Aangeleverd door: Spruitje
Aangeleverd door: Spruitje
US intelligence officials are under pressure from the White House to produce a justification to declare Iran in violation of a 2015 nuclear agreement, in an echo of the politicisation of intelligence that led up to the Iraq invasion, according to former officials and analysts.
The collapse of the 2015 deal between Tehran, the US and five other countries – by which Iran has significantly curbed its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief – would trigger a new crisis over nuclear proliferation at a time when the US is in a tense standoff with North Korea.
Intelligence analysts, chastened by the experience of the 2003 Iraq war, launched by the Bush administration on the basis of phoney evidence of weapons of mass destruction, are said to be resisting the pressure to come up with evidence of Iranian violations.
“Anecdotally, I have heard this from members of the intelligence community – that they feel like they have come under pressure,” said Ned Price, a former CIA analyst who also served as a national security council spokesman and special assistant to Barack Obama. “They told me there was a sense of revulsion. There was a sense of déjà vu. There was a sense of ‘we’ve seen this movie before’.”
However, Donald Trump has said he expects to declare Iran non-compliant by mid-October, the next time he is required by Congress to sign a three-monthly certification of the nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action, or JCPOA). And the administration is pursuing another avenue that could trigger the collapse of the deal.
David Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA, said it was “disconcerting” that Trump appeared to have come to a conclusion about Iran before finding the intelligence to back it up.
“It stands the intelligence process on its head,” Cohen told CNN. “If our intelligence is degraded because it is politicised in the way that it looks like the president wants to do here, that undermines the utility of that intelligence all across the board.”
In another move reminiscent of the Iraq debacle, the US administration is putting pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be more aggressive in its demands to investigate military sites in Iran, just as George W Bush’s team pushed for ever more intrusive inspections of Saddam Hussein’s military bases and palaces.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, visited IAEA headquarters in Vienna to press the agency to demand visits to Iran’s military sites. Haley described IAEA inspectors as “professionals and true experts in their field”.
“Having said that, as good as the IAEA is, it can only be as good as what they are permitted to see,” Haley told reporters on her return to New York. “Iran has publicly declared that it will not allow access to military sites but the JCPOA makes no distinction between military and non-military sites. There are also numerous undeclared sites that have not been inspected yet. That’s a problem.”
Unlike the case of Iraq and the Bush administration, where there were deep divisions in the US intelligence community over the evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there is now a general consensus among US intelligence and foreign intelligence agencies, the state department, the IAEA and the other five countries that signed the JCPOA, as well as the European Union, that there is no significant evidence that Iran has violated its obligations under the deal. Tehran scaled down its nuclear infrastructure and its nuclear fuel stockpiles soon after the deal was signed in Vienna.
However, Trump, who denigrated the agreement throughout his election campaign, has appeared determined to torpedo it.
On 17 July, the latest deadline for presidential certification of the JCPOA deal required by Congress, the announcement was postponed for several hours, while Trump’s senior national security officials dissuaded the president from a last-minute threat not to sign.
“If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on 25 July. He hinted it was his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who had persuaded him to certify the agreement.
“Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply,” the president said. “And so we’ll see what happens … But, yeah, I would be surprised if they were in compliance.”
Trump said his administration was doing “major” and “detailed” studies on the issues.
Richard Nephew, who was principal duty coordinator for sanctions policy in the Obama administration state department and a member of the team that negotiated the JCPOA said government agencies were producing such studies all the time. He said the difference under the Trump administration was that they were being told the conclusions should be.
“Behind the scenes, there is a huge machine that is pumping up reports and updates and status checks for the administration and Congress,” Nephew, now at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, said. “You have intelligence officers and analysts in a bunch of agencies who spend literally every day scrubbing every single report they have got of what is going on inside Iran trying to find instances of non-compliance.
“What I suspect is happening now is that those intel officers have been asked to go to the cutting room floor, [and are being asked:] ‘What have you forgotten? What have you discounted? What have you said doesn’t really fit and not really relevant?’
“I actually think that’s healthy if it’s an honest question,” Nephew said, but he added: “It seems there is a faction within the administration that is trying to lay the basis for getting out [of the agreement] on the basis of cooked books.”
He predicted that intelligence analysts would resign if they were pushed too hard.
“The intelligence community learned the lessons of Iraq hard,” Nephew said. “And the analysts I know who are attached to this effort I am quite convinced would resign and resign loudly before they would allow … their words to be twisted and turned the way it happened with Iraq.”
Thugs and gangsters during the Charlottesville debacle have progressively become pawns in a revolutionary or subversive movement, which always turns out to be bad for the United States and much of the world.
The Jewish Daily Forward, the “American magazine published monthly in New York City for a Jewish-American audience,” has implicitly or indirectly grabbed the ideological bull by the horn when it declared that the original Antifa—the self-styled anti-fascist movement which has recently created chaos during the Charlottesville debacle—“was a Jewish anti-Nazi militia.”
The Antifa was essentially a terrorist cell, in the sense that members of the group went about terrorizing their opponents with numerous threats. Mark B. Williams of the Jewish Daily Forward declares:
“The Antifa’s role in fighting Nazis in the streets reminded me of my dad’s story about his much beloved but ‘kind of crooked’ first cousin, Jake ‘Cocky Jake’ (and sometimes, ‘Jack’) Rothseid.
“Cocky Jake was the black sheep of the family, a guy who was connected with the Jewish mob that ran Newark in the 1930’s. It wasn’t that Jake was a hit man who ran around killing people; he wasn’t exactly Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky, or Dutch Schultz. He was more like the local neighborhood wise guy. He was the guy who knew a guy who knew another guy who could get things “taken care of” when legal remedies were not feasible.
“My father always told me that the only time his family was ever really proud of Jake, given his line of work, was when they heard that he’d been involved with busting up pro-Nazi rallies in Newark that were taking place shortly prior to US entry into World War II.”
Williams also says that those “pro-Nazi rallies” and movements had a specific agenda then: keeping the US from entering World War II. But Williams went on to say that “Most Americans of the time were deeply isolationist. The last thing they wanted to do was send American boys to fight and die in another European war.” That is quite true. But if Neo-Nazis supported the belief of the majority of Americans that America shouldn’t have been involved in World War II, does that prove that the idea was false?
Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that Americans did not support US involvement in World War II, and this is one reason why his administration specifically looked for a false flag operation. That false flag operation came to be known as the Pearl Harbor debacle, which led to devastating events such as the rape of Japan after World War II. This also led to other catastrophes such as sending Americans of Japanese descent into what one ought to call concentration camps.
As Thomas Goodrich and I have recently pointed out, this was a pernicious activity which deprived those Japanese of their basic human rights. The establishment has been brazenly talking about “how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler,” but the official narrative, which lacks historical truth and objective reality, has never talked about the serious consequences of the war.
Going back to the Forward article, Williams says that the Jewish community tried to stop so-called Neo-Nazis from exercising free speech in America. Williams writes:
“The leading lights of the Jewish community asked the local police and Sherriff’s offices to stop these gatherings, but, getting no help, decided to raise the matter to a higher authority. They appealed for protection to the Jewish mob boss of Newark, Abner “Longie” Zwillman. Zwillman agreed to help. He had his chief enforcer, ex-prize fighter Sidney Nathan Abramowitz (better known as “Nat Arno”, the name by which he is immortalized in the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame) organize a “civil rights group”, which they called “the Minutemen.”
“My cousin Cocky Jake was a card-carrying member of the Minutemen, and his picture appears in newspaper accounts of the day. The Minutemen were essentially an armed group of Jewish mobsters, thugs, and wise guys like Jake. When Nat Arno gave the word that the Nazis were assembling, these denizens of the saloons, pool halls and other dens of iniquity in North Jersey would leave their usual haunts and head to the Nazi rallies. Much like today’s Antifa, the Minutemen’s preferred tools of persuasion were not logic and reason, but baseball bats, brass knuckles, rubber coated pipes and the occasional stink bomb.”
Read the last sentence again and see if there is a parallel here. The Minutemen didn’t appeal to “logic and reason” to buttress their point. They grabbed their “baseball bats, brass knuckles, rubber coated pipes and the occasional stink bomb” to confront their perceived enemies. “The Minutemen were largely successful. Most of these pro-Nazi rallies were broken up before they got started. And the Nazis managed to get away with just a few broken bones and bruises, as Longie had decreed that no one was to be killed during these events.”
Then Williams drops the political bomb, which literally exposes the new Antifa as an essentially Jewish activity:
“My father is long gone, as are Cocky Jake and his friends in the Minutemen, Longie Zwillman, and the rest of the characters that ran the Jewish mob in Newark back then. Unfortunately, it seems that the Nazis are still around, but then, so are the people resisting them on the streets. I wonder if the members of today’s Antifa would be surprised to learn that they are replicating a proud lineage of Jewish gangsters who, years ago, took a brief respite from the rackets and the pool halls to do some good for a change.
“I’m not sure if there’s a heaven for wise guys. Even if there is, my guess is they’d have to check their baseball bats and brass knuckles at the door. But I like to think that somewhere, Cocky Jake is looking down at all this and thinking, ‘Give ‘em one for me, kid.’”
Thugs and gangsters during the Charlottesville debacle obviously did not know their own history; they did not realize that they were repeating what their predecessors had done. They have progressively become pawns in a revolutionary or subversive movement, which always turns out to be bad for the United States and much of the world. The masters of the universe obviously want to pit the so-called races against each other—specifically blacks and whites in the United States. And if you doubt that statement, then consider this.
Former Harvard professor and Jewish provocateur Noel Ignatiev, also former Communist in the 1950s who later became part of the Maoist New Communist Movement, has said unapologetically that it is ontologically or genetically impossible to separate what he calls “whiteness” from “oppression.”
“There can be no white race,” he diabolically argues, “without the phenomenon of white supremacists.” In order to “abolish racial oppression,” he moves on to say, “you do away with whiteness. Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
How do you “do away with whiteness” in the twenty-first century? Well, you literally discriminate against those people just because they happened to be “white.” (Here we are talking about “white” as a skin color and not as an ideology—a huge distinction). And in order to discriminate against those people, you make up ambiguous and unnecessary terms such as “diversity,” even though this “diversity” ideology has been a perennial problem in the economic and academic world.
The simple fact is that no one is applying this “diversity” claptrap in the NBA or the NFL. What we are seeing here is that subversive programs like affirmative action are essentially racial discrimination. Plain and simple. Thomas Sowell himself has written extensively on this, saying things like that affirmative action has been a total failure around the world.
But little did people like Sowell know that affirmative action was essentially a Zionist project, and the New York Times itself admitted this way back in 1979.
“What is Zionism itself, if not a grand international demand for affirmative action? Herzl, Weizmann, Jabotinsky and Ben‐Gurion — all of the great names in Zionism — made a version of “’affirmative action’ central to their argument.
“They maintained that whatever discomfort might be caused to some Arabs by the creation of a Jewish state, the demand for such a state was morally defensible because it asked for an act of reparation to a stateless people for 18 centuries of persecution and homelessness….
“Blacks and Jews do need to meet, and about the domestic issue that really lies between them. Such a discussion ought to move, in give—andtake, toward agreements on “affirmative action” for blacks in America.”
The logic is pretty straightforward: programs like affirmative action were hatched by the social manipulators of this world because they knew that those programs are subterfuge which they perceived would logically lead to conflict in the academic world. And conflicts between blacks and whites always turn out to be good for those manipulators. (We have already pointed out in a previous article that only organizations like the Anti-Defamation League are benefitting from the Charlottesville debacle.)
And when things have turned out to be really bad over the years, Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress changed their views on affirmative action, despite the fact that they have promoted it for decades.
The simple fact is that blacks do not need detrimental programs like affirmative action. As Stephan Thernstrom of Harvard himself has put it, “Immense progress was made by black Americans before the idea of racial preferences was seriously entertained by anyone. By some measures, in fact, the pace of black progress was more rapid in the 1940s and 1950s than it had been since.”
“The historical evidence,” Thernstrom further adds, “certainly calls into question the common assumption that preferential policies are a sine qua non for black progress. Many of the advances black Americans have been since the Great Depression occurred before anything that can be termed affirmative action existed.”
Thernstrom backs his claims with extensive historical accounts and statistical data. Keep also in mind that affirmative action was implemented in several schools around the country during the 1960s. In short, affirmative action even calls into question what Martin Luther King himself articulated, that “people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Which brings us back to Noel Ignatiev: Why is he judging people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character? In response to the charge that he is promoting hatred, Ignatiev said:
“We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin.
“We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.”
I wish Ignatiev would pick up a copy of Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and read it carefully because there is no way to universalize what he is mightily articulating here, particularly when it comes to the Israeli regime, which has separate laws for Palestinians and Israelis. Israel even has separate bus lines!
The Israelis were planning to completely separate Palestinians from using certain buses in 2015, but they quickly realized that such a move would have ruined the entire Zionist project. If Ignatiev is really serious, then he needs to academically document “Jewish privilege” in Israel.
One can also argue that there is a sort of “Jewish privilege” when it comes to World War II reparations. Germany has over the years been forced to give billions upon billions of dollars to Jewish organizations for what happened in World War II, but not a single dime has gone to the victims of the Stalin regime.
As I have argued elsewhere, racism is also deeply imbedded in Israel. Bob Dreyfus of the Nation reported in 2013 that:
“fully one-third of Israelis say that unlawful, vigilante violence against non-Jewish African immigrants is fine with them.
“Equally, 86 percent of Israelis who voted for the right-wing Shas party and 66 percent of Likud voters agree with the statements of far-right Israeli politician Miri Regev that African immigrants, mostly from Sudan and Eritrea, are a “cancer” in the Israeli body politic…
“Israel is building refugee camps—let’s not use the loaded term ‘concentration camps’—for many of the estimated 55,000 Eritrean, Sudanese and other African refugees from civil wars and conflicts who’ve entered Israel, mostly undocumented, over the last decade or so.”
The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has been reported on these issues since 2009. And these are not just words and mere rhetoric with little consequences. Consider this. On May 28 of 2012, five young Israelis smashed the door of an internet café owned by Yorusalem Mestun, a 22 year-old. They “pulled a knife on her, while her Jewish neighbours looked on. The police came, checked her visa and left, without, she said, offering help or sympathy.”
Also in May, some Israeli settlers set fire to a West Bank village and shot some unarmed Palestinians. It was later discovered that during the incident, Israeli youth tied up and beat one Palestinian who was already wounded.
On May 24, 2012, Amnesty International released a report, declaring that Israel
“frequently uses excessive, sometimes lethal, force against demonstrators in the West Bank and civilians in Gaza…Israel has engaged in the demolition of Palestinian homes and other facilities in the West Bank, as well is inside Israel itself, where homes of Palestinian citizens are destroyed in ‘unrecognized’ villages in the Negev desert.”
If you think that those are isolated cases, then you ain’t seen nothing yet. “Racism on the part of Israeli Jews against Muslim Arabs in Israel exist in institutional policies, personal attitudes, the media, education, immigration rights, housing, social life and legal policies. Some elements within the Ashkenazi Israeli Jewish population have also been described as holding discriminatory attitudes towards fellow Jews of other backgrounds, including against Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etc.”
If there is a country that has institutionalized racism, it is the nation of Israel. Israeli academics such as Sammy Smooha were writing about this even in the late 1970s. The U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories itself declared back in 2004 that the Israeli government did “little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens.”
So, is Ignatiev justified in saying that “the goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists”? What if we do some thought experiment here? What if we replace the “white race” with “the Jewish race” or the “black race” or the “Mexican race”? Has any member of the Ku Klux Klan even remotely approached such a racist language? Isn’t Ignatiev’s language here worse than the Jim Crow laws in the South?
Granted, Ignatiev has somewhat criticized the state of Israel, and there is some truth to what he is saying about how Protestants persecuted the Irish Catholics both in Ireland and the United States. But that doesn’t allow him to project an equally wicked ideology onto America and disrupt the social order.
Ignatiev says that “every group within white America,” which includes “labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers and white women,” has at some point in history “advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race.” Ignatiev says that his goals is to “keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
Ignatiev is obviously trying to create trouble here. And his revolutionary antecedents have been doing exactly that since the beginning of time. This is one reason why they have supported writers like James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, W. E. B. Dubois, etc. Jewish radicals like Marx Lieber, who became Langston Hughes’s literary agent, believed that blacks should concentrate their talent on revolutionary work.
“[Lieber’s] profitable production of Erskine Caldwell’s play Tobacco Road permitted him to indulge his social passions. He kept reminding Hughes and the other writers he represented of their leftist political obligations while representing them in negotiations with bourgeois publishers.” Lieber eventually helped Hughes gain recognition by selling one of Hughes’s poems, “Slave on the Block,” to Scribner’s magazine.
Other blacks gained renown in a similar way, including Baldwin, “whose talent was first recognized and nurtured by Jewish editors of small but influential magazines” such as Commentary, New Leader, and Partisan Review.
When Baldwin’s “The Harlem Ghetto” first appeared in Commentary, sociologist Nathan Glazer, a member of its editorial board, praised Baldwin as a talented black writer, “how remarkable we didn’t yet know.”
To this end, the editors of Commentary asked Baldwin to write a piece dealing with the issues of blacks and Jews, which Baldwin reluctantly agreed to do. For Baldwin, this issue was puzzling because he saw blacks suffering under the hands of Jewish exploiters. He declared, “When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them.”
To sum up, subversive activities always lead to chaos and hatred. People like Ignatiev need to drop their subversive activities and embrace practical reason, which logically leads to metaphysical Logos. Until they do that, people of various stripes will continue to resist their worldview.
 Mark B. Williams, “The Original ‘Antifa’ Was A Jewish Anti-Nazi Militia,” Forward, August 24, 2017.
 Ishaan Tharoor, “Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler,” Washington Post, May 8, 2015.
 Williams, “The Original ‘Antifa’ Was A Jewish Anti-Nazi Militia,” Forward, August 24, 2017.
 “’Whites suffer more racism than blacks’: Study shows white American people believe they are more discriminated against,” Daily Mail, May 24, 2011.
 See for example Erik Sherman, “How Corporate Diversity Programs Alienate White Men,” Fortune, January 13, 2016.
 Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004); for other studies on similar issues, see Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It (New York: Basic Books, 2012); Francis J. Beckwith and Todd E. Jones, ed., Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997); Abigail M. Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count?: Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).
 Arthur Hertzberg, “Jews, Blacks and Affirmative Action,” NY Times, September 5, 1979.
 “ADL: Online Donations Up 1000% After Charlottesville,” Forward, August 23, 2017.
 With affirmative action again an issue, Jews temper views,” The Jewish News of Northern California, January 31, 2003.
 Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 95.
 Ibid., 184.
 Chaim Levinson, “Israel Introduces ‘Palestinian Only’ Bus Lines, Following Complaints From Jewish Settlers,” Haaretz, March 3, 2013; “Israel Begins Separating Palestinians, Israelis on West Bank Buses,” Haaretz, May 20, 2015.
 Ruth Eglash, “Israel announces — then scraps — plan for separate buses for Palestinians,” Washington Post, May 20, 2015; Peter Beaumont, “Israel scraps scheme to ban Palestinians from buses,” Guardian, May 20, 2015.
 Bob Dreyfuss, “Racism in Israel,” The Nation, December 23, 2013.
 Gideon Levy, “Ethiopian Student Affair Shows Prevalent Racism in Israel,” Haaretz, September 3, 2009.
 “Keep Out: Racial Tension is Rising as Black Asylum-Seekers Pour In,” Economist, June 2, 2012.
 Ibid; also Jason Glaser, “Israeli Settlers Set Fire to West Bank Village, Shoot Guns at Unarmed Palestinians,” Antiwar.com, May 21, 2012; “Settler Shoots Palestinian in Clash Near Nablus,” Jerusalem Post, May 26, 2012.
 Gili Cohen, “IDF Inquiry Finds Israeli Youth Tied and Beat Palestinian After Shot by Settlers,” Haaretz, June 3, 2012.
 “Amnesty International: Israel Frequently Uses Excessive Force Against Palestinians,” Haaretz, May 24, 2012.
 Sammy Smooha, Israel: Pluralism and Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).
 E. Michael Jones has written on this in Libido Dominandi and The Slaughter of Cities.
 “Harvard professor argues for ‘abolishing’ white race,” Washington Times, September 4, 2002.
 Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation & Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 112-113.
 Ibid., 113.
“The situation offers big chances for a gradual diplomatic settlement of the crisis even if Washington and Pyongyang continue exchanging military threats,” Dr. Andrei Gubin said
Russian Institute of Strategic Studies
US leaders have no legal grounds for military assault on DPRK, says RISS expert
A military scenario for forthcoming developments in Korea does not have legal grounds as regards the U.S., Dr. Andrei Gubin, an expert at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) told TASS on Wednesday.
“The U.S. has encountered South Korea’s stiff refusal to conduct a military operation and North Korea’s reluctance to be the first in launching an aggression and now it doesn’t have any legal or practical grounds for initiating a military operation in Korea,” the expert said.
“The situation offers big chances for a gradual diplomatic settlement of the crisis even if Washington and Pyongyang continue exchanging military threats,” Dr. Gubin said.
“The North Korean leadership that has found itself amid international isolation on the background of a growing military activity on the part of the U.S. views the strategy of unacceptable damage combined with intimidation and elements of bluff as the most logical line of action,” he said.
Dr. Gubin added that this position explained for why Pyongyang had stepped up its nuclear and missile program so noticeably.
He said the vertical launch trajectories did not make it possible for North Korean specialists to determine the actual effective range of flights while the absence of satellite-assisted target designation would reduce the efficiency of combat use of ballistic missiles.
“There’s an impression the North Korean military purposefully maintain maximum uncertainty around the strike potential (of their weaponry),” Dr. Gubin said. “It looks like the actual operational characteristics of the ballistic missiles and supposed nuclear warheads, which the North Koreans have at their disposal, differ from what Pyongyang says, as well as from what Washington and its allies think about them.”
The New York Times said earlier quoting the results of a research by Michael Elleman from the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the confidential data from the U.S. secret services that the recent launch of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile might have become possible due to an illicit purchase of missile engines manufactured in Ukraine.
“It was not yesterday that a Ukrainian trace surfaced in the story of Korean Hwasong missiles, as the consistent efforts to procure the information valuable for the national missile program began back in the 1990’s and partly relied on foreign assistance,” Dr. Gubin said.
“One canoe rule out a purposeful transfer of technologies to North Korea under U.S. supervision for an artificial maintenance of instability in the region and for the simultaneous discrediting of China and Russia,” he said.
Washington has recognized de facto that the policy of strategic tolerance towards Pyongyang has crashed, Dr. Gubin said, adding: “Beyond any doubt, the U.S. doesn’t plan to surrender its position in Northwest Asia. Although Beijing supports the international sanctions (against North Korea) on the whole, (the prospect of) a collapse of the North Korean regime doesn’t suit the Chinese leadership in any way.”
China is concerned much rather by the prospect of the Korean Peninsula’s reunification ‘along Western standards’ if the North Korean system falls than by a hypothetical humanitarian disaster, Dr. Gubin said.
He believes that the implementation of a roadmap devised by the Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministries might offer an option for clearing away the current backlog of problems.
“The main principle is formulated as moving to peace without preconditions,” Dr. Gubin said. “South Korean President Moon Jae-in has said a new war in Korea is impossible, as his country will never give consent to it and Kim Jong-un, too, is unprepared for delivering strikes at the U.S. military infrastructure or making near-hit missile launches despite strongly-worded statements,” he indicated.