Voices from Russia

Saturday, 2 January 2016

Why World War III is on the Horizon

00 atomic fireball. 16.07.13

______________________________

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology… neoconservatism. The USSR had served as a constraint on American unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neocons declared their agenda of US world hegemony. Now, America was the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world. Washington Post neocon journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

We have overwhelming global power. We’re history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the USSR fell, something new was born, something utterly new… a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a staggering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.

The staggering unipolar power that history gave to Washington has to be protected at all costs. In 1992, a top Pentagon official, Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy. The Wolfowitz Doctrine stated:

The first objective of American foreign and military policy is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former USSR or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to American unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the USSR. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and requires that we endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, suffice to generate global power (a “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s).

The unilateral assertion of American power began in earnest during the Clinton régime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq. In 1997, the neocons penned their “Project for a New American Century”. In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, neocons sent a letter to President Clinton calling for régime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power”. Neocons set out their programme for removing seven governments in five years. Informed people regard the events of 11 September 2001 as “the new Pearl Harbor” that the neocons said was necessary to begin their wars of conquest in the Middle East. Paul O’Neil, President George W Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the agenda of President Bush’s first meeting with his cabinet included invading Iraq. They planned this invasion prior to 9/11. Since 9/11, Washington destroyed eight countries in whole or part and it now confronts Russia both in Syria and the Ukraine.

Russia can’t allow a jihadist Caliphate in Syria and Iraq as it’d be a base for exporting destabilisation into Muslim parts of the Russian Federation. Henry Kissinger himself stated this fact; it’s clear enough to any person with a brain. However, the power-crazed fanatical neocons in control of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama régimes are so absorbed in their own hubris and arrogance that they’re prepared to push Russia to the point of having their Turkish puppet shoot down a Russian airplane and to overthrow a democratically elected Ukrainian government that was on good terms with Russia, substituting in its place an American puppet régime. With this background, we can understand that the dangerous situation facing the world is the product of the arrogant neocon policy of US world hegemony. The failures of judgement and the dangers in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts are themselves the consequences of the neocon ideology.

To perpetuate American hegemony, the neocons threw away the guarantees that Washington gave Gorbachyov that NATO wouldn’t move one inch to the East. The neocons pulled the USA out of the ABM Treaty, which specified that neither the USA nor Russia would develop and deploy anti-ballistic missiles. The neocons rewrote American war doctrine and elevated nuclear weapons from their role as a retaliatory force to a pre-emptive first strike force. The neocons began putting ABM bases on Russia’s borders, claiming that the bases were for the purpose of protecting Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. Neocons and their puppets in the US government and media demonised Russia and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. For example, Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, declared Putin to be “the new Hitler”. A former CIA official called for Putin’s assassination. Presidential candidates in both parties are competing in terms of who can be the most aggressive toward Russia and the most insulting toward Russia’s president.

The effect was to destroy the trust between nuclear powers. The Russian government learned that Washington does not respect Washington’s own laws, much less international law, and that it can’t trust Washington to keep any agreement. This lack of trust, together with the aggression toward Russia spewing from Washington and the presstitute media and echoing in idiotic European capitals, established the ground for nuclear war. As NATO (essentially, the USA) has no prospect of defeating Russia in conventional war, much less defeating a Russo-Chinese alliance, any war would go nuclear. To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. However, neocons misinterpret Putin’s responsible behaviour as a sign of weakness and fear. The neocons tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in. However, Putin made it clear that Russia won’t give in. Putin sent this message on many occasions. For example, on 28 September 2015, at the UN’s 70th anniversary, Putin said that Russia could no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later, Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries. As long as Europe remains nothing but Washington’s stooge, the prospect of Armageddon will continue to rise. At this time, we can only avoid nuclear war in two ways. One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony. The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO. That’d begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby, is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world. If NATO continues to exist, NATO, together with the neocon ideology of American hegemony, would make nuclear war inevitable.

28 December 2015

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts: Institute for Political Economy

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/12/28/why-wwiii-is-on-the-horizon-paul-craig-roberts/

Editor:

Now, one can see why the Western media vilifies Jeremy Corbyn… he bids fair to pull the UK out of NATO. If he did so, the American policy would fall of its own weight. Without the UK, the USA would lose its best base near Europe (as the UK is on a series of islands, it’s immune to Russian land-power and uniquely suited to defence by American seapower… the only place in Europe so situated). You can also see why that self-same media excoriates and pooh-poohs Bernie Sanders… he’s Corbyn’s American analogue. If Corbyn were to become PM and Sanders POTUS… the neocon fancy would fall into the dust, dead. You can see why the media is frantic about both… it does its best to tell us how fringy and unelectable they are. I do detect an agenda in both cases… no doubt, you agree.

If you wish to avoid Thermonuclear Ragnarök, vote for Corbyn and Sanders. If we don’t survive, nothing else matters. If the house is on fire, termites in the storage shed don’t matter… do think on that.

BMD

Sunday, 22 November 2015

A Study in Contrasts: How Russia and the West Respond to Violence in Different Ways

00 egypt russia memorial 221115

______________________________

Confirmation that a terrorist bomb brought down the Metrojet airliner that crashed in Sinai surprised no one. However, the episode highlights the contrast between the way Russians and the West go about doing things now. Last year, following the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over the Ukraine, the West rushed out accusations within hours of the crash, which meant that, from the outset, they skewed the investigation to fit a theory. By contrast, after the crash of the Metrojet airliner, Russians refused to speculate on a cause until they did a proper investigation. Therefore, the investigation was open, in contrast to the secrecy cloaking the MH17 investigation. Importantly, the Metrojet investigation consulted the proper experts… the aircraft’s French manufacturers. On the other hand, the MH17 investigation excluded relevant evidence from Almaz Antey… who manufactured the Buk SAM that the investigation alleged shot down the aircraft… they didn’t heed the firm’s opinions nor did they even mention them in the report.

Since the investigation into the Metrojet tragedy took place openly and objectively, it produced a conclusive finding within weeks of the tragedy. By contrast, after more than a year, the MH17 investigation produced an incomplete (and in parts, contested) report. Besides this, note the astonishing contrast in the reaction to the two recent terakts… the Metrojet crash and the Paris attacks… that recently took place. In re the Metrojet crash, the Western reaction was large-scale indifference. Nevertheless, Russians rushed to show sympathy and support for the people of France following the Paris attacks, but there was no like rush from the Western public to show sympathy and support for the people of Russia following the Metrojet tragedy. There were even some appalling claims… apparently, extending to US government officials… that by supporting the Syrian government, Russia somehow brought the Metrojet tragedy down on itself.

In the case of the Paris attacks, alongside proper and legitimate feelings of grief for the victims, Western officials responded with blind fury and elements of panic, with talk of war and a stampede to impose ever-more draconian restrictions on Western society, but with no coherent plan of what to do. This contrasts with the calm and purposeful way that… amidst feelings of intense grief… the Russian authorities and people responded to the Metrojet tragedy. We should say clearly that it makes no sense to say that by supporting the Syrian government that Russia brought the Metrojet tragedy down on itself, any more than it makes sense to say that by opposing the Syrian government France brought the Paris attacks down on itself. Such rationalisations of terrorism are both wrong and immoral. However, it’s legitimate to say… as President Putin said in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly… that attempts to manipulate terrorists to achieve geopolitical objectives are both wrong and immoral… and also extremely dangerous. If Western governments want to respond properly to the Paris tragedy, then, acknowledging that is a good place to start.

19 November 2015

Alexander Mercouris

Sputnik International

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151119/1030414109/different-way-russia-west-respond-violence.html

Friday, 13 November 2015

13 November 2015. As Seen by Vitaly Podvitsky… Bear in Mind

00 Vitaly Podvitsky. Bear in Mind. 2015

______________________________

Monday, 31 August 2015

Leshchenko sez DNR Sent Invitation to OSCE to Monitor DNR Local Elections

00 dnr donetsk pr m leshchenko 310815

______________________________

Today, Maksim Leshchenko, Head of Administration for the DNR Chairman of the Government, told us:

By order of DNR Chairman of the Government A V Zakharchenko, we sent an official invitation this morning to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to send observers to monitor our local elections [on 18 October 2015]. Zakharchenko signed the request on Saturday, 29 August. We expressed our confidence that we’d soon get a positive response to our proposal. We have no intention to hide and hold closed elections in the region. Despite the difficult situation in the DNR, we’re committed to the Minsk Agreement and are ready to comply with it, even unilaterally. We’ll do everything possible to see to it that our local elections are fair and open. To show that everything is transparent and complies with the letter of the law, we hope that the OSCE would help us. We guarantee security for any [OSCE] mission and we’d see to the prerequisites for its fruitful work. Provocations are possible, but they’d be even more probable if the OSCE refused our invitation. We’ve never confirmed any case of cessation of attacks just because the OSCE mission came to a town intensively shelled on the previous day.

31 August 2015

DAN Donetsk News Agency

http://dan-news.info/politics/dnr-opravila-v-bdipch-obse-priglashenie-dlya-monitoringa-vyborov-leshhenko.html

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,421 other followers