The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Somnolent Europe, Russia, and China
Can the world wake up?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_193853687

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On September 19, 2000, going on 16 years ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraphreported:

“Declassified American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.”

The documents show that the European Union was a creature of the CIA.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

As I have previously written, Washington believes that it is easier to control one government, the EU, than to control many separate European governments. As Washington has a long term investment in orchestrating the European Union, Washington is totally opposed to any country exiting the arrangement. That is why President Obama recently went to London to tell his lapdog, the British Prime Minister, that there could be no British exit.

Like other European nations, the British people were never allowed to vote on whether they were in favor of their country ceasing to exist and them becoming Europeans. British history would become the history of a bygone people like the Romans and Babylonians.

The oppressive nature of unaccountable EU laws and regulations and the EU requirement to accept massive numbers of third world immigrants have created a popular demand for a British vote on whether to remain a sovereign country or to dissolve and submit to Brussels and its dictatorial edicts. The vote is scheduled for June 23.

Washington’s position is that the British people must not be permitted to decide against the EU, because such a decision is not in Washington’s interest.

The prime minister’s job is to scare the British people with alleged dire consequences of “going it alone.” The claim is that “little England” cannot stand alone. The British people are being told that isolation will spell their end, and their country will become a backwater bypassed by progress. Everything great will happen elsewhere, and they will be left out.

If the fear campaign does not succeed and the British vote to exit the EU, the open question is whether Washington will permit the British government to accept the democratic outcome.

Alternatively, the British government will deceive the British people, as it routinely does, and declare that Britain has negotiated concessions from Brussels that dispose of the problems that concern the British people.

Washington’s position shows that Washington is a firm believer that only Washington’s interests are important. If other peoples wish to retain national sovereignty, they are simply being selfish. Moreover, they are out of compliance with Washington, which means they can be declared a “threat to American national security.” The British people are not to be permitted to make decisions that do not comply with Washington’s interest. My prediction is that the British people will either be deceived or overridden.

It is Washington’s self-centeredness, the self-absorption, the extraordinary hubris and arrogance, that explains the orchestrated “Russian threat.” Russia has not presented herself to the West as a military threat. Yet, Washington is confronting Russia with a US/NATO naval buildup in the Black Sea (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/04/nato-form-allied-fleet-black-sea-plans-fraught-with-great-risks.html ), a naval, troop and tank buildup in the Baltics and Poland (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/10/uk-to-contribute-five-extra-ships-to-baltic-as-nato-boosts-presence ), missile bases on Russia’s borders, and plans to incorporate the former Russian provinces of Georgia and Ukraine in US defense pacts against Russia.

When Washington, its generals and European vassals declare Russia to be a threat, they mean that Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in her own interest rather than in Washington’s interest. Russia is a threat, because Russia demonstrated the capability of blocking Washington’s intended invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. Russia blunted one purpose of Washington’s coup in the Ukraine by peacefully and democratically reuniting with Crimera, the site of Russia’s Black Sea naval base and a Russian province for several centuries.

Perhaps you have wondered how it was possible for small countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yeman, and Venezuela to be threats to the US superpower. On its face Washington’s claim is absurd. Do US presidents, Pentagon officials, national security advisors, and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff really regard countries of so little capability as military threats to the United States and NATO countries?

No, they do not. The countries were declared threats, because they have, or had prior to their destruction, independent foreign and economic policies. Their policy independence means that they do not or did not accept US hegemony. They were attacked in order to bring them under US hegemony.

In Washington’s view, any country with an independent policy is outside Washington’s umbrella and, therefore, is a threat.

Venezuela became, in the words of US President Obama, an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” necessitating a “national emergency” to contain the “Venezuelan threat” when the Venezuelan government put the interests of the Venezuelan people above those of American corporations.

Russia became a threat when the Russian government demonstrated the ability to block Washington’s intended military attacks on Syria and Iran and when Washington’s coup in the Ukraine failed to deliver to Washington the Russian Black Sea naval base.

Clearly Venezuela cannot possibly pose a military threat to the US, so Venezuela cannot possibly pose an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the US.” Venezuela is a “threat” because the Venezuelan government does not comply with Washington’s orders.

ORDER IT NOW

It is absolutely certain that Russia has made no threats whatsoever against the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Europe, or the United States. It is absolutely certain that Russia has not invaded the Ukraine. How do we know? If Russia had invaded Ukraine, the Ukraine would no longer be there. It would again be a Russian province where until about 20 years ago Ukraine resided for centuries, for longer than the US has existed. Indeed, the Ukraine belongs in Russia more than Hawaii and the deracinated and conquered southern states belong in the US.

Yet, these fantastic lies from the highest ranks of the US government, from NATO, from Washington’s British lackeys, from the bought-and-paid-for Western media, and from the bought-and-paid-for EU are repeated endlessly as if they are God’s revealed truth.

Syria still exists because it is under Russian protection. That is the only reason Syria still exists, and it is also another reason that Washington wants Russia out of the way.

Do Russia and China realize their extreme danger? I don’t think even Iran realizes its ongoing danger despite its close call.

If Russia and China realize their danger, would the Russian government permit one-fifth of its media to be foreign owned? Does Russia understand that “foreign owned” means CIA owned? If not, why not? If so, why does the Russian government permit its own destabilization at the hands of Washington’s intelligence service acting through foreign owned media?

China is even more careless. There are 7,000 US-funded NGOs (non-governmental organizations) operating in China ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-preserving-sovereignty-or-sliding-into-western-sponsored-color-revolutions/5523019 ). Only last month did the Chinese government finally move, very belatedly, to put some restrictions on these foreign agents who are working to destabilize China. The members of these treasonous organizations have not been arrested. They have merely been put under police watch, an almost useless restriction as Washington can provide endless money with which to bribe the Chinese police.

Why do Russia and China think that their police are less susceptible to bribes than Mexico’s or American police? Despite the multi-decade “war on drugs,” the drug flow from Mexico to the US is unimpeded. Indeed, the police forces of both countries have a huge interest in the “war on drugs” as the war brings them riches in the form of bribes. Indeed, as the crucified reporter for the San Jose Mercury newspaper proved many years ago, the CIA itself is in the drug-running business.

In the United States truth-tellers are persecuted and imprisoned, or they are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-semites,” and “domestic extremists.” The entire Western World consists of a dystopia far worse than the one described by George Orwell in his famous book, 1984.

That Russia and China permit Washington to operate in their media, in their universities, in their financial systems, and in “do-good” NGOs that infiltrate every aspect of their societies demonstrates that both governments have no interest in their survival as independent states. They are too scared of being called “authoritarian” by the Western presstitute media to protect their own independence.

My prediction is that Russia and China will soon be confronted with an unwelcome decision: accept American hegemony or go to war.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, EU, Russia 
Hide 31 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The Shrub said it best … “You’re either with us, or against us!”

    • Replies: @utu
    , @annamaria
  2. This article discusses some things I have been thinking about lately. The idea that some of these countries need to be a more pro-active in asserting their own interests.

    Take Venezuela for instance. I recently read that they don’t even print their own currency! It is little wonder that they have high inflation. American domination may be evil, but these countries don’t even take minimal steps to govern themselves. The old Soviet Union used have five year plans for economic improvement, but Venezuela can’t even keep their electrical grid functioning. They are literally incapable of self-governance.

    Amazingly, even countries like Germany, France and Brazil cannot provide their own leaders with secure communications. For a few measly million dollars invested in high quality, open source encryption software, the entire world could have secure communications. The amount of money it would take to secure global communications is paltry compared to global military defense budgets. And the cost could be easily shared.

    So, yes American hegemony is distasteful, but without it, these people would have to think for themselves.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Wizard of Oz
  3. Marcus says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    I doubt Venezuela could ever be much more than a banana republic given its demographics.

  4. joe webb says:

    another nutty piece by a nut job. Joe webb

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Catiline
  5. bondo says:

    thanks, pcr.

    iran better wise up and follow s. korea’s example. get nukes – many.

    unless you bow down and gut yourself, you will be a target for judaized amurderka and the yids

  6. @Si1ver1ock

    It’s a very minor point but I don’t think the fact of Venezuela not printing its own currency means much. Apart from it suggesting that local printers mightn’t be as trustworthy as foreign contractors there is the question of IP in the best technology for printing notes which can’t be successfully counterfeited. My recollection is (partly from reporting of scandals associated with pushing the business) that a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia does good business around the world providing national currencies because of its superior technology.

  7. PCR is behind the game if he thinks that, after a Brexit vote for exit, Cameron will turn round and say, so that it prevents Brexit, that Britain has negotiated terms which deal with the UK’s problems with the EU.

    He has already used that argument – unconvincingly – to say Brexit is unnecessary. It is extremely unlikely that any further concessions that might be offered after a Brexit vote would have any weight, or credibility, with the British people – or a House of Commons majority.

    • Disagree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  8. utu says:
    @The Alarmist

    The Shrub said it best … “You’re either with us, or against us!” – It was Richard Perle who contacted White House while WTC was still smoking advising that this line should be included in President’s speech.

  9. Durruti says:

    Nice clear essay by Paul Craig Roberts

    However, his essay omits mention of one key controlling factor of American Foreign (and domestic), policy.

    The Pink Elephant in the room is the control of America, and most of the rest of the planet by the Zionist Oligarchs. The Rothschilds, and a couple dozen of the lesser Oligarchs – Control All. And these major Oligarchs dominate a thousand lesser Oligarchs.

    The wealth of these controlling Oligarchs is calculated in the $Billions ($millions no longer serve as the Oligarch the entry fee). The top Oligarch families, such as the Rothschilds, calculate their wealth in the $Trillions.

    These mostly Zionist Oligarchs control the European Union, and its member states. These Oligarchs also control the Government and Economy of the once most powerful single nation in the world, the United States.

    As with the European Nations, the United States is no longer a Sovereign Nation. Its Parliament (Congress), recently welcomed its actual President, Netenyahoo. Netenyahoo received standing ovations, and complete respectful attention from his minions, as he clarified their subordinate (to the Zionist Oligarchs) role on the world scene.

    The bought American Congress worships a Foreign leader, from another nation, from another Power Elite, from another planet. Treason was ever present, but there was No whiff of Revolution in the air.

    The loss of sovereignty in America dates from, the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Recall, that on the day after, there was no public political tendency, from the left to the Right that understood the significance of what had passed. The worshipping Marxist Lemonists, and the proud Conservatives, the Liberals, Socialites, and the religious, had no clue.

    They mumbled about ‘Southern Cowboys,’ and ‘Violent Ultra Right.’ But ‘thank god’ LBJ and the democrat gang was there to restore order and arrest that horrible (and single unattached all alone gunman), Oswald. The pretend brilliant theorists of the isms failed, or did not wish to see, or wished to mislead. Only much later was there a book written, Coup d’Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Alan J. Weberman, that dared to conceptualize the import of what had happened to our America.

    By way of analogy:

    “The Romans attempted a World Empire, and. as Tacitus wrote at the time,
    These plunderers of the world [the Romans], after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

    The highlighting, is mine.

    The cure to this illness, the sickness of the loss of National identity, National pride, National Prosperity, Liberty, and, National Sovereignty, is to restore our once independent nationhood, our Sovereignty, here in America, and all national sovereignties, throughout our planet, including that of the Palestinian People, whose victory is the key to smashing this Zionist Oligarch Terror, lies in the Restoration of our Republics.

    Ancient Romans never succeeded in restoring their Republic. The Gracchi brothers, as with our Kennedys, and the courageous Spartacus, as with our Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, failed in their efforts, and suffered the fate of heroes.

    The internet is not enough. Delacroix painted the answer. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPpvzllcjMAhVCLB4KHT4lCAEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eugene-delacroix.com%2Fliberty-leading-the-people.jsp&psig=AFQjCNFWIZ_aoKA15Op2c6adOkqYKQwLzw&ust=1462717593485981

    Committees of Correspondence, leading to Minutemen, leading to Freedom, must be our Yellow Brick Road. We might try to hold Alternate Elections, to set up an Alternate Government, begin to forge a Dual Power reality, and steadily restore the Old Republic, and the nation of our memory, until the usurpers are all safely housed behind the bars of the People’s Prisons, and receive the justice they deserve from our citizens.

    For the VISION!

    For the Democratic Republic!

    Durruti

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @stickman
    , @Wizard of Oz
  10. Johann says:

    It has been obvious for a long time that the EU and NATO were created by the American CIA and that the Brits were given a special place at the table. One Brit diplomat of the time opined that the purpose of NATO was ” to keep the Russians out, the Yanks in and the Germans down”. Today we see American army and naval units stationed on the Russian border. The Europeans are slavishly following CIA orders and the American democrat and republican slobbering for WWIII.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  11. stickman says:
    @Durruti

    Durruti: Thank you for saving me from needing to make the kind of explanations and proofs that you have so thoroughly explicated. My take was to further note that PCR fears for his “respectability” amongst those who have been educated beyond their discernment, perspicacity and due diligence by not cutting to the heart of the matter and simply coming out and stating the obvious, that the U$ government is little more than a puppet regime in the cruel claws of the Babylonian Money Magicians and their central bank. Because of his relative prominence Roberts also likely fears for his life.

    “Wild Bill” Donovan’s role in the establishment of the CIA might well be viewed in terms of the presumable secret concordat between the innards of the Vatican with the Major Moneylenders. Also in cahoots are the Crowned Heads of Europe and many of the blood aristocracy.

    Even if on the face of things, the British regime is a puppet of the U$; both parties are totally under the thumbs of the central banksters headquartered in the sovereign entity known as City of London.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  12. L.K says:
    @joe webb

    joe webb looked at himself in the mirror, then wrote that “clever” comment…

  13. Agent76 says:

    Nov 1, 2015 Global Conflict and the Geopolitics of US-China Relations: Michel Chossudovsky

    With reports emerging that China has signed on to Russia’s military coalition in Syria at the same time that the Chinese are signing new cooperation agreements with the US, the question is once again being raised: What is the nature of China-US rivalry?

  14. annamaria says:
    @The Alarmist

    Condoleezza Rice, the lauded “expert” in the history of Soviet Union was not aware of the well known fact that this phrase was the Stain’s favorite: “You’re either with us, or against us!” Since Condi’s awareness was focused on her career and outfits, her ignorance and dereliction of duty are not тоо difficult to explain. The whole Cheney charge was made of unprincipled profiteers, in the boss’ image.

  15. @Wizard of Oz

    One has to wonder about the possibility that Cameron may actually, in the event of a Brexit vote, ignore the voters.

    What would happen? Oh sure, there’d b a split in the Tory party. But Labour and the Lib Dems and the SNP may well support him.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  16. Adam says:

    Isn’t it amazing how the sun never set on the British Empire just a few short years ago, while today uncontested British sovereignty is a thing of the past? Wow! It means that powers beyond humankind are and have been at work. Sovereigns rise and fall, apparently entirely beyond humankind’s agency. The mighty United States is on the cusp of its own decline, and who can affect it? Humankind is at the same mercies that all earthly animals enjoy, such as the raven, the snake, the monkey and the goat. Nobody within humanity is in charge either. We (flesh) are all riding the tides of chance and circumstance. Don’t try to convince me that any puny mortal is guiding any of this. Thus, go home, o’ puny mortal in your impeccable suit of rags, and stop trying to convince me of thy “awesome might and power.”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  17. @annamaria

    Three stories about Stalin: the expressions ascribed to him, touching mathematics and physics.
    Terminology: SRs (Socialist Revolutionary party) and Mensheviks (splinter of Russian early communist party; the other splinter was Bolsheviks.)
    1. Stalin: “The difference between SRs and Mensheviks is so small, that it is equal to zero.

    2. On another occasion, about one of his enemies in communist party (particular name does not matter.)
    Stalin: “Trotsky is not just big negative quantity, but negative in square.
    If only he said “but negative in cube” !!!

    3. In 1946, working meeting of leaders of atomic program in Stalin’s office, in his presence. Different speakers are trying to persuade, that their particular method of separation of uranium isotopes is better: centrifugal, gas-diffusion, electromagnetic. Stalin listened for the whole hour, then slowly walked around the office, pulled his pipe (which he actually smoke rather rarely) out of his mouth , and said with his Georgian accent: “Раздэлять будэм диффузионно” (We will use diffusion.)

    The comic element of that story is that in 1946 Soviet intelligence services had all the information about the various methods used in USA; including large gas-diffusion plant in Oak Ridge, TN. However, that information was kept secret from most of participants.

    Visit to that plant, by the way, was described by Richard Feynman in his biographic book “Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman.”

    Disclaimer: I, I.f.f.U., consider Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin
    as bunch of greatest scoundrels and tyrants in history.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  18. @Tsar Nicholas

    Yes I was conscious of that possible interpretation of the comment I was replying to. He presumably would start by saying “Splendid! This vote has now put us in the best possible position to deal with the rest of the EU [scil. dealing with actual exit or managing to stay in] and I shall return to the negotiating table inspired, refreshed, empowered and invigorated”.

    Then he would seek the support of the House of Commons for new terms which were for staying in. But they would be, again, weak, and I suspect it would be to tempting to Labour to point that out and to use their votes to humiliate him.

  19. @Adam

    What makes you raise the suggestion that there is any “guidance” or determinative willed causation?

  20. @Immigrant from former USSR

    “If only….’negative in cube’ ”
    Nice!

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I believe PCR is well aware that America itself is just a proxy, serving out it’s last service to it’s masters before it too is taken down.

  22. Catiline says:
    @joe webb

    Exactly right. The idea that it’s easier to control a unified continent rather than a constellation of petty, mutually jealous nations is absurd on the face of it. Send this hayseed back to Texas where he belongs.

  23. Ace says:

    ** when the Venezuelan government put the interests of the Venezuelan people above those of American corporations. **

    Didn’t Chavez’s daughter end up the richest person in Venezuela? Given that and the stagnant economy and shortages, I’d say the interest of the V. people didn’t matter in the least to Chavez.

  24. tbraton says:
    @annamaria

    Actually, annamarina, I believe the phrase “you’re either with us or against us,” can be found in the Gospels. According to Wikipedia, “The Synoptic Gospels attribute the following quote to Jesus of Nazareth: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30), as well as its contrapositive, “Whoever is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50; Mark 9:40).” I believe Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to have lived long before Stalin of Georgia. I would imagine the phrase was common long before it appeared in the Gospels. In all likelihood, George W. was much more familiar with the Gospels than he was with the writings of Joseph Stalin. Supposedly, after he abandoned alcohol and found religion, he became immersed in the Bible and was thoroughly conversant with its writings. During the 2000 campaign and his Presidency, he would often “talk in code” to his followers on the religious right by using common Biblical expressions. It took me a while to catch on since I was not familiar with the Bible. Back around 2003, Peter Baker, then a reporter with the Washington Post and now with the NY Times, had an article in the Post making this point. I sent him a letter pointing out other Biblical phrases GWB had used, which Baker had not noted in his article, including the phrase “you’re either with us or against us.” Baker responded with a very nice thank you letter. (BTW I am not religious and haven’t read much of the Bible, but I have read enough to be familiar with some of the more common expressions. Often, my surprised reaction would be when I ran across such an expression, “oh, so that’s where the expression comes from.”)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  25. @Durruti

    Show that you aren’t just parroting other people’s rubbish and tell us who are these people that you call Rothschilds and describe as Zionist Oligarchs (with wealth in the trillions you also say). It isn’t difficult to trace the descendants of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and know what they have done and do.

    Seriously, you might be happier if a bit of elementary looking up of facts helped dispel your depressing delusions, or at least shift them in a less fanciful direction than the one where I suspect nothing can be escaped from because nothing is falsifiable even theoretically.

  26. @stickman

    “central banksters”??? Do you mean the Bank of England? Pray tell us what you actually know about these people, who they are and what they do.

    You see I don’t recognise the version of reality you imply. Because I know quite well a friend who spent some years on the Court of the Bank of England and is now a bank director in Australia. And my favourite niece went out for some years with, and stayed in touch with as friends after they both married others, one of the bright young staff who has risen very close to the top. My not-quite-inside view tells me that you are delusional if you are referring to the Bank of England.

  27. @tbraton

    Yes King James’s team (sensibly using liberally a lot of the earlier translations from about 1530 onwards) were in hot competition with an entrepreneur calling himself Will Shakspere (amongst other spellings) to provide us with pithy sayings that can just about resist the cliché tag even after the billionth use.

    I may have been the first avowed atheist to win the Chapel Reading Prize at my school so I know where to source the words of my funeral or memorial service (adding the 1662 version of Cranmer’s 1649 Book of Common Prayer) if the Philistines haven’t taken over.

  28. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:

    The Putin 2012 Presidency has been a self imposed disaster. It was not necessary to lose Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to the EEU and NATO. (Azerbaijan was lost already. NATO was transformed from a paper tiger with nothing modern East of Germany into a reactivated military placing troops into the kind of former Russian colonies Russia might otherwise invade as it has directly or by proxy Moldova, Georgia, Crimea and Donbass. These gains by conquest are tiny compared to the political losses. The Donbass is total poison.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  29. annamaria says:
    @Philip Owen

    “It was not necessary to lose Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to the EEU and NATO.”

    Tell that the to US State Dept that has been working tirelessly (and for the US taxpayers’ significant expense) for creating more color revolutions and regime changes in Eastern Europe. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/is-the-us-preparing-a-color-revolution-in-russia.html

    “NATO was transformed … into a reactivated military…”

    Hard to imagine that any informed and honest analyst could agree with the statement suggesting that NATO’ steady movement towards encircling Russian Federation, a motion which started immediately after a dissolution of the former Empire of Evil, has been anything by offensive one. To get the point, look for other US “defensive” moves in South America, Middle East, and Africa that are all thousands miles away from the Empire of Federal Reserve and which could not – by any flight of imagination – to present any danger to the US homeland.
    Meanwhile, the US is very active in supporting certain well-acknowledged Islamic terrorists with weaponry.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

    http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/02/18/451061/Russia-China-US-NATO-DeBar/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-islamic-terrorists-are-supported-by-the-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia/5396171

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  30. Philip Owen [AKA "soarintothesky"] says:
    @annamaria

    You avoid my point to fight the usual straw men of RT’s invention.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  31. annamaria says:
    @Philip Owen

    “RT’ invention”? Or maybe the facts have a pro-RF bias?

    “Judicial Watch” is an American conservative educational foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

    “The Guardian” is a British national daily newspaper.

    “Consortiumnews.com” was founded in 1995 in the US as the “first investigative news magazine on the Internet.” https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/13/natos-provocative-anti-russian-moves/

    “Washington’s Blog” is, well, in Washington: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/bigger-picture-russia-ukraine-confrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html

    “Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe:
    From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.
    “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS