Spare a thought to the Polish farmer snapping pics of a missile wreckage – later indicated to belong to a Ukrainian S-300. So a Polish farmer, his footfalls echoing in our collective memory, may have saved the world from WWIII – unleashed via a tawdry plot concocted by Anglo-American “intelligence”.
Such tawdriness was compounded by a ridiculous cover-up: the Ukrainians were firing on Russian missiles from a direction that they could not possibly be coming from. That is: Poland. And then the U.S. Secretary of Defense, weapons peddler Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin, sentenced Russia was to blame anyway, because his Kiev vassals were shooting at Russian missiles that should not have been in the air (and they were not).
Call it the Pentagon elevating bald lying into a rather shabby art.
Weaponised dysfunctionality was trialled during the recent pandemic. The public was persuaded to accept systemic degradation of the economy. Western leaders regularly have expressed a pleasant surprise at the degree of public compliance achieved during the lockdowns.
Washington’s real interests in Ukraine must be understood not as a war of values but rather as a cruise-missile launched at China, not Russia.
Spot the problem here: First, the EU has lost Russia as a partner, yet the EU insists to maintain trade with China. Two, China, though, must bend to our EU ‘rules’ on how it configures its economy. Thirdly, China too, must accept to be ‘castigated’ by the likes of Olaf Scholtz and Charles Michel for ‘not having put an end to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine’. Fourth, we, the EU, anyway do not intend to depend on you. And fifth, clean up your human rights abuses!
Wow! Well, the initial reaction might be a spell back at the Academy on the art of diplomatic discourse, as being one idea. Nonetheless, the sheer number of non-sequiturs to this stance is startling. Firstly, the rest of the world is not greatly interested in EU leaders’ woke thought-code (the Chinese simply cancelled EU Chief Michel’s proposed speech to a gathering in Beijing). Europe has lost Russia; It will likely lose China. And probably, it will find itself excluded from the colossus, free-trade area unfolding in Eurasia – as the blocs differentiate into separate trading spheres.
Where does this leave that bruited EU ambition to be a global player? … Perhaps the EU’s thought-code culture might be the problem to its ambitions.
You (the EU) have not thought this through: You are now a dependent appendage of the U.S. economy – a prop to maintaining America’s exalted spot in the global system – at a time when its predatory economic model of money-printing at zero interest has been holed by an iceberg (known as accelerating inflation). American industry needs a captive market in a world that is fast seceding into two separate spheres. You have ‘elected’ to fill that role.
Containing China is America’s explicit goal. And that means blocking the European continent from moving closer to Asia to form the world’s biggest free trade zone. Washington had to stop that (i.e. sabotage Nord Stream) in order to preserve Europe as a captive market, and what remains of dollar ‘privilege’.
As an American dependency, Europe is perceived as having conceded not only economic, but political agency too. Simply put, the EU has lost its cheap-energy business model with the ‘I stand with Ukraine’ woke thought and speech codes, and now finds that it is impotent politically. Why would ‘others’ deal with the courtiers, when they can go directly to the ‘Command’ in Washington?
Furthermore, the culture block the EU adopts prevents it from bringing the Ukraine war to a political end. Rather, what it does is bake-in escalation.
Here is the problem: You bought into liberal America’s notion of a coercive process of induced government dysfunctionality – that is to stay, the state of mass psychosis that any weaponised dysfunctional state of society can produce. And it’s been a success (on its own narrow terms).
The bigger message is that ‘induced dysfunctionality’ marching in lockstep, and using culture block tactics to suppress any dissenting opinions, can and does produce a society that can be ruled over (made compliant through unpleasantness and applied pain) – without having to govern (i.e. make things actually work).
And induced compliance has proved its use for implementing all sorts of other ideological schemes that the public would otherwise never accept.
How it started: 30 Members of the House Progressive Caucus penned a relatively timid letter to President Biden suggesting a bit of diplomacy before we march to WWIII. How it’s going: The House Progressive Caucus almost immediately began furiously backpedaling from their own letter. Meanwhile the US 101st Airborne is in Poland and “ready to fight.” Also today – MSNBC pundit: if you worry about inflation, you might be pro-Hitler. What?
[The following article was co-written with my colleague Dr. Edward Lozansky and published in today’s print and digital edition of the Washington Times in order to call attention to the anniversary of Elbe Day and the forgotten spirit of US-Russian friendship that ended the threat of a fascist New World Order in 1945′]
With each passing day, it is becoming more evident that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and words that would have been considered the height of self-destructive folly just a few years ago, are becoming normalized in today’s political discourse.
The most radical elements, including certain members of congress, are calling for sending U.S. troops to Ukraine where they would join U.K. troops who are already on the ground “training” combatants. This of course means NATO forces are being put directly into harm’s way despite the risk of activating the “Collective Security Pact” at a moment’s notice pulling the entire 29 nation alliance into an active conflict with nuclear Russia.
Instead of using diplomacy in search of a way out, NATO and even some non-NATO countries are sending huge amounts of weapons to Ukraine which only amplifies the needless killing. Actually, the flow of Western weapons and military advisers to Ukraine started many years before the current crisis.
As each day edges us closer to the unthinkable, meaning WWIII with the use of nuclear weapons, it is important, at least for the benefit of survivors and future historians, to correctly describe why our civilization has decided to commit suicide. Perhaps this exercise may also contribute in some way to helping to avoid such a tragic fate.
If only the famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion pledged by the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev on Feb. 9, 1990, was honored, this entire catastrophe would have easily been avoided. Mr. Baker’s pledge was followed by an avalanche of other security assurances given by western leaders to Mr. Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification between 1990 and 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Under this paradigm, it was celebrated across Washington and Europe that “a new security architecture from Vancouver to Vladivostok” was upon us.
Sadly, that promise was short-lived, and within a short time, the process of NATO expansion was set into motion with the alliance gobbling up 13 more Eastern European states with targets on the Ukraine and Georgia. A younger and more lucid Joe Biden was then a senator who took an active part in this new conquest. He had a chance to fix this problem during the Obama years when Mr. Biden, as his VP, had a Ukrainian portfolio. Had this administration honestly proceeded with the announced reset, there is no doubt that friendship and harmony of common interests could easily have been maintained. Instead, it facilitated a Maidan coup in February 2014 when Victoria “F—- the EU” Nuland found herself working alongside VP Biden overseeing a color revolution that ousted a democratically elected Ukrainian president, putting Ukraine back onto the fast track for NATO membership. Those who followed these events remember well how Ms. Nuland was discussing the composition of the new Ukrainian cabinet with the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt almost three weeks before the coup had actually taken place.
Another chance for peace was lost when Mr. Biden failed to pronounce the word “neutrality” on any day prior to Feb. 24 of this year. This simply meant agreeing to neutrality for Ukraine. Keeping this country sovereign and whole without joining NATO or any military block was the easiest request for the Western alliance to meet. Had this been done, there would be no Russian invasion, U.S.-Russia security talks would have proceeded with good chances for success similar to the Reagan-Gorbachev scenario that ended the first Cold War.
And, of course, who would have benefited more than Ukraine, to whom the creator gave the richest fertile land, favorable climate, no deserts, no volcanoes, access to the sea, more than sufficient drinking water supplies, over 40 million population and strong industrial base left over from the Soviet days. Having Russia as a neighbor was not a disadvantage but a huge benefit due to their deeply-rooted historical, family, religious, economic and cultural ties.
Unfortunately, there were other forces, both inside and outside Ukraine that had other plans for this country that lit the fuse of the current disaster which might spill over onto the rest of the world. The plan was to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian zone of conflict and so far, it looks like so far these forces are prevailing.
One of the few voices of sanity speaking to this growing crisis in recent days has come from the offices of former President Donald Trump, who still enjoys a large base of popular support within the American people, as well as better members of the political and business class who must play a role in putting out the fires of war before they go nuclear in the short-term.
Trump’s response to the attack on two US military bases showcase a hopeful about face on a dark age agenda which many thought could lead nowhere but World War III in the immediate days following Soleimani’s murder on January 3.
Immediately after the Iranian counter-attacks occurred on Wednesday morning at the same hour of Soleimani’s assassination, Iran’s Foreign Minister stated: “Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.” Iran’s retribution was more moderate than many analysts imagined as fore notice was delivered to the Iraqi government 30 minutes before rockets were launched giving American military personnel in the bases ample time to seek shelter.
In Trump’s remarks the following day, the President stated: “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world… ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.”
Although Trump’s speech characterized Iran as a “major supporter of terrorism” and Gen. Soleimani as a “top terrorist”, his assertion that a common interest exists between the USA and Iran in the combat of ISIS is a spectacular break from the neocon agenda. This break is also one of many in a long line of internal struggles emanating from the corridors of American power in the days since Soleimani’s murder. This includes the memo written to the Iraq government by William Seely, commanding general of the Iraq Task Force saying: “We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.” Seely’s memo created a major crisis amongst the radical war hawks like Mark Esper and Mark Milley who raced to deny the memo’s validity.
Recent revelations published in the Wall Street Journal demonstrating the incredible back channel discussion set up by Trump through the Swiss embassy in Tehran in the hours after Solemenei’s murder also play into this “movement of sanity” within the USA.
The Paradox of America Resolved
This contradictory behaviour is undoubtedly not so confusing for leading figures among Eurasia’s intelligentsia who are not ignorant to the battle occurring within America between nationalists who genuinely wish to end “the forever wars” in the Middle East vs those Pax Americanists embedded throughout the neoconservative and neo-liberal establishments who would rather burn the earth than abandon their dark age ideology. Trump’s many calls for positive relations with Russia and China over the past 3 years terrify these groups, and this potential US-Russia-China alliance has represented a real threat which today’s London-steered impeachment debacle, and years of Russia-gating has always aimed to derail.
With the impeachment bill now sitting in the republican-dominated Senate, the neocons loyal to the Military Industrial Complex which Trump has so loudly criticized have major leverage on the President and are using it. If you are thinking “why would any republican ruin their careers by supporting a democrat-driven impeachment bill against a republican leader?” then you haven’t realized that the drive for war with Iran (as well as Russia and China) is not a matter of “practical politics” for our later day fanatics of the evangelical pre-millennial garb like John Hagee or Benny Hinn who sincerely believe it is man’s duty to usher in Armageddon and fulfill their twisted view of prophecy. Nor is it an issue for their Israeli counterparts who believe essentially in the same prophecy with the small exception that the Savior’s arrival amidst the fires of war will be occurring for the first time rather than the 2nd. If you are reading this thinking “certainly no one could be so nuts”, then let this televised prayer led by Rev. John Hagee and Benny Hinn cause you to think twice:
Bill Kristol, a leading figure behind the neocon cult and co-author of the dystopian Project for a New American Century Manifesto has already poured tens of millions of dollars into billboards, commercials and lobbying teams gunning for Trump’s impeachment. Kristol tweeted on October 17, 2019 that “If Trump is not impeached and removed, the corruption will get even worse, the White House even more lawless, the violations of norms even more routine. The case for impeachment isn’t merely retrospective; it’s prophylactic. And it isn’t merely just; it’s urgent.”
The most recent commercial promoting Trump’s impeachment which Kristol’s think tank Republicans for the Rule of Law released raised the argument that since republicans supported Nixon’s impeachment in 1973, republicans should impeach Trump today.
This argument obviously overlooks the problem that while Nixon actually appeared to have committed crimes, nothing even approximating illegal activity has occurred in Trump’s case.
Things are not as black and white as many believed until recently. Iran’s recent military exercises with Russia and China have demonstrated clearly in the minds of saner Americans that no war with Iran is possible without taking Russia and China on as well. Putin’s brilliant maneuvers in the Middle East have led to the destruction of the Anglo-American plot to grow radical Islam as a geopolitical tool first against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and then against nation states more generally since the Soviet Union’s collapse. For this reason, Putin’s enemies throughout the neocon world and British intelligence have never forgiven him. Although China has not brought much military might to bear in the Middle East, the Belt and Road Initiative has provided a gateway to a durable peace which cannot be overlooked, as BRI projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and beyond have given the Middle East a new chance for a future.
The question still remains whether or not Trump can continue to move away from the WWIII agenda and into this positive alliance.
Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III.
By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.
On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.
What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued. Read the rest of this entry »
MCViewPoint 