From Energy War to Currency War: America’s Attack on the Russian Ruble

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, October 16, 2015

Strategic Culture Foundation 26 December 2014

Region: Russia and FSU

Theme: Global Economy, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT

Note: This article was originally published in 2014.
A multi-spectrum war is being waged against Moscow by Washington. If there are any doubts about this, they should be put to rest. Geopolitics, science and technology, speculation, financial markets, information streams, large business conglomerates, intelligentsia, mass communication, social media, the internet, popular culture, news networks, international institutions, sanctions, audiences, public opinion, nationalism, different governmental bodies and agencies, identity politics, proxy wars, diplomacy, countervailing international alliances, major business agreements, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights, prestige, military personnel, capital, and psychological tactics are all involved in this multi-spectrum war. On a daily basis this struggle can be seen playing out on the airwaves, in the war theaters in Ukraine and the Middle East, through the statements and accusations of diplomats, and in the economic sphere.
Additionally, the debates and questions on whether a new cold war—a post-Cold War cold war—has emerged or if the Cold War never ended should be put to rest too. The mentality of the Cold War never died in the Washington Beltway. From the perspective of Russian officials, it is clear that the US never put down its war mace and continued the offensive. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, defeating the Soviets and Eastern Bloc, and seeing the Soviet Union dismantled into fifteen republics was not enough for the Cold War warriors in the US. The newly emergent Russian Federation had to be placated in their views.
Petro-politics have been a major feature of this multi-spectrum war too. [1] Not only have energy prices been a factor in this struggle, but so are financial markets and national currencies. The manipulated decline in the price of energy, which has been driven by the flooding of the global market with oil, is now being augmented by a siege on the value of the Russian ruble. This is part of what appears to be a deliberate two-pronged attack on the Russian Federation that seeks to cut Russia’s revenues through market manipulation via economic sanctions and price drops. It is what you would call a «double whammy». While sanctions have been imposed on the Russian economy by the US and its allies, including Australia, Canada, the European Union, and Japan, offensives on Russia’s main source of revenue — energy — and its national currency have taken place.
Currency Warfare and Inflation
The price of the Russian ruble begun to drop in December 2014 as a consequence of the economic siege on the Russian Federation, the drop in global energy prices, and speculation. «Judging by the situation in the country, we are in the midst of a deep currency crisis, one that even Central Bank employees say they could not have foreseen in their worst nightmares», Interfax’s Vyacheslav Terekhov commented on the currency crisis while talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a Kremlin press conference on December 18, 2014. [2] Putin himself admitted this too at the press conference. While answering Terekhov, Putin explained that «the situation has changed under the influence of certain foreign economic factors, primarily the price of energy resources, of oil and consequently of gas as well». [3]
Some may think that the drop in the Russian ruble’s value is a result of the market acting on its own while others who recognize that there is market manipulation involved may turn around and blame it on the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. This process, however, has been guided by US machinations. It is simply not a result of the market acting on its own or the result of Kremlin policies. It is the result of US objectives and policy that deliberately targets Russia for destabilization and devastation. This is why Putin answered Terekhov’s question by saying that the drop in the value of the Russian ruble «was obviously provoked primarily by external factors». [4]

Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland — the wife of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) co-founder and neo-conservative advocate for empire Robert Kagan — and US Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that the objectives of the US economic sanctions strategy against the Russian Federation was not only to damage the trade ties and business between Russia and the EU, but to also bring about economic instability in Russia and to create currency instability and inflation. [5] In other words, the US government was targeting the Russian ruble for devaluation and the Russian economy for inflation since at least May 2014.
It appears that the US is trying to manipulate the Kremlin into spending Russia’s resources and fiscal reserves to fight the inflation of the Russian ruble that Washington has engineered. The Kremlin, however, will not take the bait and be goaded into depleting the approximately $419 billion (US) foreign currency reserves and gold holdings of the Russian Federation or any of Russia’s approximately 8.4 trillion ruble reserves in an effort to prop the declining value of the Russian ruble. In this regard, while holding a press conference, President Putin stated the following on December 18, 2014: «The Central Bank does not intend to ‘burn’ them all senselessly, which is right». [6] Putin emphasized this again when answering Vyacheslav Terekhov’s question by saying that the Russian government and Russian Central Bank «should not hand out our gold and foreign currency reserves or burn them on the market, but provide lending resources». [7]
The Kremlin understands what Washington is trying to do. The US is replaying old game plans against Russia. The energy price manipulation, the currency devaluation, and even US attempts to entrap Russia in a conflict with its sister-republic Ukraine are all replays of US tactics that have been used before during the Cold War and after 1991. For example, dragging Russia into Ukraine would be a replay of how the US dragged the Soviet Union into Afghanistan whereas the manipulation of energy prices and currency markets would parallel the US strategy used to weaken and destabilize Baathist Iraq, Iran, and the Soviet Union during the Afghan-Soviet War and Iran-Iran War.
Instead of trying to stop the value of the ruble from dropping, the Kremlin appears to have decided to strategically invest in Russia’s human capital. Russia’s national reserve funds will be used to diversify the national economy and strengthen the social and public sectors. Despite the economic warfare against Russia, this is exactly why the wages of teachers in schools, professors in post-secondary institutions of learning and training, employees of cultural institutions, doctors in hospitals and clinics, paramedics, and nurses — the most important sectors for developing Russia’s human capital and capacity — have all been raised.
The Russian Bear Courts the Turkish Grey Wolf
The Kremlin, however, has an entire list of options at its disposal for countering the US offensive against Russia. One of them involves the courting of Turkey. The Russian courtship of Turkey has involved the Russian move away from the construction of the South Stream natural gas pipeline from Russia across the Black Sea to Bulgaria.
Putin announced that Russia has cancelled the South Stream project on December 1, 2014. Instead the South Stream pipeline project has been replaced by a natural gas pipeline that goes across the Black Sea to Turkey from the Russian Federation’s South Federal District. This alternative pipeline has been popularly billed the «Turk Stream» and partners Russian energy giant Gazprom with Turkey’s Botas. Moreover, Gazprom will start giving Turkey discounts in the purchase of Russian natural gas that will increase with the intensification of Russo-Turkish cooperation.
The natural gas deal between Ankara and Moscow creates a win-win situation for both the Turkish and Russian sides. Not only will Ankara get a discount on energy supplies, but Turk Stream gives the Turkish government what it has wanted and desired for years. The Turk Stream pipeline will make Turkey an important energy corridor and transit point, complete with transit revenues. In this case Turkey becomes the corridor between energy supplier Russia and European Union and non-EU energy customers in southeastern Europe. Ankara will gain some leverage over the European Union and have an extra negotiating card with the EU too, because the EU will have to deal with it as an energy broker.
For its part, Russia has reduced the risks that it faced in building the South Stream by cancelling the project. Moscow could have wasted resources and time building the South Stream to see the project sanctioned or obstructed in the Balkans by Washington and Brussels. If the European Union really wants Russian natural gas then the Turk Stream pipeline can be expanded from Turkey to Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, and other European countries that want to be integrated into the energy project.
The cancellation of South Stream also means that there will be one less alternative energy corridor from Russia to the European Union for some time. This has positive implications for a settlement in Ukraine, which is an important transit route for Russian natural gas to the European Union. As a means of securing the flow of natural gas across Ukrainian territory from Russia, the European Union will be more prone to push the authorities in Kiev to end the conflict in East Ukraine.
In more ways than one the Turk Stream pipeline can be viewed as a reconfigured of the failed Nabucco natural gas pipeline. Not only will Turk Stream court Turkey and give Moscow leverage against the European Union, instead of reducing Russian influence as Nabucco was originally intended to do, the new pipeline to Turkey also coaxes Ankara to align its economic and strategic interests with those of Russian interests. This is why, when addressing Nabucco and the rivalries for establishing alternate energy corridors, this author pointed out in 2007 that «the creation of these energy corridors and networks is like a two-edged sword. These geo-strategic fulcrums or energy pivots can also switch their directions of leverage. The integration of infrastructure also leads towards economic integration». [8]
The creation of Turk Stream and the strengthening of Russo-Turkish ties may even help placate the gory conflict in Syria. If Iranian natural gas is integrated into the mainframe of Turk Stream through another energy corridor entering Anatolia from Iranian territory, then Turkish interests would be even more tightly aligned with both Moscow and Tehran. Turkey will save itself from the defeats of its neo-Ottoman policies and be able to withdraw from the Syrian crisis. This will allow Ankara to politically realign itself with two of its most important trading partners, Iran and Russia.
It is because of the importance of Irano-Turkish and Russo-Turkish trade and energy ties that Ankara has had an understanding with both Russia and Iran not to let politics and their differences over the Syrian crisis get in the way of their economic ties and business relationships while Washington has tried to disrupt Irano-Turkish and Russo-Turkish trade and energy ties like it has disrupted trade ties between Russia and the EU. [9] Ankara, however, realizes that if it lets politics disrupt its economic ties with Iran and Russia that Turkey itself will become weakened and lose whatever independence it enjoys
Masterfully announcing the Russian move while in Ankara, Putin also took the opportunity to ensure that there would be heated conversation inside the EU. Some would call this rubbing salt on the wounds. Knowing that profit and opportunity costs would create internal debate within Bulgaria and the EU, Putin rhetorically asked if Bulgaria was going to be economically compensated by the European Commission for the loss.
The Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon
It is clear that Russian business and trade ties have been redirected to the People’s Republic of China and East Asia. On the occasion of the Sino-Russian mega natural gas deal, this author pointed out that this was not as much a Russian countermove to US economic pressure as it was really a long-term Russian strategy that seeks an increase in trade and ties with East Asia. [10] Vladimir Putin himself also corroborated this standpoint during the December 18 press conference mentioned earlier when he dismissed — like this author — the notion that the so-called «Russian turn to the East» was mainly the result of the crisis in Ukraine.
In President Putin’s own words, the process of increasing business ties with the Chinese and East Asia «stems from the global economic processes, because the East – that is, the Asia-Pacific Region – shows faster growth than the rest of the world». [11] If this is not convincing enough that the turn towards East Asia was already in the works for Russia, then Putin makes it categorically clear as he proceeds talking at the December 18 press conference. In reference to the Sino-Russian gas deal and other Russian projects in East Asia, Putin explained the following: «The projects we are working on were planned long ago, even before the most recent problems occurred in the global or Russian economy. We are simply implementing our long-time plans». [12]
From the perspective of Russian Presidential Advisor Sergey Glazyev, the US is waging its multi-spectrum war against Russia to ultimately challenge Moscow’s Chinese partners. In an insightful interview, Glazyev explained the following points to the Ukrainian journalist Alyona Berezovskaya — working for a Rossiya Segodnya subsidiary focusing on information involving Ukraine — about the basis for US hostility towards Russia: the bankruptcy of the US, its decline in competitiveness on global markets, and Washington’s inability to ultimately save its financial system by servicing its foreign debt or getting enough investments to establish some sort of innovative economic breakthrough are the reasons why Washington has been going after the Russian Federation. [13] In Glazyev’s own words, the US wants «a new world war». [14] The US needs conflict and confrontation, in other words. This is what the crisis in Ukraine is nurturing in Europe.
Sergey Glazyev reiterates the same points months down the road on September 23, 2014 in an article he authors for the magazine Russia in Global Affairs, which is sponsored by the Russian International Affairs Council — a think-tank founded by the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian Ministry of Education in 2010 — and the US journal Foreign Affairs — which is the magazine published by the Council on Foreign Relation in the US. In his article, Glazyev adds that the war Washington is inciting against Russia in Europe may ultimately benefit the Chinese, because the struggle being waged will weaken the US, Russia, and the European Union to the advantage of China. [15] The point of explaining all this is to explain that Russia wants a balanced strategic partnership with China. Glazyev himself even told Berezovskaya in their interview that Russia wants a mutually beneficial relationship with China that does reduce it to becoming a subordinate to Beijing. [16]
Without question, the US wants to disrupt the strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow. Moscow’s strategic long-term planning and Sino-Russian cooperation has provided the Russia Federation with an important degree of economic and strategic insulation from the economic warfare being waged against the Russian national economy. Washington, however, may also be trying to entice the Chinese to overplay their hand as Russia is economically attacked. In this context, the price drops in the energy market may also be geared at creating friction between Beijing and Moscow. In part, the manipulation of the energy market and the price drops could seek to weaken and erode Sino-Russian relations by coaxing the Chinese into taking steps that would tarnish their excellent ties with their Russian partners. The currency war against the Russian ruble may also be geared towards this too. In other words, Washington may be hoping that China becomes greedy and shortsighted enough to make an attempt to take advantage of the price drop in energy prices in the devaluation of the Russian ruble.
Whatever Washington’s intentions are, every step that the US takes to target Russia economically will eventually hurt the US economy too. It is also highly unlikely that the policy mandarins in Beijing are unaware of what the US may try to be doing. The Chinese are aware that ultimately it is China and not Russia that is the target of the United States.

Economic Terrorism: An Argentina versus the Vulture Funds Scenario?
The United States is waging a fully fledged economic war against the Russian Federations and its national economy. Ultimately, all Russians are collectively the target. The economic sanctions are nothing more than economic warfare. If the crisis in Ukraine did not happen, another pretext would have been found for assaulting Russia.
Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser even told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that the ultimate objectives of the US economic sanctions against Russia are to make the Russian population so miserable and desperate that they would eventually demand that the Kremlin surrender to the US and bring about «political change». «Political change» can mean many things, but what it most probably implies here is regime change in Moscow. In fact, the aims of the US do not even appear to be geared at coercing the Russian government to change its foreign policy, but to incite regime change in Moscow and to cripple the Russian Federation entirely through the instigation of internal divisions. This is why maps of a divided Russia are being circulated by Radio Free Europe. [17]
According to Presidential Advisor Sergey Glazyev, Washington is «trying to destroy and weaken Russia, causing it to fragment, as they need this territory and want to establish control over this entire space». [18] «We have offered cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok, whereas they need control to maintain their geopolitical leadership in a competition with China,» he has explained, pointing out that the US wants lordship and is not interested in cooperation. [19] Alluding to former US top diplomat Madeline Albright’s sentiments that Russia was unfairly endowed with vast territory and resources, Putin also spoke along similar lines at his December 18 press conference, explaining how the US wanted to divide Russia and control the abundant natural resources in Russian territory.
It is of little wonder that in 2014 a record number of Russian citizens have negative attitudes about relations between their country and the United States. A survey conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center has shown that of 39% of Russian respondents viewed relations with the US as «mostly bad» and 27% as «very bad». [20] This means 66% of Russian respondents have negative views about relations with Washington. This is an inference of the entire Russian population’s views. Moreover, this is the highest rise in negative perceptions about the US since 2008 when the US supported Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi’s war against Russia and the breakaway republic of South Ossetia; 40% viewed them as «mostly bad» and 25% of Russians viewed relations as «very bad» and at the time. [21]
Russia can address the economic warfare being directed against its national economy and society as a form of «economic terrorism». If Russia’s banks and financial institutions are weakened with the aim of creating financial collapse in the Russian Federation, Moscow can introduce fiscal measures to help its banks and financial sector that could create economic shockwaves in the European Union and North America. Speaking in hypothetical terms, Russia has lots of options for a financial defensive or counter-offensive that can be compared to its scorched earth policies against Western European invaders during the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War. If Russian banks and institutions default and do not pay or delay payment of their derivative debts and justify it on the basis of the economic warfare and economic terrorism, there would be a financial shock and tsunami that would vertebrate from the European Union to North America. This scenario has some parallels to the steps that Argentina has taken to sidestep the vulture funds.
The currency war eventually will rebound on Washington and Wall Street. The energy war will also reverse directions. Already, the Kremlin has made it clear that it and a coalition of other countries will de-claw the US in the currency market through a response that will neutralize US financial manipulation and the petro-dollar. In the words of Sergey Glazyev, Moscow is thinking of a «systemic and comprehensive» response «aimed at exposing and ending US political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining US military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency». [22] His solution includes the creation of «a coalition of sound forces advocating stability — in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty». [23]
The coming century will not be the «American Century» as the neo-conservatives in Washington think. It will be a «Eurasian Century». Washington has taken on more than it can handle, this may be why the US government has announced an end to its sanctions regime against Cuba and why the US is trying to rekindle trade ties with Iran. Despite this, the architecture of the post-Second World War or post-1945 global order is now in its death bed and finished. This is what the Kremlin and Putin’s presidential spokesman and press secretary Dmitry Peskov mean when they impart—as Peskov stated to Rossiya-24 in a December 17, 2014 interview — that the year 2014 has finally led to «a paradigm shift in the international system».
NOTES

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «Oil Prices and Energy Wars: The Empire of Frack versus Russia,» Strategic Culture Foundation, December 5, 2014.

[2] Official Kremlin version of the transcribed press conference — titled «News conference of Vladimir Putin» (December 18, 2014)—has been used in quoting Vladimir Putin.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «Psychological War In The Financial Markets And The Sino-Russian Gas Deal,» Mint Press News, May 29, 2014.

[6] Supra. n.2.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «The ‘Great Game’ Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics,» Global Research, October 14, 2007.

[9] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «Oil Prices and Energy Wars,» op. cit.; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «Turkey & Iran: More than meets the eye,» RT, January 20, 2014.

[10] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «Psychological War In The Financial Markets,» op. cit.

[11] Supra. n.2.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Sergey Glazyev, «Alyona Berezovskaya interviews Sergei Glazyev,» Interview with Alyona Berezovskaya, Ukraine.ru, July 17, 2014: .

[14] Ibid.

[15] Sergey Glazyev, «The Threat of War and the Russian Response,» Russia in Global Affairs, September 24, 2014.

[16] Sergey Glazyev, «Alyona Berezovskaya interviews,» op. cit.

[17] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «WWIII aimed to redraw map of Russia?» Strategic Culture Foundation, September 10, 2014.

[18] Sergey Glazyev, «Alyona Berezovskaya interviews,» op. cit.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Всероссийский центр изучения общественного мнения [Russian Public Opinion Research Center], «Россия-США отношенияв точке замерзания» [«Russia-US Relations at Freezing Point»], Press release 2729, December 4, 2014: .

[21] Ibid.

[22] Sergey Glazyev, «The Threat of War,» op. cit.

[23] Ibid.

Copyright © Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Strategic Culture Foundation, 2015

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT STRIKES ...

Posted on October 16, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/10/the-gmo-scrapbook-australian-high-court-strikes-down-patents-on-genes/

If you've been following the whole story of genetic engineering and patent law, particularly with reference to the uses, and abuses, thereof by the GMO "agribusiness sector," then there has been a stunning development from Australia, as indicated in this article shared by many of you:
Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
The significant passages for our high octane speculations of the day are these:

The court based its reasoning (PDF) on the fact that, although an isolated gene such as BRCA1 was "a product of human action, it was the existence of the information stored in the relevant sequences that was an essential element of the invention as claimed." Since the information stored in the DNA as a sequence of nucleotides was a product of nature, it did not require human action to bring it into existence, and therefore could not be patented.
Although that seems a sensible ruling, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry has been fighting against this self-evident logic for years. The view that genes could be patented suffered a major defeat in 2013, when the US Supreme Court struck down Myriad Genetics' patents on the genes BRCA1 and the similar BRCA2. The industry was hoping that a win in Australia could keep alive the idea that genes could be owned by a company in the form of a patent monopoly. The victory by D'Arcy now makes it highly likely that other judges around the world will take the view that genes cannot be patented.
This is a result that will have major practical consequences, and is likely to save thousands of lives. In the past, holders of gene patents were able to stop other companies from offering tests based on them, for example to detect the presence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that were linked with a greater risk of breast and ovarian cancers. This patent monopoly allowed companies like Myriad to charge $3,000 (£2,000) or more for their own tests, potentially placing them out of the reach of those unable to afford this cost, some of whom might then go on to develop cancer because they were not aware of their higher susceptibility, and thus unable to take action to minimise their risks.

There are two obvious implications here from this ruling in Australia, which follows similar US Supreme Court rulings. The most obvious of these is that some of the genetic modifications of crops might also be subject to similar strictures, should cases be brought to the courts, and in the case of GMOs, corporations will now have to spend the money to litigate that specific modifications are exceptions to such guidelines and rulings. This will raise the cost of their products, introducing yet another element of cost-non-effectiveness into the rising body of evidence that GMOs, over time, are not cost effective, as nature adapts to human modifications faster than they can be made. Or to put it "country simple," the rulings are major looming problems for the whole GMO enterprise over the long term. Court "findings" will now have to be made over a whole range of GMO patents. And this will take time, and money, and lots of it, since such findings will have to be filed for and fees paid, on a country-by-country basis: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, Brazil, Argentina, France, ... well, you get the idea. Anywhere where GMOs have been introduced, the right to charge licensing fees will have to be contested and won. Expect IG Farbensanto, Syncrudda, DuPonzanto and other GMO-agrubusiness companies to fight this tooth and nail, and with their customary meanness.
A more subtle implication, however, is how this ruling might transform the realm of genetic therapies and medicine as a whole, for the entire profit motive for the development of such therapies has been undercut. They may, or may not, turn out to be a bad thing, since the development of such therapies might perforce have to move into the public, i.e., the state sector. For fans and advocates of various forms of socialized medicine or national healthcare, this could be a boon. For those who don't trust the Empire any further than they can toss it, it might be the reverse. Time will tell.
In any case, however, the rulings would appear to have sweeping implications for the whole host of bureaucratic and regulatory policies that have been emplaced surrounding GMOs, based as they have been on the assumption of the patentability of genetic modifications.

RUSSIA LAUNCHES CRUISE MISSILES FROM CASPIAN, USA ...

Posted on October 15, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/10/russia-launches-cruise-missiles-from-caspian-usa-claims-some-land-in-iran-let-the-propaganda-wars-begin/

If you've been following the USA-minted and made crises in the Middle East, and the Russian intervention in Syria in particular, you'll have heard about that Russian launch of cruise missiles from the Caspian sea to Syria, missiles which, in themselves, weren't supposed to be able to "go that far". But there's more, as a little reading between the lines of this article will show:
Russia’s New Mega-Missile Stuns the Globe
Here's the part that concerns us:

“The strikes engaged plants producing ammunition and explosives, command centers, storages of munitions, armament, and [oil], as well as a training camp of terrorists on the territory of Raqqa, Idlib, and Aleppo,” according to the ministry. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said the missiles struck all 11 planned targets.
The Russian military celebrated the raid with a press release and an official video, and Shoigu went on national TV to praise the operation. Kurdish militiamen shot video they claimed depicted the missiles flying over northern Iraq. And the U.S. military apparently closely tracked the rocket-powered, guided munitions—and later claimed that several malfunctioned and crashed in Iran.
The media coverage was at least as important as the destruction of the alleged rebel facilities, U.S. defense officials told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “This is Russia demonstrating on a global stage that it has a lot of reach,” one official explained.
Eric Wertheim, an independent U.S. naval analyst and author of the definitive Combat Fleets of the World, a reference guide to warships and their weapons, agrees, saying of the missile volley: “I think it was a demonstration to the world.”
Wertheim and other foreign analysts were familiar with an earlier version of the SS-N-30 called the SS-N-27, but the latter is an anti-ship missile and the analysts assumed it could only fly 150 miles or so—a fraction of the roughly thousand miles the rockets traveled during the recent raid.
(Emphasis added)

Now, you'll note that Washington's response to the Russian intervention has been to wring its hands, call the Russians and Mr. Putin the usual names and make the usual charges, and to basically admit the point by curtailing its half-a-billion dollar "training" program for the "moderates" to fight ISIS (which some claim it also funded)... well, the story is confusing, but basically, Russia is showing America's war on terror for what it is, for the breathtaking swiftness with which opponents of the Assad regime - ISIS or "moderates" - are being targeted and destroyed. But as the article above notes, Russia is demonstrating that it has "reach," 1000 mile cruise missile reach, when one version of the missile was suspected of only having a 150 mile range, and that was an anti-ship cruise missile.
So it takes little imagination to see that the 1000 mile range of an anti-ship cruise missile might be just a tiny bit worrying to Washington, saddled as it is with big, expensiv,e slow moving targetable aircraft carriers. Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about the Chinese CIPS international payment system being launched, and pointed out that in order to have a viable system of international clearing, one must have (1) lots of space based communications and the ability to protect them, and (2), a strong navy. I pointed out also that, on paper, China would appear to lag dramatically behind the United States...
... unless, of course, one has anti-ship cruise missiles that can strike aircraft carriers from 1000 miles (or more) away. Then you have a "problem."
And, of course, for the Zbgnw Brzznsk school of grand chessboard playing, this revelation of a cruise missile with a one thousand mile range being fired from Russian warships on the Caspian sea brings a great chunk of that Central Asian highland, so necessary to American unipolar imperialist ambitions in Brzznsk's "thinking", under the threat of potential Russian interdiction.
Worse yet, Washington may have attempted to shoot down four of those cruise missiles... in Iran no less... with...
... words. Consider this article, outlining a CNN story claiming four of the Russian cruise missiles landed in Iran, which not even the State Department would confirm, and which the Iranian government pointedly denied:
CNN launches dud against Russian campaign in Syria
Russia has little reason to bombard Iran, even by mistake, and even if it did, it would probably acknowledge it, and Iran would probably as well. Neither would have anything to gain by hiding such an event, because it would quickly be exposed with proof or at least some corroborating evidence and data of its occurrence. Instead... nothing.
The bottom line here?
Not even in the bad old days of the glorious socialist workers' paradise that was the Soviet Union, with the emninently bad and silly propaganda  from Radio Moscow with its brass fanfares, was propaganda this bad. The empire isn't simply insane. It's just becoming silly. Don't believe me yet? Well, the President of the Russian Federation is a former KGB officer, and has a juris doctor degree in international law. The main contender for the nomination to the Presidency of the USSA Empire in one political party is a casino manager, and on the other side of the non-existent aisle, a self-proclaimed socialist.

America’s War on Syria: Russia’s Fantasy “Stray Missiles” versus America’s Real Ones.

By Felicity Arbuthnot

Global Research, October 16, 2015

Region: Russia and FSU

Theme: Militarization and WMD

“Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terrorism.”- Barack Obama, 15^th February 2013.

Even to those who do not watch closely it has to be apparent that Washington’s vast disinformation machine is finally out of control, seriously awry, or desperate.

The latest foray in apparent media manipulation was the claim (1) by US “anonymous sources” that four Russian missiles targeting terrorist groups in Syria, landed in Iran.

US Administrations are serial repeaters of untruths. However talking of stray missiles after bombing a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan under a week before – when coordinates of the buildings had been confirmed to US authorities again just prior to the attack – then changing the story as to how it happened four times in less days, is skating on wafer thin ice.

As Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of MSF and former French Foreign Minister wrote:

“Targeting a red cross drawn on the roof of a hospital is … unacceptable … a line has again been crossed.” Demanding an independent investigation he stated: “It is a war crime.” (Guardian, 9^th October 2015.)

Former US Senate candidate, Mark Dankof, speaking to Iran’s Press TV regarding US claims of stray missiles in Iran believes a full-blown psychops operation towards Russia is underway. (2) President Putin’s Ministers stating that all terrorists terrorizing the people of Syria are targets – thus including the US backed ones – might be the reason.

Dankof points out:

“ … two anonymous US officials (are) a basis for this claim, who in turn are quoting unspecified, uncorroborated, and unverified ‘military and intelligence information.’ ” (3)

Moreover: “This is laughable … and underscores the blizzard of lies spun by the American government, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council, and Turkey, about what has been going on in Syria, and who is clearly responsible for the 250,000 Syrian deaths, one million wounded, and 9.5 million displaced citizens of that country”, he added.

“The blame is clearly on the aforementioned states, who have financed, supported, and introduced the … extremists and terrorists into the sovereign state of Syria in an illegitimate attempt to overthrow the legitimate and recognized government  … This is not simply evil, but illegal.

“The lies being woven by Zionist corporate media in the West about Russia are an attempt to conceal the alliance of ISIL, al-Qaeda, and affiliates with American, Israeli, British, French, and Saudi intelligence, and to conceal the obvious fact that the Russian airstrikes are hurting these terrorist groups militarily, even as they take place legally because the sovereign government … of Syria has formally requested Russian assistance.”

Dankov pointed out that on Thursday 8^th October, the “White Helmets” became CNN’s source for their reports on the stray missiles, the network citing them as “an independent medical team” in Syria. However:

“The truth is that the White Helmets are an invention of state intelligence agencies and NGOs who seek the overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This organization has special links to the British government in particular, and (also) to the PR firm Purpose Inc., to lobby for military intervention against Assad.

“They are closely linked to the Avaaz NGO which has the same agenda, and is linked to the Open Society Foundation of George Soros …”

Australian born Jeremy Heimans, co-founder and CEO of Purpose Inc. (“We create new organizations and ventures to tackle issues where mass participation and collective action can unlock big change”; “Purpose moves people to remake the world”) is also a co-founder of Avaaz.

However, back to “stray missiles”, a story speedily silent in the Western media.  Russian General Musa Kamali told Sputnik News Agency (9^th October 2015): “We have no reports of any Russian missiles crashing in Iran … those media reports alleging that Russian missiles aiming at Syria hit Iran are blatant lies.

“If the people making those claims had any proof, they would have certainly presented it”, he said. Quite.

Of course US expertise excels not alone in stray missiles, but in planned assaults on hospitals and other buildings protected under international laws. Hospitals are specifically protected under Article 20 of the Geneva Convention, amongst other binding international laws.

Intended indiscriminate destruction was demonstrated, in 2003, when: “The scenes of downtown Baghdad in flames (made it) abundantly clear why US officials insisted on covering up a reproduction of Pablo Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ at the UN Security Council during Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5^th (2003) presentation of the American case for war against Iraq.” (4) Picasso’s painting commemorates a Basque town razed to the ground by a German aerial assault in April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War.

At the onset of their illegal invasion US aircraft were making bombing runs on Baghdad at the rate of 1,000 a day with many parts of the city described as “an inferno.” Holocaustal war crimes of enormity. (Holocaust: “ Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.”)

Further, the US is also no stranger to stray missiles. As Time Magazine reported in April 2003, just two weeks in to America’s bombardment:

“ … in the past week, three U.S. Tomahawks have gone missing in the rocky plains of southeastern Turkey en route to Iraq, several hundred miles from the war zone. Five more went astray in Saudi Arabia, and a handful of others have broken up in Iran and reportedly, Syria.” (5)

Bombing in Iraq, as everywhere “liberated” by America was criminally indiscriminate, Edward Herman cites Fallujah as a chilling example and of war crimes of enormity (6):

“According to Dr. Hafidd al-Dulzanni, head of the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah Citizens, the U.S. assault (of 2004) destroyed some 7,000 houses, 840 stores, workshops and clinics, 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries, 59 schools, 13 government buildings, two electricity stations, three water purification plants, along with several railroad stations and sewage purification plants, among other things. Hospitals were an explicit target and weapons like white phosphorus and uranium-loaded projectiles were used, all adding up to massive violations of the laws of war.” (Emphasis mine.)

Fallujah’s illegal destruction both targeted and indiscriminate was, a metaphor for all Iraq.

On the day the US military entered Baghdad (8^th April 2003) they declared war on journalists, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol 1 and a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

First US troops directed a missile at the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad killing correspondent Tariq Ayoub and seriously wounding several others. It should be noted that: “The attacks came amid broadcasts showing some of the mounting slaughter being conducted by US troops throughout the Iraqi capital.” (7)

The surviving Al Jazeera staff sought shelter in nearby Abu Dhabi TV which then also came under US attack. Abu Dhabi TV correspondent, Shaker Hamed issued an on air call for help reporting: “Twenty-five journalists and technicians belonging to Abu Dhabi television and … Al-Jazeera are surrounded in the offices of Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad.” Note the “surrounded”, these were seemingly no “stray” airborne missiles, the tanks were firing from near point blank range. “Kill the messenger” comes to mind.

Hamed called for relevant agencies: “to intervene quickly to pull us out of this zone where missiles and shells are striking in an unbelievable way.”

In a now chillingly familiar story, also reminiscent of the MSF hospital in Kundiz: “Al-Jazeera had written to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on February 23 giving the precise location of its office so as to avoid being targeted.” Giving co-ordinates to the US military is, it appears, literally the kiss of death.

Al Jazeera was also attacked by the US troops in Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion, as Iraq, destroying their offices.

Having targeted Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, the US troops turned their attention to the Palestine Hotel, where two hundred journalists and world wide media were based. They killed Reuters correspondent Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso of Spanish Telecinco TV. Three other journalists were injured, the hotel was extensively damaged. The US military had of course, been informed that the Palestine was the media’s base.

The previous day, in Basra, Al Jazeera offices were targeted by two US missiles which failed to explode and outside Baghdad on the highway both Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV cars, clearly marked as such on roof,     sides and hood were targeted, miraculously no one was hurt.

ITV journalist Terry Lloyd was murdered near Basra by the US within four days of the invasion – also in a clearly marked car. Cameraman Fred Nerac and their Lebanese assistant Hussein Osman in an accompanying car were also killed. French cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, injured in the attack said the US were firing on media vehicles: “to wipe out troublesome witnesses.” Given the examples above and the continuing litany of such attacks by US troops (and British) during the occupation, he seems to have hit the nail on the head.

When it comes to war crimes the US is a serial offender. In the 1991 assault on Iraq all water purification plants were deliberately destroyed on the orders of US Central Command, as were clinics, schools, separate Education Ministry stores, media centres and radio stations were obliterated across the country. (8) Over fifty percent of all livestock was destroyed, farms and herds, chicken farms a special target. Iraq was the world’s largest exporter of dates – the US clearly regarded date palms as an enemy and bombarded great ancient, majestic groves too.

The women and children who nightly went to the great, reinforced Ameriyah Shelter on the outskirts of Baghdad were also incinerated – the US had satellites over the Shelter which recorded the women and children entering as dusk fell and leaving at first light.

The factory that made baby milk powder was reduced to rubble and described as a “chemical weapons factory.” The machinery was provided, installed and maintained by a company in Birmingham, England – and could only have been used to provide baby milk.

Also destroyed were plants which produced basic medical supplies as syringes, pain killers, antibiotics, a well worn path followed in other US bombings as a civilian pharmaceutical factory, Al-Shifa (“The Cure”) Sudan in August 1998 when missiles also rained down on Afghanistan. Two US embassies in East Africa had been attacked, so as ever, proof-free Judge, jury and executioner, the US randomly bombed.

Barely noticed have been the numerous US attacks on ancient Yemen (population just 24.41 million) before their ongoing proxy attack by current Chair of the UN Human Rights Council, Saudi Arabia.

Ninety eight US missile and drone attacks struck Yemen between 2002 and 2015; forty one in 2012, twenty six in 2013 and fourteen in 2014, with other attacks in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The cost in human life is hidden and shaming. In May 2010 alone an “errant” US drone killed five people. In December 2009 a US Cruise missile killed forty one souls. (9)

In 1999 former Yugoslavia was decimated – with stray US missiles landing in Macedonia, hitting Belgrade’s media centre, the Chinese Embassy, markets, obliterating train passengers, all “liberated” from life the American way.

2011 brought involvement in Libya’s destruction – another metaphor for the monstrosity of lawless might presented as benevolent saviour.

Let us hear no more phony allegations of stray missiles before the hell of the real ones have been accounted for.

Notes

1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/09/russia-denies-missiles-aimed-at-syria-landed-in-iran
2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-russian-intervention-exposes-coalition-lies-the-terrorists-r-us/5480359
3. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/10/09/432620/US-Russia-Syria-psyop
4. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/bagh-m22.html
5. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,439517,00.html
6. http://www.globalresearch.ca/after-all-we-did-for-them-in-fallujah/5480223
7. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/jaz-a09.html
8. http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-desert-slaughter/7920
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Yemen

I am indebted to Nicolas J. Davies, author of the eye opening “Blood on Our Hands – The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq” for the reminder of stray US missiles.

(http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/90107:blood-on-our-hands)

Copyright © Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, 2015

The Holy Church of St. Darwin’s Space Brotherhood

jay008 /http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/10/15/the-holy-church-of-st-darwins-space-brotherhood/

Invaders from Mars may actually not be into chicks….

By: Jay Dyer
We tend to think of science fiction, modern science (scientism), and religion as three distinct subjects, with minimal connection amongst them.  When we consider them philosophically, a radically different perspective begins to take shape, where the underlying presuppositions of all three move closer and closer.  Considering the weaponization of culture from the vantage point of the establishment under the rubrics of full spectrum dominance, all three are crucial cultural drivers that disseminate a prepackaged worldview to its consumers.  Whether its Isaac Asimov fans, Dawkinites or followers of L. Ron Hubbard, all have tremendous power to shape, mold and convert the perspectives of their flocks towards some desired end.  It is my thesis the end goal of all three in our age of transition is ultimately to merge into a singular monoculture globo-worldview, that will function as a kind of new religious mythology.
From the earliest days of what we knows as “science fiction” in figures like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, the notion of “science” as being the means by which man may project his imagination into the future was seen to be a useful tool of statecraft.  Particularly with Wells, we can see a figure whose stated goals of Fabian socialism would bleed though many of his more notable works with beaming effulgence.  Wells supposedly sought the eradication of the speculative monetary system (the close of Outlines of History), and through his fiction foretold a bright era of technological utopianism where reason would be crowned king.  In works like the Time Machine, notions of eugenics play a central role in conditioning the coming aeons of the rise of the vulgar class which would have to be controlled and managed by the technocratic control grid.
In works like War of the Worlds, the alien invasion myth exploded as even many of the academic class bought into the notion of civilizations that inhabited Mars or other solar systems.   Hollywood soon jumped on board and after Orson Welles’ famous broadcast, there would issue a nonstop flow of all things alien, UFO and galactic, as new luminaries like Burroughs, Nolan, Heinlein, Herbert, Asimov, Clarke and many more would chip in to produce classics in both print and screen incarnations.  From the vantage point of propaganda, the state found the alien mythos to be quite a useful tool, piling on more and more external invasion “threats” as a fascinated mass consumed more and more.  By the 70s and 80s, following the supposed Apollo 11 Mission, Close Encounters, the Star War Trilogy and E.T. had crystallized the alien myth in the minds of the public as fact, far more than any scientists claims of panspermia.
It is precisely with panspermia, as I’ve remarked many times, that we see the infusion of the alien mythos into so-called empirical science, yet the absurdity here becomes manifest by definition – no one has observed panspermia, it is simply a theory – and a sci fi theory, at that.   Indeed, as a film buff, one thing is undeniably certain, and that is there is no end to the alien story.  Yet there’s another “alien” story that is also crammed down our throats and as I hinted, arises roughly contemporary with science fiction, and that is Darwinism.  Purporting to be a strictly “natural” explanation of the “origins” of life and species adaptation (“change over time”), the more one delves into the ideological origins of Darwinian theory, the clearer it is seen to be linked with British Freemasonry and ancient mythology – less and less does it appear to be “scientific,” and more and more like a Wells tale.  Having been redefined and elastically stretched to encompass everything from floor polish to toenails, literally everything is purported to be “proof” of evolution.  Despite no transitionary fossils (and we should be swimming in endless piles of the billions of dead transition creaturely remains), Darwinism is the dominant religious perspective of our day, with all reality coming under its aegis as a product of endless material flux and chaos.

The scientific consensus is in – climate change on other planets has most certainly likely created conditions that give rise to giant, rotten grapefruits that will most likely invade earth if we do not combat global warming.

Concurrent with this grand narrative explanation is the other grand narrative explanation – that of science fiction.  Thus, while Darwinism looks to the past, science fiction is distinctly future-oriented.   Quite often the two meld together and are linked, especially in the alien mythos.  The explanation for the obviously rational and highly likely existence of extraterrestrial entities of some form is often said to be the aeons of Darwinism.   Why, it’s just obvious that the 4.5 billion years the solar system took to “form” (an unsubstantiated, non-empirical presupposition) would surely give rise to the birth of “life” on Zeta Reticuli, and since we’re talking in the billions of years, it’s likely they “evolved” to be far more advanced than humans.  Hell, they probably “seeded” us here on terra firma.  Stop for a moment and think about how much that starts to sound just like science fiction!  However, let’s recall our opponents’ definition of “science” – observable “facts” to support or negate a theory.   In other words, these are the creative speculations of men, in much the same way Bobba Fett and Mork are creative fictions.  They are not real, nor is the postulation that primordial muck was struck by lightning and gave birth to determined amoebas and fish and whales.   Much like science fiction, it is a story that men choose to believe in as a substitute, like a child dons a Superman costume and bounces off the couch attempting flight.
We can see a window into this melding process in examples of UFO cults like the Raelians or Scientology.  Both purport to be in perfect harmony with science and critical of the present systems of petty government corruption like Wells whined in Outlines of History.  Both project glorious futures of utopian progress through various pseudo-scientific and scientistic means, as man can achieve self-salvation through some rigorous process of bizarre doctrinal adherence.  Both maintain a strict regimen of belief for followers to cult figures that best not be challenged, since the cult has the monopoly on truth and the answers to pretty much any issue that might arise, and should they not, have faith, an answer will come from the high priesthood.  These sci fi cults thus operate in the exact same fashion as the sci fi cult of Darwinism, where dissent results in being ostracized, fired, mocked and harassed.

We come in peace to give perms, shoe horns and vacuum your planet.

Despite democidal statist regimes supposedly basing their principles on Darwinism, reason and science resulting in the murder of millions, the faith in the cult of the sci fi Darwinian state continues on, because, well, there are microwaves and iPhones – and those are proof of evolution.  Oh you didn’t know that?  What are you, an Ozark Mountain dweller?  You didn’t know iPhones prove Darwinism? Of course, technological progress has absolutely no necessary connection to a wild biological theory of origins, but that never ceases to be used as a “proof” of a ridiculous paradigm.  One thing cult members lack is critical thinking and objectivity, and if the Darwinian science fiction space opera that is to be our coming religion has anything, it has an army of followers who talk all day about reason, yet don’t have the foggiest idea how reason operates on immaterial, invariant principles that are in the domain of metaphysics.
Once Darwin and the empiricists supposed they had banished metaphysics, the past was assumed to be “explained” on “natural” grounds, and from there, the future needed some hope, some thing for ever-duped man to look into the future to project himself among the stars (after all, we are all “stars” according to Krauss and Crowley), and this is the role the Psy Op scions of science fiction play.  To play with reality and rewrite reality as a play of reality is the function of our new saints, St. Darwin and St. Wells, prophets and sages of the new dawn intent on exterminating man, as Holy Father Bertrand Russell lovingly prayed, with the aid of the space brother elites intent on bringing us to Childhood’s End.  It’s just science, it’s a fact.

“Let us feeed you the propaganda, my space brother. Eat the primordial soup!”

Auckland University Law Professor Jane Kelsey: Government Spin Won't Stop TPP Facts Emerging

Posted by George Freund on October 16, 2015

October 14 2015 | From: NewZealandHerald

If governments want to play by secret squirrel rules they can hardly accuse those who raise alarms based on best available information of scaremongering.

The post-Atlanta response by the government and cheerleaders for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) shows they still don't understand why people have opposed the deal and will continue to do so. 

First, the secrecy of negotiations and the handcuffs the Agreement will place on future elected governments is a direct assault on democracy and sovereignty. People don't want 'trust me' democracy where the Executive makes the law in secret and presents a fait accompli.

The High Court's decision today that Trade Minister Groser acted unlawfully in refusing to release any information to me under the Official Information Act should act as a wake up call for him and the government.

In his determination to keep everything secret, Minister Groser treated his legal obligations with contempt. He did not look at a single document before deeming every piece of information too sensitive, or too anodyne, to release.

During the case the Minister's standard line, parroted by many politicians and media commentators, that 'negotiations are always done this way' was abandoned in the face of evidence they are not.

The judge's statement that 'the Act plays a significant role in New Zealand's constitutional and democratic arrangements' and its meaning and purpose must be fully honoured by those to whom it applies, is a clear rebuke to the Minister. It also sends a clear message to the government more generally that the growing unaccountability of Executive power is not acceptable in a democracy.

The opposition to the TPPA is also about substance. It became a mass movement because people understand this is not about 'free trade', but that corporate interests are seeking to remake global rules in their interests.

Suggestions by pro-TPPA politicians and commentators that doctors, parliamentarians, lawyers, and local communities, here and around the world, are dupes of myself and a couple of fellow-travellers beggars belief. As Minister Groser discovered, such insults backfire when the targets have more credibility than politicians.

I take my role as a public intellectual seriously. Always have. For more than six years, at considerable personal expense, I closely monitored the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations. With a handful of others, I continued to attend negotiating meetings when they went underground two years ago, as the already inadequate 'stakeholder' process stopped without any explanation.

Two books, many academic articles and conference papers, keynote addresses, briefings to politicians and professional bodies, commentaries on leaked texts, opinion pieces, speeches and press releases, sought to give people some insights into what was happening behind closed doors. Most of the technical papers written to assist negotiators will never see the light of day.

I stand by everything I have said about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) over the past six years (especially if it is quoted accurately).

Once the text becomes public, it will become clear that some of the excesses were beaten back (and opposition to the deal can take considerable credit for that), but many of the dangers that I and others pointed to are still there.

We always knew the government and its allies would have a two-pronged strategy if they finalised the deal - to spin like crazy before people could see the facts, and to launch a counter-offensive to discredit opponents. I guess it's flattering that the government apparently pre-scripted counters to every point they thought I would raise.



Personal attacks and character assassination, epitomised by Rodney Hide's vitriol in the Herald on Sunday, are the resort of people who lack convincing arguments.

It's time for the post-Atlanta debate to focus on the substance, which requires release of the text and the background documents, and for the parties to revoke their secrecy pact to keep negotiating documents secret for four years after the agreement comes into force.

Work has already begun, with support from the Law Foundation, on a series of expert analyses that will enable New Zealanders to judge for themselves what they think of the final deal.

That is what democracy requires. New Zealanders deserve nothing less.

http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/news-articles-25.shtml#Vladimir

The Great Mull Air Mystery

 

The Great Mull Air Mystery

• http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/10/the-great-mull-air-mystery/
•  October 16, 2015
•  Brent Swancer

 

The skies have always beckoned to us. We wish to fly up within the clouds and the clear blue yonder, to untie the tethers that bind us to land. It is a primal desire, this wish to rise up into the vast skies above our heads and to soar to wherever the wind may take us. Yet this is not always a friendly domain for us. Aviation and mankind’s reach into the stratosphere are home to some of the greatest mysteries and sinister disappearances history has to offer. Here among the clouds are tales of intrigue, mystery, and unexplained vanishings that have managed to perplex us to no end. Certainly one of the most baffling enigmas of modern aviation concerns a flight undertaken under strange circumstances, and which would become one of the most oft discussed and puzzling unexplained disappearances of our time. It would come to be known as the Great Mull Air Mystery, and it is a tale that surely proves that sometimes the skies are not friendly, and that tragedy that may never be fully explained can strike at any time, leaving us to ponder just what has happened and indeed our place in the grand scheme of things.
The mystery in question revolves around a man by the name of Peter Gibbs, who had served in World War II from January 1944 to March 1945 in the 41 Squadron of the Royal Air Force. Gibbs had a rather unmemorable military career and was best known for his post RAF music career, when he became a member of the Philharmonia Orchestra in 1954 and went on to join the prestigious London Symphony Orchestra. Even then, his musical career was rather unassuming except for his infamous public verbal attack on the world famous conductor, Herbert von Karajan, who was rather notorious for leaving the stage after shows without waiting for applause or ever taking requests for an encore, a slight which annoyed Gibbs to no end. One night Von Karajan did this again and the next evening Gibbs gave him a dressing down in front of everyone, fuming “I did not spend four years of my life fighting bastards like you to be insulted before our own Allies as you did last evening.” It was a shocking statement that would ruin his career in music and at the same time become what he was most known for up to that point. Sadly, what Gibbs would ultimately become most famous for was the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death.

Peter Gibbs

After the incident with Von Karajan, Gibbs faded into relative obscurity until one Christmas Eve in 1975, when he was having dinner with his girlfriend, Felicity Granger, at the Glen Forsa hotel on the Isle of Mull, in Scotland, after returning from inspecting property on the nearby Isle of Skye. At the time Gibbs was the managing director of a property-development company called Gibbs and Rae, and he had been looking to invest in buying a hotel there. After dinner, Gibbs suddenly announced that he wanted to go out flying a plane for rent, a red-and-white Cessna F150H, that was kept at the adjacent airfield. The desire to go flying was not strange in and of itself, as Gibbs had been flying privately ever since leaving the RAF after the war, and he even owned his own plane, but it was a little strange that he should want to suddenly go out flying alone in the black of night on a whim after having a dinner date with his girlfriend. The hotel staff was not in agreement with Gibbs’ plan, especially since the airfield did not allow night flights and was not even equipped with landing lights. On top of that, it was a rather dark and moonless night at the time, and the staff implored him not to go. Nevertheless, Gibbs was adamant about going out flying, and reportedly told the staff “I am not asking permission, I just thought it was courtesy to let you know. I don’t want a fuss.”
With his girlfriend in tow, Gibbs headed to the airfield at around 9:30 PM and told Granger to light up the end of the runway by hand with bright torches, which considering the clear skies he was confident would be adequate to light his way and give him a frame of reference with which to safely take off. This would later pose its own mystery, as several witnesses would later claim that there had been two sets of torches moving independently, suggesting more than one person guiding the plane, but Granger would always claim it had been only her out on the runway. Before taking off, Gibbs informed Granger that he would return shortly, after which he roared off into the night sky. One witness to the takeoff, a David Howitt, who watched from the nearby hotel with binoculars, would later say that it had been flawless, with no signs of any engine trouble or difficulty as the plane shot off into the night. Gibbs would never be seen alive again.

Glen Forsa airfield

When 10PM came and went with no sign of the plane returning, a concerned Granger went back to the hotel to inform staff that Gibbs was missing. By this time, the weather had taken a turn for the worse and it was sleeting heavily outside, but the staff called police, who went out to inspect the airfield for any signs of trouble, of which they found none. The projected flight path was also inspected, but there were no signs of anything amiss. The following day, on Christmas, Gibbs still had not returned, and a major search of the area was launched involving many RAF and Naval Air Service helicopters, sonar equipment to look for wreckage on the seafloor, and hundreds of volunteers. The massive search effort scoured the countryside of the small island and large swaths of the surrounding sea, yet not a single trace of Gibbs or the Cessna he had been flying could be found. He had seemingly just vanished off the face of the earth.
That seems like it would be the last anyone would hear of Gibbs, but the real mystery was only just beginning. In April 1975, a full 4 months after the disappearance, a local shepherd by the name of Donald MacKinnon made a shocking discovery on a hillside a mere mile from the hotel and airfield. There, sprawled out in full view upon the ground, about 400 feet up the hill, was the body of the missing Gibbs, wearing boots and fully clothed. Authorities were puzzled by the find, as the body was discovered in an area that had been totally searched in the wake of Gibbs’ disappearance, and no local farmers or shepherds in the area had seen anything out of the ordinary there in the proceeding months despite frequenting the area regularly.
At first it was thought that Gibbs had simply crashed into the sea and somehow managed to swim to shore and go on to die of exposure, but there was no evidence of seawater or any marine organisms found on the body or the clothes or boots. Additionally, the position of the body on the hillside would have meant that Gibbs would have had to have crawled from the sea, clamber up a steep cliff wall, cross the road leading to the hotel, and then climb 400 feet up the hillside on his own. Why would he do that if he had just crashed and was dying? It was also suggested that he may have somehow fallen out of the plane or parachuted out with a malfunctioning parachute, but the body also showed no serious signs of injury, with only a minor cut on the leg and certainly none that would be consistent with a high speed, life threatening impact. There was additionally no sign of a parachute at the scene or anywhere in the vicinity. In fact, the body was in remarkably good condition for having apparently lain on the hillside out in the elements for 4 months, showing little decomposition and being relatively free of damage from scavengers, although it was ascertained by an in-depth autopsy that Gibbs had indeed been dead for 4 months. A toxicological test further revealed no traces of alcohol, drugs or poisons in the body. The stumped pathologists would ultimately decide that the cause of death had been exposure, suggesting that he had exited the plane somehow and died on land, but there was still no sign of the aircraft or even any wreckage from it anywhere, and the body itself posed more questions than it answered.

Adding further layers to the shadows embracing the mystery was that there was absolutely no sign of the aircraft Gibbs had been flying, which would have been a major piece of the puzzle. Considering that the body had been found on land and showed absolutely no evidence of having been in the sea at any point, it was thought that the plane had to be somewhere nearby, yet there was no trace of it anywhere. The mystery of the missing plane would hang over the case for 11 years, until September 1986, when two clam fishermen from Mull by the names of Richard and John Grieve discovered a red and white aircraft on the seabed in 100 feet of water around half a kilometer off the coast of Oban. The two divers claimed that the plane was a Cessna and that it bore the registration G-AVTN, the very same that Gibbs’ aircraft had had. The divers reported that they had examined the plane and could find no human remains in the plane. It was also reported that the plane exhibited signs of a massive impact, with both of its wings and one of its landing wheels torn completely off and strewn about the seafloor, as well as a gaping hole in the windshield. The aircraft’s engine had also apparently been dislodged by the impact and thrown a significant distance away from the plane itself. An odd little detail is that it was claimed that both doors of the plane had been locked from the inside, meaning anyone who had been in the plane when it had crashed would have had to have exited through the hole in the windshield.
Unfortunately, although the report by the divers was considered credible, the wreckage itself was never recovered, nor could it even be relocated, and all that remained as evidence were some pictures of the wreck that were too blurry to confirm or deny the divers’ accounts. It could also not be ascertained from the photos whether the crash could have been survivable, although some experts claimed that anyone in the plane would have been at the very least severely injured, which is not consistent with the relatively uninjured state of Gibbs’ corpse. In the end, the discovery of this wreckage only served to deepen the mystery of the case, and it was and still is uncertain whether this was even really Peter Gibbs’ plane at all.

The plane that Peter Gibbs flew

So many questions orbit this case which have never been satisfactorily been answered. Why did Gibbs decide to go out flying that fateful evening even in such unfavorable night conditions? Was there only one person guiding him with torches, as Granger claimed, or were there more, as claimed by other witnesses? If there had been another third party on the runway, then who were they and why were they there? Why is it that Gibbs’ body was found 4 months later on a nearby hillside in an area that had already been heavily searched and which was frequently passed by farmers and shepherds? How did he get there and how did he die? How had Gibbs become separated from his aircraft? Indeed, what exactly happened after the plane took off?
With so many unanswered questions and disparate pieces of weird evidence, as well as the odd condition of the body and uncertain details about the plane, it is only natural that speculation has swirled around the case for years, ranging from the somewhat plausible to the absurd. The seemingly most obvious solution, at least on the surface, which is that Gibbs had either crashed his plane into the sea or bailed out before impact, doesn’t seem to fit considering factors such as the condition of the body and the lack of any seawater or other marine evidence upon it. Also, the area is so hilly that it would have been very unlikely for him to have maneuvered there at a low enough altitude to jump out without considerable injury and without crashing, and if he had managed to parachute from the plane successfully, then where did the parachute go? Also, how could he have exited the plane, only for it to continue barreling along on its own without a pilot to crash into the sea some distance away and then somehow during that time lock its own doors? There is also the fact that even if Gibbs had indeed really crashed into the sea and improbably crawled from the twisted wreckage to swim half a kilometer in freezing water to safety, why would he willingly cross and pass the road leading to the hotel where he could be rescued only to continue 400 feet up a hillside to die? Indeed, how could he have survived such a catastrophic crash in the first place and where was the seawater and injuries one would expect if this were the case? Very little of this theory seems to make sense.

Another theory is that Gibbs had been killed in cold blood and his body dumped on the hillside, possibly due to some sort of criminal activity or a business transaction gone wrong. There have been claims that Gibbs had been involved in gun running and even a diamond heist in Oban, as well as rumors that he may have perhaps been involved in some shady business practices, so it seems as though there could have theoretically been a motive to do such a thing. However, there are many things wrong with this idea as well. Since the plane was a one-seater, it seems unlikely that anyone could have been aboard the plane with Gibbs at the time to kill him and then take control of the aircraft, and even if they could have pulled that off, they would have had to have somehow killed him in such a way as to leave no serious injuries on the body and make it look like had had died of exposure as per the coroner’s report. The murder theory is somewhat supported in a sense by an odd detail given by a witness that said that the plane on the night in question had taken an unusually long time to warm up on the runway, suggesting that Gibbs was perhaps either distracted or talking to someone before takeoff, who would not have been Granger standing with the torches far down the runway. It was also claimed that the lane lights on the plane flashed more times than usual before the plane took off, suggesting a struggle, an unfamiliarity with the plane, or that at least things weren’t going according to plan.
A permutation of the murder theory is that it wasn’t even Gibbs who had been at the controls of the plane, nor was he even on it, and that someone could have planted a decoy on the plane and then killed him on the ground. This idea seems to be bolstered by the claims of two sets of torches being used on the runway on the night of the disappearance, which could mean someone else was there to participate in the crime. However, if that was the case, then why would the plane end up crashed and destroyed at sea? Why would they destroy the plane, and if it was an unintentional crash then where is the body of the decoy? Someone could have feasibly intentionally crashed the plane to make it look like it had been an accident, but how did they pull it off?  If it was intentional, why were both doors locked from the inside? Did they intentionally go down with it in a harrowing crash and crawl out the hole in the windshield? It doesn’t make sense. And then the body again. We are still left with the question of why Gibbs’ body would appear on a hillside 4 months after the disappearance. If someone could successfully hide the body for 4 months, then why suddenly dump it out on the hill for everyone to see after authorities had resigned themselves to the fact that Gibbs had simply vanished into thin air? There seems to be little to be gained from doing such a thing. A murderer would have also still had to have killed Gibbs in such a way as to not damage the body and make it seem as though he had died of exposure.

Still other theories abound, most of them facing the same problems, and few of them making much sense. One is that Gibbs was involved in a smuggling operation and wasn’t on the plane but rather waiting on the hillside for the package to arrive when he had died of exposure. In another, Gibbs himself orchestrated the crash in order to fake his own death and escape some debt or business dealing, but that he was finally tracked down and killed, with his body dumped on the hill to serve as a warning to his business partners. Still others say that Granger had arranged for Gibbs to be murdered, that he was shot from the sky by terrorists, that he was an MI5 spy on a mission to Northern Ireland and was killed and dumped as a warning, or that he was even abducted by aliens, because when a case is this weird why not? The relatively pristine condition of the body certainly lends itself to the idea that it had not sat out in the elements for the entire time between the disappearance and its discovery, implying it might have been dumped there at a later time. Yet in all of these scenarios, since the body was found upon examination to have in fact been physically been dead for those 4 months, anyone who killed him had to have waited all of that time with a corpse before dumping the body. Why would they do that?
For all of these theories and all of this rampant speculation, the question of what happened to Peter Gibbs remains just as unsolved and mysterious as it ever was. If the wreck of the plane could be recovered from the sea and closely examined we might be able to shed more light on the case, but so far it remains missing, with only the photos and accounts from the divers who claimed to have found it to go on. In 2013, Royal Navy warships found wreckage of a mystery aircraft believed to be a Cessna lying in 30 meters of water during a coastal mapping operation off Oban, in the same general area where the divers had claimed to have found the plane previously. However, the Navy images show that the mystery wreck in this case still had one wing intact rather than missing both, a discrepancy that casts doubt on whether it is the same plane and further making it unclear if they are the same wreck, two different wrecks, or whether it or they are even Gibbs’ plane in the first place.
The Great Mull Air Mystery has become one of aviation’s most puzzling conundrums, baffling both experts and conspiracy theorists alike. It has inspired curiosity, discussion, debate, and much theorizing. Yet in the absence of any good further evidence, it seems unlikely we will ever truly know the answers to any of the case’s confounding array of questions. What happened to Peter Gibbs on that fateful night? Do the answers lie out there at the bottom of the ocean somewhere, scattered across the island, or are they lost to time and forever out of our reach? The mystery remains.