Russia Imposes Trade Embargo And Threatens Airspace Restrictions Against US And Her Allies

According to the Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev:

For a long time, Russia has not responded to the so-called sanctions declared against it by certain countries. Until the last moment, we hoped that our foreign colleagues would realise that sanctions lead to a blind alley, and that no one benefits from them. But they didn’t realise this, and now we have been forced to respond.

Yesterday, the President of the Russian Federation signed an Executive Order On Applying Certain Special Economic Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation. This basically means an embargo on importing entire categories of products from those countries which have declared economic sanctions against Russian organisations and individuals. I have signed a Government resolution on enforcing this Executive Order.

Russia has completely banned the importation of beef, pork, fruits and vegetables, poultry, fish, cheese, milk and dairy products from the European Union, the United States, Australia, Canada and the Kingdom of Norway.

Whoa! That's not all. After some typical Russian propaganda, Medvedev makes some dangerous threats:

[W]e are also developing measures to retaliate against the EU sanctions against Dobrolyot for its service to Simferopol. As you all know, on 4 August our first low-cost carrier was forced to suspend operations as a result of these unfriendly acts. All of its European partners refused to meet their obligations to lease, provide maintenance or insurance for planes or to provide air navigation data. This has brought many problems to our people that we’ve had to deal with. In this context, the Russian Government is considering a series of responses. I’ll name them. This doesn’t mean they’ll be taken right away, but they are on the table.

First, they include an airspace ban against European and US airlines that fly over our airspace to Eastern Asia, namely, the Asia-Pacific Region. This is a very tough measure indeed. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned.

Second, we are considering changing the so-called Russian airspace entry and exit points for European scheduled and charter flights. This, of course, will affect transportation costs and fare prices for the Western carriers.

There's more, and you can read more about it from the Saker, who certainly deserves several hat-tips for all the hard work he's done to keep his readers up to date regarding Russia, Ukraine, and related matters.

But as you read Saker's commentary, you should keep a few things in mind, especially:

3. Whatever we do is Good. Otherwise we wouldn't do it.

4. Whatever we say is True. Otherwise we wouldn't say it.

5. Our enemies are whoever we say they are. (See rule 4.)

6. Whatever they do is Evil. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

7. Whatever they say is False. Otherwise they wouldn't say it.

As you already know, the Russians are our enemies (rule 5). So it goes without saying that this reckless trade embargo to be imposed by Russia is not only Evil (rule 6) but also an act of War. And it is clear that any future airspace restrictions to be imposed by Russia would also be Evil (rule 6) and acts of War. These are hard things to say, but we wouldn't say them if they weren't True (rule 4). As for the Russians: Who do they think they are? How dare they interfere with our way of life?

By the same token, it goes without saying that all the carefully considered sanctions that have been imposed against Russia by the US and her allies were not only Good (rule 3) but actually acts of Peace. It is equally clear that any future sanctions, to be imposed by the US and her allies, would also be Peaceful and Good (rule 3). But in the usual Russian manner (rule 7), Medvedev and Putin are using these Good acts as a pretext in a doomed attempt to justify acts of Evil, beginning with an unprovoked disruption of trade, and including unconscionable threats against to our use of their airspace. Who do they think they are? How dare they retaliate against us for interfering with their way of life?

The Russians claim to be upset about what's been happening in Ukraine, but any serious analyst will tell you that the reign of terror in Ukraine is their fault (even if we provoked it), because they created the conditions which allowed us to provoke it. (And in any case, we didn't really provoke it, see rule 8.)

But this is the Russian way. This has always been the Russian way. And that's why they have always been our enemies (except when they were our allies). For all their supposed intelligence, the Russians have not yet accepted us (rule 2) as their great leaders (rule 1). And I think sooner or later this is going to be their downfall.

It's easy to see the situation is volatile. And it's just as easy to see that, if it escalates further (or even if it doesn't), the Russians will have no one to blame but themselves, because they are our enemies (rule 5). We cannot trust them because whatever they say is False (rule 7), and we cannot ignore them because whatever they do is Evil (rule 6).

And anyone who says otherwise is not only anti-American (rule 9) but also anti-American-allies: thus anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-Israel, and (especially) anti-Semitic (rule 10) -- therefore no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

This much is clear, surely. Anyone who has stopped thinking can tell you that. But many people -- including the Saker himself -- don't seem to understand this. So they continue to put themselves on the same level as Adolph Hitler.

But I don't think it's deliberate. I think they just don't understand How Not To Be Anti-American, Anti-Semitic, No Better Than Hitler, And Beneath Contempt.

If you wish to comment, click here to join the discussion.

How Not To Be Anti-American, Anti-Semitic, No Better Than Hitler, And Beneath Contempt

As you may have noticed, in our current so-called culture, it is extremely and increasingly important neither to be, nor to be perceived as, on the "wrong" side of certain issues.

Being, or simply being called, anti-American, anti-UK, anti-Israel, anti-NATO, and/or (especially) anti-Semitic, can jeopardize one's supposedly inalienable rights, among them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Fortunately, it is quite easy not to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and so on. There are ten rules that you need to learn and understand. Once you begin to apply these simple rules, you will be pleased to see that they make difficult thinking totally unnecessary.

~~~

1. Accept the (elected and unelected) great leaders (and spokespeople) of the USA, the UK, Israel, and NATO as your own (even if you don't like, and/or didn't vote for, any of them). To the greatest extent possible, (con)fuse their grandeur with your own identity. Understand that they not only lead your country (even if you live in a different country): they are your country, and by extension, they are you. Realize that your hopes, ambitions, loyalties, responsibilities, even your destiny are intricately and irreversibly entwined with theirs, and therefore you as an individual no longer have any independent meaning.

2. From now on, when we say "we", we mean "our great leaders", singly and collectively. This replaces the outmoded usage which erroneously referred to our former individually-oriented selves, and possibly also our family and our friends.

3. Whatever we do is Good. Otherwise we wouldn't do it.

4. Whatever we say is True. Otherwise we wouldn't say it.

5. Our enemies are whoever we say they are. (See rule 4.)

6. Whatever they do is Evil. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

7. Whatever they say is False. Otherwise they wouldn't say it. (It is also Evil for them to say it. See rule 6.)

8. If we don't want to talk about something they've accused us of doing, this proves we didn't do it. If we had done it, we would talk about it, because it would be Good. (See rule 3.) But since they made the accusation, it is False (see rule 7), and therefore it warrants no response whatsoever. Similarly, if they don't want to talk about something we've accused them of doing, this proves that they did it. (See rule 4.) Of course they don't want to talk about it. It was Evil. (See rule 6.)

9. Any criticism of American policy or practice is inherently anti-American, and any criticism of NATO or UK policy or practice is inherently anti-NATO or anti-UK respectively. Given America's direct influence on NATO, and indirect influence (through NATO) on many countries, including the UK, any criticism of NATO or the UK is inherently anti-American as well.

10. Any criticism of Israeli policy or practice is not only anti-Israel but also anti-Semitic (see rule 4), therefore no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt. Given the support Israel receives from the US, the UK, and NATO, all anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements are also anti-NATO, anti-UK, and anti-American as well. And vice versa.

~~~

Current events provide numerous free opportunities for ordinary citizens to put these simple rules into action, so as not to be (nor to be seen as) anti-American, anti-NATO, anti-UK, anti-Israel, and most importantly, anti-Semitic. It only takes a little bit of common sense.

For instance, the rules show that it is clearly Good for us (rule 2) to spend billions of dollars and engage the services of brutal terrorists (whom we didn't really engage at all; see rule 8) in an attempt to destabilize Ukraine (even though, at the time, Ukraine was a peaceful sovereign independent nation; see rule 3). And we are fully justified in calling our Good actions there "bringing democracy" and/or "enhancing stability" (see rule 4), despite the fact that our intervention has empowered monsters and brought about horrible suffering (none of which is in any sense our fault; see rule 8). But it would be Evil for the Russians (our enemies; see rule 5) to interact with Ukraine in any fashion whatsoever (rule 6), even if they merely sought to stabilize the country (which they wouldn't, especially if that's what they said they were doing; see rule 7). In other words, any Russian action with respect to Ukraine, including seemingly innocent cooperation in trade, transportation, or any other area, is Evil (rule 6), and would be Evil even in the absence of the current chaos, which we didn't cause (rule 8). And anyone who says otherwise is anti-American (rule 9), anti-Semitic (rule 10), no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

If you understand all this, then when your friends and neighbors start talking about how fantastic it was when Obama stood up to Putin and told him to keep his grubby mitts off Ukraine, you will know how not to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt. When they ask your opinion, you won't say, "America had no right to intervene in Ukraine in the first place, let alone now!" That would be anti-American, beneath contempt, and so on. Instead you might say, "Right on, bro! Obama rocks! Time to kick some Rooskie butt!" Then you could excuse yourself and go to the bathroom. And if you had to throw up, you could do it in private.

For another example: if you understand the rules, you can easily see that it is Good for us (rule 2) to commit all manner of unspeakable atrocities against the Palestinians (rule 3) but it is Evil for the Palestinians (our enemies; rule 5) to retaliate in any way (rule 6). And anyone who says otherwise is anti-Semitic (rule 10), no better than Hitler, beneath contempt, and so on. You don't want to fall that low. You don't want to be seen as having fallen that low. So when they ask your opinion, you won't say, "What the Israelis are doing is horrible, and the American support for it is sickening!" Instead you might say, "Right on, bro! Bibi rocks! Time to kick some Aayrabb butt!" Then you could excuse yourself and go to the bathroom again.

~~~

It's all very simple once it's been explained properly. And, to be honest, it wasn't very difficult to list and explain the ten simple rules. But many otherwise intelligent writers, whose work I read quite regularly, have failed to notice these valuable guidelines. I think they must have been busy with other matters.

Case in point: Chris Floyd has recently posted a brillant but anti-American and anti-Semitic column concerning Operation Protective Edge and the US Senate's unanimous and generous support for Israel at this critical time. Protective Edge, as you may have heard, is a purely defensive operation against beaches, hospitals, and other carefully selected military targets, launched by Israel in response to (and in the hope of deterring) rocket attacks from Gaza.

Floyd quotes James Marc Leas, who has assembled a timeline which shows very clearly that Israel had attacked Gaza more than a hundred times in the three weeks prior to the launch of the first such rocket attack, and this leads Floyd to conclude that we are lying when we claim the current Israeli actions -- high-tech brutalities against defenseless captive civilians -- constitute a legitimate response to the rocket attacks.

Floyd says, in effect, "They're all lying, and they know it. They have to know it. Anyone who has been following the news has to know it. But they're still lying. And they're getting away with it."

It's all very convincing, except that Floyd fails to take into account rules 3 and 4.

In other words, what difference does a timeline make? If we say we're only retaliating, then we're only retaliating. It doesn't matter if the retaliation began before the action that triggered it. If we say we're simply taking defensive action, then we're simply taking defensive action. If we say we're protecting the children, then we're protecting the children. And that's the whole story.

James Marc Leas has deliberately crafted his timeline to cast doubt on these obvious facts. Therefore, he and his timeline are both anti-Semitic (rule 10). And Floyd's reference to Leas is not only anti-Semitic, but anti-American as well (rule 9). It's no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

As if this were not bad enough, Floyd also cites Max Blumenthal and Jon Schwarz -- for very different reasons, but with eerily similar results. Bluemthal has compiled another timeline, this one concerning the murder in June of three Israeli teenagers. This timeline shows very clearly that we hid critical information, and that we lied -- to our own people and to the rest of the world -- about what we knew, when we knew it, what we were doing, and why we were doing it.

It's all very convincing, except that Blumenthal also fails to take into account rules 3 and 4.

In other words, what difference does a timeline make? If we say we think the boys are still alive, then we think they're still alive. It doesn't matter if we already know they're dead. If we say we know who kidnapped them, then we know who kidnapped them. If we say we are trying to rescue them, then we are trying to rescue them. And that's the whole story.

Max Blumenthal has deliberately crafted his timeline to cast doubt on these obvious facts. Therefore, he and his timeline are both anti-Semitic (rule 10). And Floyd's reference to Blumenthal is not only anti-Semitic, but anti-American as well (rule 9). It's no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

As for Jon Schwarz, he dug up a quote nearly fifty years old, in which we explained that Egypt's 1967 blockade of an Israeli port was an act of war, and that therefore Israel's military action against Egypt in response to the blockade was fully justified. Jon Schwarz and Chris Floyd both wonder, if a short-term Egyptian blockade of a single Israeli port was enough to justify a war, why doesn't a long-term Israeli blockade of all of Gaza justify any reaction whatsoever?

It goes without saying that there's a big difference between an Egyptian blockade of Israel and an Israeli blockade of Gaza. In the simplest terms: if we do it, it's Good (see rule 3). If they do it, it's Evil (see rule 6). I'm amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people don't get this.

Max Blumenthal, Jon Schwarz, James Marc Leas, and Chris Floyd seem like very bright guys. I don't think they deliberately set out to put themselves on a level with Adolf Hitler. I think they did it inadvertently, simply because they don't understand certain things.

These writers share outdated concepts. They put credence in established facts. They rely on systematic logical reasoning. They believe one can determine the truth or falsehood of a statement without knowing who made it. And they believe one can judge whether an action is Good or Evil without knowing who performed it. Because they have not yet abandoned these outdated ideas, they continue to say and write the most anti-American and anti-Semitic nonsense, which renders them no better than Hitler, beneath contempt, and unworthy of any serious response.

But I don't think it's deliberate. I don't think they strive to be no better than Hitler. I don't think they aspire to be beneath contempt. I just think nobody has ever taken the time and gone to the effort to explain certain things.

Until now.

Do you wish to comment? If so, click here to join the discussion.