The TPLF TLDR - Ethiopia Eritrea

    The long feud between Eritrea and Ethiopia stems from the territorial ambitions of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF). The Tigray regional state of Ethiopia borders Eritrea. The TPLF, governing Ethiopia since 1991, claimed and occupied territory awarded to Eritrea by an international boundary commission. In 2018 Mass protests, primarily in the Oromia region, lead to the TPLF being ousted from governing Ethiopia by their previously subordinate coalition 'partners'. The TPLF remained popular and in power in their home region state of Tigray. The much vaunted peace agreement between the new Prosperity Party (PP) government of Ethiopia and Eritrea, even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the morons running the committee, was in reality an alliance of convenience. Interests converged with Eritrea seizing an opportunity to vanquish an old foe once and for all, and The Prosperity Party (PP) government seeking to crush with military force the only opposition governed regional state. Together they launched a war against the TPLF and the regional state of Tigray in 2020. Fighting with exceptional adeptness, the TPLF were able to force the Prosperity Party (PP) government of Ethiopia to negotiate terms in the Pretoria Agreement 2022. Eritrea, dismayed that the Prosperity Party (PP) government of Ethiopia did not persevere to totally destroy the TPLF, ruptured relations with Ethiopia. Further inflamed by revanchist claims about access to the sea by Ethiopia, Eritrea has formed an alliance with the TPLF, and other ethnic based insurgent factions in the Amhara and Oromia regions. Eritrea is primarily seeking to shield itself from direct combat with Ethiopia. Eritrea might be so bold as to use this alliance to topple the Prosperity Party (PP) government of Ethiopia, but the TPLF is engaged in a dual track strategy including attempting to negotiate a place for itself in the existing ruling hierarchy of Ethiopia.

Russia Today (RT) Television Network and Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election

It is my analysis that there are two main motivations behind the outsized importance the issue of Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election, in all its many facets, receives.

The first main motivation is to serve as a distraction from two aspects of the election that deserve greater attention and strong political mobilization.  The first aspect, and in my analysis the driving motivation, is the failure of the Clinton campaign to comprehend the political mood of the country, and consequently having run an incompetent campaign.  The Democratic Party establishment does not want to acknowledge this failure in order to preserve the hold of neoliberal centrist ideology.  The secondary aspect is the role the out dated electoral college system played in determining the election outcome.

The second main motivation, and the subject of this piece, is to justify the intensifying attack against the Russia Today (RT) television network.  RT is attacked disingenuously for covering stories that go un- or under-reported by supposedly 'main-stream' media.  Likewise for providing a platform for people who are not easily able to find air time for their views on supposedly 'main-stream' or legacy media providers.

In the interests of  providing further context, I will address some of the other aspects of the wider story of Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election before proceeding further.

The main allegation against Russia, and the Russian State specifically, is the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  There has been no evidence released, to my knowledge, at the time of publishing.  Therefore, there can be no resolution of this question, at this time.

The second allegation, against Russia and the Russian State specifically, in order of importance at time of publishing, is the various forms of lobbying and influence peddling during the election period.  Many of the Russian connections to the Trump campaign and administration participants as well as Trump family members, often of a dubious nature, have been receiving a good level of coverage in the general press.

Oddly enough, and a subject beyond the scope of this post, the conduct most clearly identified as that of the Russian State and their agents, during the election period, has received relatively little coverage.  This lobbying and influence peddling mostly relates to the objective of securing the lifting of the Magnitsky Act sanctions.  The Magnitsky Act sanctions impact, among others, the personal finances of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Focusing on this aspect of the story would provide an opportunity for the media to personally embarrass Putin.  The lack of such coverage is an oddity in the context of a Western media environment saturated with personal attacks generally, and an abundance of such attacks against Putin in particular.

There are numerous other specific allegations against Russia, and the Russian State specifically, for their involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election.  Most allegations are outright absurd or of low credibility. Most of the rest are accurate allegations but of little significance both in perception and actuality.  A handful of allegations are stories that shamefully go under reported.  The attack against RT is one of these stories.  I endeavour here to contribute my part to rectify this situation.

Early in the still developing scandal of allegedly improper Russian, and Russian State involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election, it was just a part of the larger Fake News story.  From the outset there was a particular frequency and prominence of specifically naming in passing of Russia Today (RT) Television Network by US government officials, and Western media personalities.  The specific mention of RT along with Wikileaks hacking, John Podesta e-mails, Fake News, and Facebook gave the impression that allegations against RT are near the top of the list, in importance and credibility, of specific grievances.  Early on, the focus on RT raised red flags for me.

The specific allegation against RT was often that it was part of a larger Russian fake news or disinformation campaign.  Sputnik News, another Russian State financed outlet, was and is often namedrop mentioned alongside RT in an attempt to group them together.  This can provide the appearance of credibility to the accusations against RT as Sputnik indeed is a 'mixed bag' outlet containing fake news as well as credible reporting from people such as Pepe Escobar (who has been referred to as a pipeline reductionist by Vijay Prashad).  The clear focus is on discrediting RT with little or no more than the namedrop mention of Sputnik News in most instances.

The specific version of the RT TV broadcast that I regularly view is carried on Rogers Digital Cable in Ontario, locally channel 177.  It has had superb accuracy in reporting compared to other, available TV news.  The broadcast is made up specifically of both RT International and RT America content.  My personal comparisons are to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News Network (CBC), CTV News Network, and the PBS NewsHour program.  I also regularly view these other news sources.

When judging the credibility of a news outlet, I feel it is essential to differentiate the news reports from opinion or debate programming during the analysis.  The 'main-stream' news broadcasts listed as my comparisons to RT are frequently outright inaccurate in their reporting.  Additionally, their level of bias would often distort the objective truth of a story if their reporting was the only source a viewer was exposed to.

I focused my investigation of the allegation that RT was 'fake news' on:  The Intelligence Community Assessment:  Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, declassified version released by the National Intelligence Council in January 2017.  This document was widely touted in the Western media as definitive evidence of Russian misdeeds during the 2016 US Presidential Election period.  Text regarding RT made up a significant portion of this document’s main body and annex.  In the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), little distinction is made between news reports and other content such as opinion programs.  Criticism of the news reporting does not allege factual inaccuracy, instead contending that coverage of certain subjects by RT was inherently propagandistic.  The main focus, regarding RT, of the Intelligence Community Assessment was on the other types of programming.

Quoting directly from The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) here are some of the most outrageous accusations that, in my view, do more to discredit the argument that RT is not a credible news broadcaster, than support it.

            ICA Main Body:

The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.

RT and Sputnik—another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content in a variety of languages for international audiences—consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism.

ICA Annex A:

RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties. The rapid expansion of RT's operations and budget and recent candid statements by RT's leadership point to the channel's importance to the Kremlin as a messaging tool and indicate a Kremlindirected campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest. The Kremlin has committed significant resources to expanding the channel's reach, particularly its social media footprint. A reliable UK report states that RT recently was the most-watched foreign news channel in the UK. RT America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian Government.

In the runup to the 2012 US presidential election in November, English-language channel RT America -- created and financed by the Russian Government and part of Russian Government-sponsored RT TV (see textbox 1) -- intensified its usually critical coverage of the United States. The channel portrayed the US electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and "take this government back."

RT introduced two new shows -- "Breaking the Set" on 4 September and "Truthseeker" on 2 November -- both overwhelmingly focused on criticism of US and Western governments as well as the promotion of radical discontent.

In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham."

RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called "Cultures of Protest," about active and often violent political resistance (RT, 1- 10 November).

Simonyan has characterized RT's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement as "information warfare" that is aimed at promoting popular dissatisfaction with the US Government. RT created a Facebook app to connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via social media. In addition, RT featured its own hosts in Occupy rallies ("Minaev Live," 10 April; RT, 2, 12 June).

RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 28 October, 1-10 November).

RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November).

RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability (5 October).

According to Simonyan, "the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the values of the country that it is broadcasting from." She added that "when Russia is at war, we are, of course, on Russia's side" (Afisha, 3 October; Kommersant, 4 July).

On 26 May, Simonyan tweeted with irony: "Ambassador McFaul hints that our channel is interference with US domestic affairs. And we, sinful souls, were thinking that it is freedom of speech."

RT hires or makes contractual agreements with Westerners with views that fit its agenda and airs them on RT. Simonyan said on the pro-Kremlin show "Minaev Live" on 10 April that RT has enough audience and money to be able to choose its hosts, and it chooses the hosts that "think like us," "are interested in working in the anti-mainstream," and defend RT's beliefs on social media. Some hosts and journalists do not present themselves as associated with RT when interviewing people, and many of them have affiliations to other media and activist organizations in the United States.

The motivations, alleged and real, behind the Russian government's funding of a news broadcaster that delivers credible reporting on news stories, and perspectives largely ignored by supposedly 'main-stream' news broadcasters, is not a substantive argument against the validity of the reporting on RT.  There is nothing improper about the subject matter broadcast by RT at any time period in relation to the ongoing election cycles in the US.  The most propagandist practice I have observed on RT is the quoting of Russian government officials and their aids without further comment substantiating or refuting the validity of the quote.  Instances of this practice should be familiar to frequent viewers of Western 'main-stream' media with regard to their quoting of Western government officials and their aids.

I highly recommend that everyone read the full ICA document.  I frankly find it deeply disturbing to characterize coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement, third party candidates, or anti-fracking programming highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health, as in any way being propaganda or improper of a media outlet.  To those who contend RT is propaganda, what I want to know is when did the Russians co-opt Larry King?

I would encourage people to watch some RT programming and if anyone finds any content objectionable to make a comment about it below.

Fake News Smoke Screen

I have chosen for my first post on this platform the topic of so called “Fake News” for a reason.  My aspiration is that with quality informative pieces, in time I will become a trusted source of information.  For this pursuit, it is in my interest, to call attention to the real objectives behind the supposed response to fake news.  The real objective is to combat what is at the heart of my endeavour that I commence with you here - paradigm altering thought.

It is my critique of many media outlets that their alleged efforts to fact check is not driven by presenting verifiable facts.  Instead, the media will attack views that contradict the dominant social paradigm regardless of verifiable evidence one way or the other.  The main distinction can be drawn between those things that are measurable in some way and can be truly fact checked, and those that cannot and are opinion, speculation or rely on logical reasoning alone.

One of the responses to so called fake news adopted by some online platforms like Facebook is using allegedly trusted news outlets for third party vetting.  I do not see how this could result in anything other than an open door to censorship.  Many news sources that will be accepted as reputable third parties - New York Times, BBC etc. - are frequently, blatantly propagandist and will sometimes outright deny facts verifiable by data.

One of my pet issues of concern “peak oil” - and energy issues more generally - is the subject of dozens of stories, by allegedly credible organisations, designed to discredit the concept.  You can look it up.  Conventional crude oil, in fact, reached a production plateau in 2006.  The relevant issue is somewhat confused by competing definitions of conventional crude oil, and the “peak oil” moniker has become problematic.  These problems should never the less not be an impediment to good faith reporting by serious journalists.

The 2006 conventional crude oil production plateau date is based on what I view as the best of three widely used definitions of conventional crude.  My choice attempts to use the definition that is most useful to understanding the relevant issue and greatest significance of the “peak oil” theory.

The peak aspect of the moniker confuses the significance which is reaching the bumpy plateau. The theory is derived from the ability to model the peak and decline in production of an oil field, oil region, or oil producing country roughly fitting a normal distribution or bell curve.  The best researchers expected the world production to follow the bell curve on the way up but predicted it would instead become a bumpy plateau and eventually reach a final steep decline.  Unfortunately, the best researchers that made accurate predictions formed a minority opinion within the peak oil community prior to the production plateau in 2006.

The majority in the peak oil community made embarrassingly linear predictions.  They predicted ever increasing oil prices because of a supply shortage following the peak and subsequent decline in production. Apparently, majority opinion did not think that people and businesses being priced out of the market for oil, as ever diminishing supply became ever more expensive, would disrupt our consumer based and automobile dependent economy.    

John Michael Greer formerly of The Archdruid Report wrote an excellent article that is a must read to understand the phenomenon that did unfold following the production plateau¹. - link - To summarize this article, the increasing price of conventional crude, as a result of  the growth in production not keeping pace with the growth of the economy, encouraged the development of higher cost non-conventional oil.  The lag time from the start of an oil development and bringing supply to market coincided with the lag time of people changing their behaviour in response to higher prices as they felt the economic pinch. Consumers were buying less oil, known as demand destruction, at around the same time a large volume of supply of non-conventional oil became available to the market.  The result was a crash in the price of oil.  This phenomenon has repeated a second time and is likely to continue repeating until the collective consciousness confronts this reality, or the resultant damage to the economy becomes catastrophic.

We will now return to my accusation that the reporting regarding this phenomenon is not done in good faith.  Not understanding the nuance of the true significance of the peak oil theory is the only plausible alternative explanation.  The significance is we have reached the production plateau.  The significance is not the bump along the plateau that is ultimately the absolute production peak.  It is my belief that this nuance is not too complicated for the good people at the NYT and other allegedly reputable organisations to comprehend.

The effort by online platforms to combat fake news by relying on third parties will almost certainly result in censorship of unpopular, though factually verifiable, views from the outset.  The necessary solution is that people must grow up and verify information for themselves if they do not like the results of their failure to do so. The reality of peak (or should I say bumpy plateau) oil will eventually catch up to us just as the reality of President Donald Trump did.  Looking to an authority to determine what information you are exposed to can only end badly.

1 Edited June 28, 2017