The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Will the November US Presidential Election Bring the End of the World?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“We have been watching for nearly a month a steady buildup of American and NATO forces along Russia’s borders – on land, on sea and in the air. There has been nothing like this on Russia’s borders, such an amassing of hostile military force, since the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.”

So concludes America’s leading Russian expert, Professor Stephen Cohen (Princeton and New York University).

Professor Cohen asks if Washington is sleepwalking and needs to wake up or whether Washington has gone crazy and intends war.

Pepe Escobar advises Washington to “beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war.”

Escobar reports that recently the Rand Corporation, “essentially a CIA outpost,” concluded that “Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours, if not less.” On the level of nukes and missile systems, Russia is four generations ahead of the US military/security complex, which is mainly interested in inflating profits with cost overruns. US weapons systems are simply outclassed.

Nevertheless, the Russian high command is concerned with the Russian government’s low-key response to Washington’s aggression. The generals blame the “Atlanticists Integrationists” who infect Putin’s government. This faction is believed to be organized around Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and believes Russia should make concessions to Washington in order to be accepted as part of the West. The incompetent Russian central bank and neoliberal economists are part of the faction whose goal is to be part of the West regardless of its impact on Russian independence from Washington’s Empire.

Stephen Cohen and Alastair Crooke, a former British secret agent, almost alone in the West have noticed that the Russian military and predominant part of the government that emphasizes national sovereignty are putting pressure on President Putin to eliminate those in the government who are willing to compromise Russia’s independence in order to gain acceptance by Washington.

This has been my own opinion for some time. It is impossible to adequately stand up to an external threat when unreliable elements are part of the threatened government.

If Putin is forced to remove Washington’s agents from his government, as he must do if Russia is to survive Washington’s plots, he must not let them leave Russia. If they escape, they will end up in Washington to be used as Washington’s Russian government in exile. If Putin doesn’t want to put them on trial for treason, then a form of national house arrest would be a solution.

Alastair Crooke writes that Washington is miscalulating by seeking unipolar hegemony and, thus, is forcing Putin into the camp of the nationalists who value Russia’s sovereignty more than Western acceptance. Washington’s use of NATO in an effort to corner Russia with military buildups on Russia’s land and sea borders is forcing compromise out of Russia’s response to Washington’s aggression.


Regardless of Escobar’s description of Russian military superiority over the West, Russian independence is between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the American neoconservatives’ determination to achieve hegemony over Russia. The hard place is those within the Russian government who are more Western than Russian in their orientation.

If Trump becomes US president, there is some possibility, perhaps, that the neoconservatives will cease to dominate US foreign and military policies. Should this turn out to be the case, the Russian nationalists might ease their pressure on Putin to remove the Atlanticist Integrationists from the government.

If Hillary becomes US president, the neoconservative threat to Russia will escalate. The Atlanticist Integrationists will be eliminated from the Russian government, and Russia will move to full war standing.

Remember what an unprepared Russia did to the German Wehrmacht, at that time the most powerful army ever assembled. Imagine what a prepared Russia would do to the crazed Hillary and the incompetent neoconservatives.

As I have previously written, pushing Russia to war means the demise of the US and Europe and, considering the destructive power of nuclear weapons, most likely of all life on earth.

The main cause of this danger is the arrogance, hubris, and utter stupidity of the American neoconservatives who are ensconced in positions of power and influence and in Hillary’s presidential campaign. A secondary cause is Europe’s vassal status, which deprives Europe of a sensible foreign policy and forces Europe to enable Washington’s aggression.

What this means is that no matter what you think of Trump, if you vote for Hillary you are definitely voting for the end of the world.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Neocons, Russia 
Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is a serious issue. As has been reported elsewhere, the Clintons’ Kosovo effort is now known to have put a corrupt regime of organ snatchers into power while the Clintons are venerated as the founding enablers of this regime. Hillary, as the chief spearhead of the Libya overthrow, a war crime and crime against humanity, should be facing international justice, not being crowned as the new queen of a “Democratic” party which has sunk into a mire of militaristic corruption. Hillary’s role in Honduras is also odious. Meanwhile, advocating a no-fly zone to defend terrorists, is beyond lunacy. If Trump effectively brings out these issues, he should derail the Clinton machine, especially since, in the last 40 years or so, the democratic voters have tended to be the less militaristic element.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  2. “Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours, if not less.”

    That is severely optimistic … the bad roads in the east would slow them down and the Stau and Baustellen on the German Autobahns would stop them dead.

    “Remember what an unprepared Russia did to the German Wehrmacht, at that time the most powerful army ever assembled. “

    Just to be technically correct, the unprepared Soviet Army gave up lots of ground and troops while they fell back to regroup.

  3. “…if you vote for Hillary, you are definitely voting for the end of the world.”

    Please consider an alternative position on this issue. If there were a global thermonuclear war, enough cities, people, and materiel would be destroyed that global warming (which is a certain path to the end of the world) may be checked for a couple of generations. This may give time for the forests to grow back, some of the CO2 to be reabsorbed, the fossil fuels to be left in the ground where they can’t do any harm.

    The coral reefs (breeding grounds for many fish species) would be allowed to just hang on by their fingernails as ocean acidification halted.

    The only thing that can save this planet is the total destruction of industrial civilization. A nuclear war with Russia may in fact be the Hand of God manifesting itself in its mysterious way. This is a very outrageous view, is it not, Mr. Roberts?

    I welcome the outrageous objections of the League of Opinionated Non-scientists, so well represented on this website.

    • Replies: @Ed
    , @dc.sunsets
  4. Marcus says:

    considering the destructive power of nuclear weapons, most likely of all life on earth.

    No, communist sympathizers Sagan et al grossly exaggerated the nuclear winter

  5. woodNfish says:

    This is where I have a problem with Paul Roberts who seems to think every bit of Russian propaganda is true, but thinks just the opposite of ours. His two links in the post as sources are Russian propagandists, so nothing they write has any value. It is just posturing.

    Personally, I think Roberts just writes some of this crap as clickbait because he is getting paid by the click. It pretty much destroys his credibility as an objective observer too. Welcome to Paul Roberts independent LSM hack.

    You can join Unz in the liars penalty box, Roberts.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  6. woodNfish says:
    @exiled off mainstreet

    … especially since, in the last 40 years or so, the democratic voters have tended to be the less militaristic element.


  7. Ed says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    I thought of the argument not Eustace Tilley, but thought it better not to post it. Given a) how many global warming deniers hang out here, b) we really don’t know how bad the ecological crisis will get, c) there is always a danger of nuclear war but again no telling how close we really are (though this article and Giraldi’s are alarming) and d) though its perfectly logical, there is something monstrous about wanting or even noting that massive amounts of deaths will prevent even more massive amounts of deaths, I thought it better to not raise the point.

    However, there is a related issue that is worth considering. Elites in the West go to conferences discussing climate change all the time. And if you keep pace with the research, the gist really is that the damage may get to the point that humans won’t be able to exist in the transformed environment. Regardless of whether this is correct, if you really believe this, you will be willing to take more risks in something like starting World War III. What would it matter if there will be mass deaths anyway as the environment deteriorates?

  8. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There are few certainties in life, but one is that nobody cares what woodNfish thinks.

  9. woodNfish says:

    Apparently you care enough to make a stupid reply.

  10. I don’t know who the decision makers are in the Anglo/Zio Empire but I doubt their number includes the President. The American President is an overseer. Given the record it is clear that said decision makers are psychopathic killers. So yes. If current anonymous psychos remain in control nuclear war seem quite possible. Could a person who is not owned (maybe Trump) be elected President and drive the lunatics from power? I doubt it. Wouldn’t they simply kill him?

  11. @Eustace Tilley (not)

    I’m glad Eustace knows the outcome of an unlimited nuclear war; it’s critical that those who are so scientifically knowledgeable about the entire planet, its atmosphere, oceans, responses to solar energy impacts like cloud formation and such are able to put my mind at ease.

    Thank heaven that prior such experts have such a reliable history such that we can all just kiss their feet and place our lives in their hands.

    Ending my sarcasm, I sincerely recognize that if not for the anonymity of these forums, such self-assured loudmouths would likely be beaten into a coma.

  12. WW 1 occurred because of stupid alliances coupled with cascades of stupid decisions leading to a conflagration no sane person intended.

    No doubt WW 3 will follow the same path, but result in billions of deaths.

    Anyone who speaks approvingly of such things is a misanthropic psychopath and thus suffers a serious shortage of Pb, to be administered with a rapidly moving “pill” about the size of a Vicodin.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS