence said Turkey had agreed to pause its offensive for five days while
the United States helped facilitate the withdrawal of Kurdish-led
forces, called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), from a large swath of
territory stretching from Turkey’s border nearly 20 miles south into
Syria. After the completion of the Kurdish withdrawal, Turkey’s military
operation, which began Oct. 9, would be "halted entirely," Pence said.

The New York Times falsely headlines: In ‘Cave-In,’ Trump Cease-Fire
Cements Turkey’s Gains in Syria

The cease-fire agreement reached with Turkey by Vice President Mike
Pence amounts to a near-total victory for Turkey’s president, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, who gains territory, pays little in penalties and
appears to have outmaneuvered President Trump.

The best that can be said for the agreement is that it may stop the
killing in the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. But the cost for
Kurds, longtime American allies in the fight against the Islamic State,
is severe: Even Pentagon officials were mystified about where tens of
thousands of displaced Kurds would go, as they moved south from the
Turkey-Syria border as required by the deal — if they agree to go at
all. ... Military officials said they were stunned that the agreement
essentially allowed Turkey to annex a portion of Syria, displace tens of
thousands of Kurdish residents and wipe away years of counterterrorism
gains against the Islamic State.

The U.S. can not "allow Turkey to annex a portion of Syria". The U.S.
does not own Syria. It is completely bollocks to think that it has the
power to allow Turkey to annex parts of it.

Turkey will not "gain territory". There will be no Turkish "security
corridor". The Kurdish civilians in Kobani, Ras al Ain and Qamishli
areas will not go anywhere. The Turks will not touch those Kurdish
majority areas because they are, or soon will be, under control of the
Syrian government and its army.

{photo}
The picture, taken yesterday, shows the Syrian-Turkish border crossing
north of Kobani. The Syrian army took control of it and raised the
Syrian flag. There are no longer any Kurdish forces there that could
threaten Turkey.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu confirmed that Turkey agrees with
the Syrian government moves:

Russia "promised that the PKK or YPG will not be on the other side of
the border," Cavusoglu said in an interview with the BBC. "If Russia,
accompanied by the Syrian army, removes YPG elements from the region, we
will not oppose this." Even partisan Syrians opposed to its government
recognize the ploy:

Rami Jarrah @RamiJarrah - 12:53 UTC · Oct 17, 2019 Turkey’s foreign
minister once again reiterates that if Russia and the Syrian regime take
over border areas they will not object, as long as the PYD are expelled.
This has to be the easiest land grab opportunity Assad has had since the
war started.

These moves have been planed all along. The Turkish invasion in
northeast Syria was designed to give Trump a reason to withdraw U.S.
troops. It was designed to push the Kurdish forces to finally submit to
the Syrian government. Behind the scene Russia had already organized the
replacement of the Kurdish forces with Syrian government troops. It has
coordinated the Syrian army moves with the U.S. military. Turkey had
agreed that Syrian government control would be sufficient to alleviate
its concern about a Kurdish guerilla and a Kurdish proto-state at its
border. Any further Turkish invasion of Syria is thereby unnecessary.

The plan has everyone winning. Turkey will be free of a Kurdish threat.
Syria regains its territory. The U.S. can leave without further trouble.
Russia and Iran gain standing. The Kurds get taken care of.

The 'ceasefire' and the retreat of the armed Kurdish groups from the
border, which is claimed to have been negotiated yesterday between Pence
and Erdogan, had already been decided on before the U.S. announced its
withdrawal from Syria.

As veteran reporter Elijah Magnier wrote yesterday, before the
Turkish-U.S. negotiations happened:

Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and
reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a
30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s
anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5
km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties
involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian
branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to
manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been
graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.

What Magnier describes is exactly what Pence and Erdogan agreed upon
after he wrote it because it was - all along - part of the larger common
plan.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 20:13 UTC · Oct 17, 2019 This is a
great day for civilization. I am proud of the United States for sticking
by me in following a necessary, but somewhat unconventional, path.
People have been trying to make this "Deal" for many years. Millions of
lives will be saved. Congratulations to ALL! The question is now if the
U.S. will stick to the deal or if the pressure on President Trump will
get so heavy that he needs to retreat from the common deal. The U.S.
must move ALL its troops out of northeast Syria for the plot to succeed.
Any residual U.S. force, even an unsustainable small one, will make the
situation much more complicate.

That the U.S. media and pundits completely misread the situation is a
symptom of a wider failure. As Anatol Lieven describes the mess of U.S.
Middle Eastern strategy:

This pattern has its roots in the decay of the US political system and
political establishment at home, including the power of lobbies and
their money over US policy in key areas; the retreat of area studies in
academia and think tanks, leading to sheer ignorance of some of the key
countries with which the USA has to deal; the self-obsession,
self-satisfaction and ideological megalomania that in every dispute
leads so much of the US establishment and media to cast the USA as a
force of absolute good, and its opponents as absolutely evil; and the
failure – linked to these three syndromes – to identify vital and
secondary interests and choose between them .. Only a few realist in the
U.S. recognize reality. Stephen Walt:

The bottom line: The solution to the situation in Syria is to
acknowledge Assad’s victory and work with the other interested parties
to stabilize the situation there. Unfortunately, that sensible if
unsavory approach is anathema to the foreign-policy "Blob"—Democrats and
Republicans alike—and its members are marshaling the usual tired
arguments to explain why it’s all Trump’s fault and the United States
should never have withdrawn a single soldier.

I am confident for now that the blob will be held off by Trump and that
the Win4 plan will succeed. Erdogan will soon travel to Russia to
discuss the next steps towards peace in Syria. The talks will be about a
common plan to liberated the Jihadi controlled governorate of Idleb.
That step may require a summit between the Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad and Erdogan which Russia and Iran will help to facilitate.

With the U.S. removed from the Syria file such steps towards peace will
now be much easier.

Posted by b on October 18, 2019 at 6:43 UTC |

1