Indications that the
U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia
See also: http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine3.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine4.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine5.htm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/26/new-york-times-supporting-us-imperial-lawlessness/
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine2.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine7.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine6.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine8.htm
June 13, 2014
by WashingtonsBlog Preface
by WashingtonÕs Blog: Daniel Estulin is saying
the same thing. By Eric
Zuesse: On Wednesday, June 11th, CNN headlined ÒU.S. Sends B-2 Stealth Bombers to Europe,Ó and
reported that Òthey arrived in Europe this week for
training.Ó Wikipedia notes that B-2s were Òoriginally
designed primarily as a nuclear bomber,Ó and that ÒThe B-2 is the only aircraft
that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a
stealth configuration.Ó In
other words, the primary advantage of the newer, ÒStealth,Ó version of B-2, is
its first-strike (or surprise-attack) nuclear capability. ThatÕs the upgrade:
the weaponÕs ability to sneak upon the target-country and destroy it before it
has a chance to fire off any of its own nuclear weapons in response to that
Òfirst-strikeÓ attack. The advantage of Stealth is creating and stationing a nuclear arsenal for the
purpose of winning a nuclear war, instead of for the goal of having continued
peace via ÒMutually Assured Destruction,Ó or MAD.
Some historical background is necessary
here, so that a reader can understand why this is happening — the switch
to an objective of actually winning a nuclear war (as opposed to deterring
one). One cannot understand whatÕs happening now in Ukraine without knowing
this bigger picture. (This account
is written under the assumption that the reader already knows some of the
allegations it contains, but not all of them, and that the reader will click on
the link wherever a given allegation requires documentation and support.)
I have previously reported about ÒHow and Why the U.S. Has Re-Started the Cold War
(The Backstory that Precipitated UkraineÕs Civil
War),Ó and, ÒDo We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?Ó I
pointed out there that we donÕt really need to re-start the Cold War, at all,
since communism (against which the Cold War was, at least allegedly, fought)
clearly lost to capitalism (we actually won the Cold War, and peacefully) but
that AmericaÕs aristocracy very much does need to re-start a war with Russia
— and why it does. (It has to do with maintaining the dollar as the worldÕs reserve
currency, something that benefits AmericaÕs aristocrats enormously.)
Consequently, for example, a recent CNN Poll has found that
AmericansÕ fear of Russia has soared within just the past two years. Our news
media present a type of news ÒreportingÓ that places RussiaÕs leader, Vladimir
Putin, into a very bad light, even when itÕs unjustified by the facts. The situation now is thus
rather similar to that right before World
War I, when the aristocracy in America decided that a pretext had to
be created for our going to war against Germany. That War had already started
in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep the U.S. out of
it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P. Morgan and Company. This
was documented in detail in an important 1985 book, Britain, America and the
Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well summarized in Business History Review, by noting that:
ÒJ.P. Morgan & Co. served as BritainÕs financial and purchasing agent, and
the author makes especially good use of the Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in
London to probe that relationship. Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to
pay for North American imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely
central to Anglo-American relations. How to manage those politics became the
chief preoccupation of Her MajestyÕs representatives in the United States,Ó and
most especially of BritainÕs financial and purchasing agent in the U.S.
In 1917, after almost two years of heavy
anti-German propaganda in the U.S. press that built an overwhelming public
support for our joining that war against Germany, Congress found that, in March
1915, ÒJ.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of AmericaÕs
leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the
mediaÓ so that weÕd join the war on EnglandÕs side. Whereas
back then, it was GermanyÕs leader who was being goaded into providing a
pretext for us to declare war against his country, this time itÕs RussiaÕs
leader (Putin) who is being demonized and goaded into providing such a pretext,
though Putin (unlike GermanyÕs Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing
the pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion of
Ukraine). Consequently, ObamaÕs people are stepping up the pressure upon Putin by
bombing
the areas of neighboring Ukraine where Russian speakers live, who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just
a few more weeks of this, and PutinÕs public support inside Russia could
palpably erode if Putin simply lets the slaughter proceed without his sending
troops in to defend them and to fight back against KievÕs (WashingtonÕs
surrogateÕs) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama has
been warning about.
I also have reported on ÒWhy UkraineÕs Civil War Is of Global
Historical Importance.Ó The article argued that ÒThis
civil war is of massive historical importance, because it re-starts the
global Cold War, this time no longer under the fig-leaf
rationalization of an ideological battle between ÔcapitalismÕ versus
Ôcommunism,Õ but instead more raw, as a struggle between, on the one hand,
the U.S. and West European aristocracies; and, on the other hand, the
newly emerging aristocracies of Russia and of China.Ó The conflictÕs
origin, as recounted there, was told in its highest detail in an article in the scholarly
journal Diplomatic History, about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in
1990 fooled the Soviet UnionÕs leader Mikhail Gorbachev into GorbachevÕs
allowing the Cold War to be ended without any assurance being given to the
remaining rump country, his own Russia, that NATO and its missiles and bombers
wonÕt expand right up to RussiaÕs doorstep and surround Russia with a
first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a chance to
get its own nuclear weapons into the air in order to destroy the U.S. right
back in retaliation. That old
system — ÒMutually Assured DestructionÓ or MAD, but actually very
rational from the publicÕs perspective on both sides — is gone. The U.S.
increasingly is getting nuclear primacy. Russia, surrounded
by NATO nations and U.S. nuclear weapons,
would be able to be wiped out before its rusty and comparatively
puny military force could be mustered to respond. Whereas we are not surrounded by their weapons, they are surrounded by ours. Whereas they
donÕt have the ability to wipe us out before we can respond, we have the
ability to wipe them out before theyÕll be able to respond. This is the reason
why AmericaÕs aristocracy argue that MAD is dead. An article, ÒEnvironmental Consequences of Nuclear WarÓ was
published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, Òthe
indirect effects ['nuclear winter'] would likely eliminate the majority of the
human population.Ó (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected
harms from global warming.) However, aristocrats separate themselves from the
public, and so their perspective is not necessarily the same as the publicÕs. The perspective that J.P. Morgan and Co. had in
1915 wasnÕt the perspective that the U.S. public had back then, and it also
wasnÕt the perspective that our President, Woodrow Wilson, did back then, when
we were a democracy. But itÕs even less clear today that we are a democracy
than it was in 1915. In that regard, things have only gotten worse in
America. So, President Obama is
now trying to persuade EU leaders to join with him to complete this plan to
replace MAD with a first-strike nuclear capability that will eliminate Russia
altogether from the world stage.
As I also documented, the IMF is
thoroughly supportive of this plan to remove Russia, and announced on May 1st,
just a day prior to our massacre of independence-supporters in the
south Ukrainian city of Odessa on May 2nd, that unless all of the
independence supporters in south and eastern Ukraine can be
defeated and/or killed, the IMF will pull the plug on Ukraine and force it
into receivership.
Obama clearly means business here,
and so the government that we have installed in Kiev
is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine, in
order to convince the residents there that resistance will be futile. Part of
the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the losses of all of
UkraineÕs unpaid debts to Russia, so that far less of UkraineÕs unpaid debts to
the IMF, U.S. and E.U., will remain unpaid. ItÕs basically an international
bankruptcy proceeding, but without an international bankruptcy court, using
instead military means. ItÕs like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment,
and the one with the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is
the reason why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down
the rebellion in UkraineÕs southeast. WhatÕs important to the IMF is
not land, itÕs the Kiev governmentÕs continued control
over the assets in the rebelling part of Ukraine — assets that will be
worth something in a privatization or sell-off to repay that debt. However, for
Obama, what is even more important than repaid debts is the continued dominance
of the U.S. dollar. Wall Street needs that. Among other indications that the U.S. is now preparing a
nuclear attack against Russia is an article on May 23rd, ÒU.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO
Interceptor System,Ó and also a June 10th report from a website with good
sources in Russian intelligence, which alleges that Ukrainian President Petro ÒPoroshenko secretly met with É [an]
American delegation headed by the Director of É the CIAÕs
National Clandestine Service, Frank Archibald, which also
included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current
– Raymond Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA agent in
the Polish intelligence Agency, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who is working as senior Vice President of
the insurance company Brower. Poroshenko and
Archibald signed a paper entitled an ÔAgreement on Military
Cooperation between the U.S. and UkraineÕÓ
Furthermore, barely a month before the CIA and State Department overthrew the previous,
the pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych,
the government of Netherlands decided, after 18 years of Òdithering,Ó to allow the U.S. to arm
our F-35 bombers there with nuclear weapons. And this was already after
HollandÕs ÒParliament in November signed off on
a government plan to purchase 37 F-35As to replace the Dutch air
forceÕs aging fleet of nuclear-capable F-16s. The Netherlands is
widely understood to host about two dozen U.S. B-61 gravity bombs at the Volkel air base, as part of NATOÕs policy of
nuclear burden-sharing.Ó
Moreover, Obama isnÕt only beefing up
our first-strike nuclear capability, but is also building something new,
called ÒPrompt Global Strike,Ó to
supplement that nuclear force, by means of Òa precision
conventional weapon strikeÓ that, if launched against Russia from
next-door Ukraine, could wipe out RussiaÕs nuclear weapons within just a minute
or so. That might be a fallback position, for Obama, in case the EUÕs leaders
(other than Netherlands and perhaps one or two others) might happen to decide
that they wonÕt participate in our planned nuclear invasion of Russia.
Certainly, Obama means business here, but the big question
is whether heÕll be able to get the leaders of other ÒdemocraticÓ nations to go
along with his first-strike plan.
The two likeliest
things that can stop him, at this stage, would be either NATOÕs breaking up, or
else PutinÕs deciding to take a political beating among his own public for
simply not responding to our increasing provocations. Perhaps Putin will decide that a temporary embarrassment for
him at home (for being ÒwimpyÓ) will be better, even for just himself, than the
annihilation of his entire country would be. And maybe, if Obama pushes his
indubitable Superpower card too hard, heÕll be even more embarrassed by this
conflict than Putin will be. After all, things like this and this arenÕt going to burnish ObamaÕs
reputation in the history books, if he cares about that. But maybe heÕs
satisfied to be considered to have been George W. Bush II, just a far better-spoken version: a more charming liar than the
original. However, if things come to a nuclear invasion, even a U.S. ÒvictoryÓ
wonÕt do much more for ObamaÕs reputation than BushÕs ÒvictoryÓ in Iraq did for
his. In fact, perhaps Americans will then come to feel that George W. Bush
wasnÕt AmericaÕs worst President, after all. Maybe the second half of the
Bush-Obama Presidency will be even worse than the first. Investigative historian
Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of TheyÕre Not
Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,
and of CHRISTÕS VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created
Christianity.