Posts
And how does the U.S. intend to do that? Well... we could involve them in a long, protracted war in some place, bleeding them dry and leaving that place in ruins....
It is nice to see the New York Slime confirming our every diagnosis since this crisis began. It is also a delight that the Slime lays out so clearly how it lies to you, its unfortunate readers, peddling the equivalent of info-fentanyl.
Ah yes! Sitting on the sidelines, the U.S. was being its usual Appeasing Pussy self not wanting to provoke anyone or get involved in anyone's affairs until the sudden example of a Brave and Plucky Ukraine, fighting and holding the line against the Evil Goliath, bestirred Washington's conscience! And so
This is insanity. The “message” -- we are going to trash your military -- is very effectively a declaration of war. Not only is the intent hostile; the intent promises action. Poking a nuclear power; poking even a hypersonic power is overweening madness.
As we have pointed out, the United States toughened its message way back in 1992, when the Cheney-Wolfowitz Duo, drafted a Defense Planning Guide, which set out the goal of achieving exclusive U.S. global and economic supremacy by slapping down any “potential rival”
The DPG banked on being able to exploit the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union in order to rope Russia (and the Ukraine) into the free market system as subordinate players. The DPG also looked forward to the further disintegration of the Soviet military. However,
Like all such documents, the DPG was drafted in the flexible and insinuating language of military-bureaucratic babble. Although the talk was formulated as contingency planning, the contingency reflected the goal, and "defense" was code for a spectrum of proactive measures. Senator Edward M. Kennedy was not fooled. He labeled the DPG "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.”
In fact, even the New York Slime was not fooled. It's headline for the leaked release of the DPG was
It is nice to see the New York Slime confirming our every diagnosis since this crisis began. It is also a delight that the Slime lays out so clearly how it lies to you, its unfortunate readers, peddling the equivalent of info-fentanyl.
“Emboldened by Ukraine's grit, the U.S. wants to see Russia weakened.”
Ah yes! Sitting on the sidelines, the U.S. was being its usual Appeasing Pussy self not wanting to provoke anyone or get involved in anyone's affairs until the sudden example of a Brave and Plucky Ukraine, fighting and holding the line against the Evil Goliath, bestirred Washington's conscience! And so
“the United States toughened its messaging...”
This is insanity. The “message” -- we are going to trash your military -- is very effectively a declaration of war. Not only is the intent hostile; the intent promises action. Poking a nuclear power; poking even a hypersonic power is overweening madness.
As we have pointed out, the United States toughened its message way back in 1992, when the Cheney-Wolfowitz Duo, drafted a Defense Planning Guide, which set out the goal of achieving exclusive U.S. global and economic supremacy by slapping down any “potential rival”
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.” “Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the reemergence of any potential future global competitor.”
The DPG banked on being able to exploit the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union in order to rope Russia (and the Ukraine) into the free market system as subordinate players. The DPG also looked forward to the further disintegration of the Soviet military. However,
“Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should plan to defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe. ... [I]t is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security as well as the channel for U.S. influence ...
Like all such documents, the DPG was drafted in the flexible and insinuating language of military-bureaucratic babble. Although the talk was formulated as contingency planning, the contingency reflected the goal, and "defense" was code for a spectrum of proactive measures. Senator Edward M. Kennedy was not fooled. He labeled the DPG "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.”
In fact, even the New York Slime was not fooled. It's headline for the leaked release of the DPG was
"WAYS TO THWART.....” And how, one might ask does one nation “thwart” another's military strength?
The matter did not end there. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote his magum opus The Grand Chessboard in which he , argued that the vast Eurasian land mass (from Portugal to the Bering Straights) was the field on which America's supremacy would be ratified and challenged in the years to come. Central to his thesis was the premise that no Eurasian challenger (read Russia) should emerge to dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence.
Again, in September 2000, the Raytheon-funded Project for a New American Century, published its now infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (9/2000) calling for (among other adventures) "extending America's security perimeter eastward."
You have to love the babble. You know, as in 1941, Nazi Germany “removed its security perimeter eastward.”
Babble or not, there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about these position papers. As we have said, they were plainly and simply the Monroe Doctrine East.
Nor was it a matter left at planning. Every objective indicator proved that the U.S. was implementing its plan.
The matter did not end there. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote his magum opus The Grand Chessboard in which he , argued that the vast Eurasian land mass (from Portugal to the Bering Straights) was the field on which America's supremacy would be ratified and challenged in the years to come. Central to his thesis was the premise that no Eurasian challenger (read Russia) should emerge to dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence.
"[T]he U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position... It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”
Again, in September 2000, the Raytheon-funded Project for a New American Century, published its now infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (9/2000) calling for (among other adventures) "extending America's security perimeter eastward."
"The new opportunity for greater European stability offered by further NATO expansion will make demands first of all on Tomahawk cruise missiles that have been the Navy weapon of choice in recent strike operations. ground and land-based air forces. As the American security perimeter in Europe is removed eastward."
You have to love the babble. You know, as in 1941, Nazi Germany “removed its security perimeter eastward.”
Babble or not, there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about these position papers. As we have said, they were plainly and simply the Monroe Doctrine East.
Nor was it a matter left at planning. Every objective indicator proved that the U.S. was implementing its plan.
The cheek with which the Anthony Blinken intones that the decision to join NATO or apply for EU membership is up to the Ukraine as a sole and “sovereign” actor is an insult to any person who is even moderately informed of the issues. Ukraine is and has been a pawn, not a sovereign actor. Blinken simply counts on people being kept barefoot and stupid by the New York Slime. So much for America's literate class.
Beginning around 2006, Vladimir Putin began to protest against “Western” (read the U.S.) expansion. His consistent theme was that “our partners in the West” were acting confrontationally not collaboratively. He repeatedly said that the world should be multi-polar, and that no nation (read the U.S.) should seek to be the Global Boss. In other words, Russia too, had regional and international interests that needed to be respected and accommodated. It was not an unreasonable position. In fact, it was so reasonable, that it was first announced by Woodrow Wilson back in 1901. The United States, he said, should be first among equals, not first over vassals, and to this end it had to pursue policies of international settlement and adjustment.
In other words, the United States could take, but it had to give. It could not have the whole cake for itself, but must let others have their own slices.
However, the Neocon monsters in control of Washington would have none of it. Their policy of BullyPolitik demanded unfettered, unilateral, preemptive, preeminence. They effectuated their policy by engineering “orange” revolutions and “removing” America's sphere of influence, so-called “zones of democratic peace,” eastward.
There was nothing ambiguous about the 5 billion dollars the U.S. spent trying to engineer the Ukraine into the EU orbit. Nor was there any ambiguity about the aproximately 2 billion dollars in military aid since 2014. There was nothing ambiguous about Trump's 2017 decision to supply the Ukraine with Javelin missiles.
Lastly, there was nothing ambiguous in the National Defense Strategy Doctrine of 2018 in which the U.S. reaffirmed all of its antecedent strategy papers since Dick Cheney's Defence Plannning Guide of 1993. Although the bureaucrateze was tweaked here and there, the goals remained the same.
But as has been reviewed, China and Russia were always in America's sights. Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, in which Ukraine was “key” always had the break up of the “Eurasian Landmass” (i.e. Russia) as its primary goal. That's what the PNAC's “expanding the homeland's security perimeter (NATO) eastward” meant. How unambiguous can one get.
The only difference between 1993, 2003 and now is that in 2014 Russia began to push back.
To even remotely suggest that the United States has suddenly come to the realization that it has an opportunity and, indeed a need, to “weaken” Russia's military is a LIE. It is FAKE NEWS. It is MIS- and DIS- INFORMATION of the highest proof. So drink up.
The Slime prattles on... “Officials in Washington are now grappling with how much intelligence to give the Ukrainians about bases inside Russia, given that the Ukrainians have already made small helicopter raids on Russian fuel depots...”
So, in addition to being lying sons of bitches are they also out of their minds? They are certainly classifiably homicidal psychopaths.
When the raid was first announced on April 1, it was denied by the Ukrainians, and the Western media tried to imply that the raid was “unconfirmed” and possibly a Russian lie. Well evidently not...
So the debate along the Washington-Brussels Axis now is how much intelligence and weaponry to hand over to the Ukraine. How much lethality can we hand over to bleed Russia dry. How far inside we can play the provocation game without triggering a response we might regret. In other words how much can we escalate without escalating.
This is the chance to “put the screws to Russia,” cackles Witch Hillary. We can weaken their military cries the Secretary of War. These two statements illustrate how thin the tripwire is and how recklessly indifferent Washington war mongers are to the dangers. There is a “fine line” between degrading a country's military and degrading the country itself, between an incident at sea and act of war.
Is firing on a country's naval vessel an act of war? When the U.S.S. Cole was fired upon, the hotheads in the Capitol had no hesitation in sceaming that it was an act of war. In fact, when the U.S.S. Maine suffered an explosion of unknown origin, we actually went to war.
There is a spectrum that runs from genuine accidents, to setting the stage for an accident to happen, to creating conditions for the adversary to fall into, to de facto war, to declared war. In 1978, the United States funded the Taliban and created conditions in Afghanistan that ensnared the Soviet Union and, ultimately, gave its military a bloody nose. That politik was not an act of war anymore than the Soviet material support of North Vietnam was an act of war against us. But using a proxy to directly attack Russia's military, and to even do so on Russian soil, crosses into a different part of the spectrum. Even more so when the United States is standing right at the ear of that proxy -- a proxy that is giving signs of being his own puppet.
The role Zelinsky has played in these last months has been heroic and artful. The best PR firm in the world could not have done better. But of late, he has gone from being the noble defender to the near reckless aggressor. His escalating rhetoric, and that of other memebers of his govenment, has cast the crisis in apocalyptic, civilizational terms. He has called for more sophisticated weapons and for removing limits on their use. His foreign minister called for attacks inside Russia. A man with his limited responsibilties and vision is not the person to handle a game of nuclear poker....assuming that such a criminally reckless game should be played at all. Allowing a man like Zelinsky to push and poke at Putin at will is pure insanity. More so when we are at his ear; for, in that case, anything he does will be attributed to us.
Embroiled in their Russophobic psychosis and manical obsession with global supremacy, the lunatics in Washington and on Forty Second Street, seem to have forgotten the true nature of their adversary. Russia may be lumbering, the wielder of a mace not an epée. It may at times be brutish. But its very bearish qualities make it incredibly stolid and capable of enduring great suffering. During both invasions of its territory, Russia was willing to scorch its own motherland in order to defeat the enemy. It has risen from the ashes before, it will not shy from the worst for fear.
And not just Russia. China too has shown that she can accept losses that would collapse the United States. Throughout its long and charmed imperial history, the United States has not paid the price. Four hundred thousand here, two hundred thousand there, fifty thousand or ten.... they are all drops in the bucket of slaughter compared to what other nations have proved they can endure. If it comes to that, I am sure that Russia can out-bleed the United States any day. What is certain is that, at the end of the day, like other American “zones of democratic peace” the Ukraine will lie in ruins and do most of the bleeding.
The West has lost it's mind. While it was illegal and tactically stupid for Russia to launch a full scale invasion of the Ukraine, it was a crisis that was fully provoked by the US/EU and their policy of military-economic expansion eastward. In response to a state of affairs it created, the West has declared economic and now military war on Russia. It openly talks of “screwing” Russia and degrading it as a state actor on the world stage. At some point the incremental targetting of "capacities" becomes an attack on the country as such. What the West is doing goes beyond containment and is openly confrontational not just economically or diplomatically but on the battle ground. In short, the West is playing at war with a nuclear power it hopes to shrivel down into a corner. Good luck with that.
Beginning around 2006, Vladimir Putin began to protest against “Western” (read the U.S.) expansion. His consistent theme was that “our partners in the West” were acting confrontationally not collaboratively. He repeatedly said that the world should be multi-polar, and that no nation (read the U.S.) should seek to be the Global Boss. In other words, Russia too, had regional and international interests that needed to be respected and accommodated. It was not an unreasonable position. In fact, it was so reasonable, that it was first announced by Woodrow Wilson back in 1901. The United States, he said, should be first among equals, not first over vassals, and to this end it had to pursue policies of international settlement and adjustment.
In other words, the United States could take, but it had to give. It could not have the whole cake for itself, but must let others have their own slices.
However, the Neocon monsters in control of Washington would have none of it. Their policy of BullyPolitik demanded unfettered, unilateral, preemptive, preeminence. They effectuated their policy by engineering “orange” revolutions and “removing” America's sphere of influence, so-called “zones of democratic peace,” eastward.
There was nothing ambiguous about the 5 billion dollars the U.S. spent trying to engineer the Ukraine into the EU orbit. Nor was there any ambiguity about the aproximately 2 billion dollars in military aid since 2014. There was nothing ambiguous about Trump's 2017 decision to supply the Ukraine with Javelin missiles.
Lastly, there was nothing ambiguous in the National Defense Strategy Doctrine of 2018 in which the U.S. reaffirmed all of its antecedent strategy papers since Dick Cheney's Defence Plannning Guide of 1993. Although the bureaucrateze was tweaked here and there, the goals remained the same.
“The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia....” etc.
But as has been reviewed, China and Russia were always in America's sights. Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, in which Ukraine was “key” always had the break up of the “Eurasian Landmass” (i.e. Russia) as its primary goal. That's what the PNAC's “expanding the homeland's security perimeter (NATO) eastward” meant. How unambiguous can one get.
The only difference between 1993, 2003 and now is that in 2014 Russia began to push back.
To even remotely suggest that the United States has suddenly come to the realization that it has an opportunity and, indeed a need, to “weaken” Russia's military is a LIE. It is FAKE NEWS. It is MIS- and DIS- INFORMATION of the highest proof. So drink up.
The Slime prattles on... “Officials in Washington are now grappling with how much intelligence to give the Ukrainians about bases inside Russia, given that the Ukrainians have already made small helicopter raids on Russian fuel depots...”
So, in addition to being lying sons of bitches are they also out of their minds? They are certainly classifiably homicidal psychopaths.
When the raid was first announced on April 1, it was denied by the Ukrainians, and the Western media tried to imply that the raid was “unconfirmed” and possibly a Russian lie. Well evidently not...
So the debate along the Washington-Brussels Axis now is how much intelligence and weaponry to hand over to the Ukraine. How much lethality can we hand over to bleed Russia dry. How far inside we can play the provocation game without triggering a response we might regret. In other words how much can we escalate without escalating.
This is the chance to “put the screws to Russia,” cackles Witch Hillary. We can weaken their military cries the Secretary of War. These two statements illustrate how thin the tripwire is and how recklessly indifferent Washington war mongers are to the dangers. There is a “fine line” between degrading a country's military and degrading the country itself, between an incident at sea and act of war.
Is firing on a country's naval vessel an act of war? When the U.S.S. Cole was fired upon, the hotheads in the Capitol had no hesitation in sceaming that it was an act of war. In fact, when the U.S.S. Maine suffered an explosion of unknown origin, we actually went to war.
There is a spectrum that runs from genuine accidents, to setting the stage for an accident to happen, to creating conditions for the adversary to fall into, to de facto war, to declared war. In 1978, the United States funded the Taliban and created conditions in Afghanistan that ensnared the Soviet Union and, ultimately, gave its military a bloody nose. That politik was not an act of war anymore than the Soviet material support of North Vietnam was an act of war against us. But using a proxy to directly attack Russia's military, and to even do so on Russian soil, crosses into a different part of the spectrum. Even more so when the United States is standing right at the ear of that proxy -- a proxy that is giving signs of being his own puppet.
The role Zelinsky has played in these last months has been heroic and artful. The best PR firm in the world could not have done better. But of late, he has gone from being the noble defender to the near reckless aggressor. His escalating rhetoric, and that of other memebers of his govenment, has cast the crisis in apocalyptic, civilizational terms. He has called for more sophisticated weapons and for removing limits on their use. His foreign minister called for attacks inside Russia. A man with his limited responsibilties and vision is not the person to handle a game of nuclear poker....assuming that such a criminally reckless game should be played at all. Allowing a man like Zelinsky to push and poke at Putin at will is pure insanity. More so when we are at his ear; for, in that case, anything he does will be attributed to us.
Embroiled in their Russophobic psychosis and manical obsession with global supremacy, the lunatics in Washington and on Forty Second Street, seem to have forgotten the true nature of their adversary. Russia may be lumbering, the wielder of a mace not an epée. It may at times be brutish. But its very bearish qualities make it incredibly stolid and capable of enduring great suffering. During both invasions of its territory, Russia was willing to scorch its own motherland in order to defeat the enemy. It has risen from the ashes before, it will not shy from the worst for fear.
And not just Russia. China too has shown that she can accept losses that would collapse the United States. Throughout its long and charmed imperial history, the United States has not paid the price. Four hundred thousand here, two hundred thousand there, fifty thousand or ten.... they are all drops in the bucket of slaughter compared to what other nations have proved they can endure. If it comes to that, I am sure that Russia can out-bleed the United States any day. What is certain is that, at the end of the day, like other American “zones of democratic peace” the Ukraine will lie in ruins and do most of the bleeding.
The West has lost it's mind. While it was illegal and tactically stupid for Russia to launch a full scale invasion of the Ukraine, it was a crisis that was fully provoked by the US/EU and their policy of military-economic expansion eastward. In response to a state of affairs it created, the West has declared economic and now military war on Russia. It openly talks of “screwing” Russia and degrading it as a state actor on the world stage. At some point the incremental targetting of "capacities" becomes an attack on the country as such. What the West is doing goes beyond containment and is openly confrontational not just economically or diplomatically but on the battle ground. In short, the West is playing at war with a nuclear power it hopes to shrivel down into a corner. Good luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment