the ÔNew Cold WarÕ March 9, 2015
by Eric Zuesse.
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine2.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine3.htm Shows gas pipeline through Ukraine
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine4.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine5.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine6.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine7.htm Shows the oil field
politics behind the issues.
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine8.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine9.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine10.htm http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine11.htm
Series continues to http://worldtraining.net/Ukraine20.htm
This will be history, replacing myth. So: if at the start it might seem unbelievable, I request the
reader — please click onto the sources; and, as you read them, you will
(if you have been getting your ÔnewsÕ from the popular mainstream and
ÔalternativeÕ ÔnewsÕ sources) experience the replacement of myth by actual
history. The world in our time will come directly alive via the most-reliable
sources that exist; and it clearly contradicts, it disproves, the widespread
myth that has been projected from the Ônews.Õ
To start with: the Ônew Cold War,Õ
against Russia, is something of a misnomer, because it differs from the
original version, against the U.S.S.R., in that itÕs already a hot war, which
started in Ukraine as being the key proxy-state for the American GovernmentÕs
chief foreign-policy aim, of defeating Russia; and itÕs a war that is very
bloody, and widely lied-about in both the U.S. and Europe, but that is
discussed in Russia as if it were somehow the result of mere errors by Western
powers, when in fact all of the Western leaders knew from the get-go that this
was intended to be a lynching of Russia by Uncle Sam, and when the EU have been
going along with this aim because the U.S. aristocracy supposedly have the
interests of European aristocrats in mind and not only their own: itÕs Ôthe
Western Alliance,Õ after all.
But itÕs not Ôthe Western Alliance,Õ
really. ItÕs instead a gangland war by aristocrats on the global stage, and
itÕs threatening to become the hottest war that ever was. Regarding the knowledge by top EU
officials that this conflict is based on a set-up job and not a development of
democracy in Ukraine, the essential documentation is this.
ItÕs an annotated transcript I did of the 26 February 2014 conversation
between two top EU officials when one of them, Catherine Ashton, the EUÕs
Foreign Affairs chief, heard by phone from her investigator in Kiev, Urmas
Paet, that he had discovered that even Petro Poroshenko, who supported the
public demonstrations against UkraineÕs President Viktor Yanukovych, knew that
the snipers whose slaughter of people doing the demonstrating there came not
from YanukovychÕs side but from Òsomeone from the new coalitionÓ — in
other words: from the Ôpro-WesternÕ side, the side that favored the EU and
United States against Russia, and not from the side that favored the Yanukovych
Government. (To clarify here: It was Òthe Yanukovych Government,Ó and not Õthe
Yanukovych regime,Õ because it had been fairly and freely elected by all
regions of the entire Ukrainian public in 2010 and because YanukovychÕs term
was not yet up; Yanukovych was still UkraineÕs democratic President, still the
legal Government in the most fundamental democratic sense; and its overthrow by
Òsomeone from the new coalitionÓ was blatantly
illegal. So, it wasnÕt Õthe Yanukovych regime,Õ which many people in
the West call it. And Õthe WestÕ didnÕt install democracy in Ukraine; they
ended it, by this coup.)
Furthermore, in the other key
documentary source on this overthrow, which is the phone-conversation between U.S.
President Barack ObamaÕs two chief operatives who arranged the overthrow, a
conversation that occurred 18 days before the overthrow, Victoria Nuland
instructed Geoffrey Pyatt to have Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed to lead the
junta-regime that would become installed when the coup was completed. Everyone
should hear that conversation; it is massively important, in a historical
sense, especially because it proves that this was a coup and not anything of a
democratic nature — it proves that Western goverments and press have been
lying through their rotten teeth about this being some sort of victory for
Ôdemocracy,Õ when in fact it was the exact opposite of that.
Anyone who hears those two
phone-conversations will know that the press has been lying rabidly about this
entire matter. The brazenness with which Western ÔnewsÕ people and think-tank
operatives and government officials lie about this is shocking, because it
proves that democracy in the West is all but ended, already. This is even worse
than the lies leading up to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, because this can lead
to a nuclear war between the superpowers. There can be no democracy when the
public is so pervasively lied-to by the thugs who are in the positions of power
and influence, and who do things like that, but this is the situation.
The documentation on the matter is by
now well beyond conclusive. For example, recently came to light a Ukrainian
parliamentarian speaking the day before wikipedia says that the ÒMaidanÓ
demonstrations against Yanukovych even started, in which speech he described
in detail the U.S. EmbassyÕs already months-long operation for a coup. And a
reader-comment there, from a terrific researcher Òian56,Ó pointed out and
linked to loads of terrific background to that parliamentrianÕs speech, such as
this note
from AmericaÕs Embassy in Kiev back on 1 March 2013, and this detailed
backgrounder from Steve Weissman providing an even fuller picture of
the conspiracy. The U.S. Government was carrying out an international criminal
conspiracy to destroy a fragile but functioning democracy, yet keeps lying
about it, and pretends it was all done in order to Òbuild democratic skills and institutionsÓ there.
They just keep playing the public for suckers. They rape the publicÕs mind.
And this is also why the
ethnic-cleansing operation to get rid of
the residents in
the region of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych is kept
silent by those thugs. If the residents in that area (ÒDonbassÓ)
were to survive and vote in future Ukrainian national elections, then the
existing coup-regime in Ukraine would be bounced out of office; thatÕs why
Obama wants these people eliminated. And even the coup itself was violent and very bloody
— the slaughtering didnÕt start with the mass-extermination program
(called by the American side the ÔAnti Terrorist OperationÕ or ÔATOÕ) in
Donbass.
So: what is the source of this
already-hot war?
Strategically, I have earlier dealt with that in several articles,
especially here
and here;
but, basically, President Obama (at least publicly) agrees with this
viewpoint which his friend presented to Congress — the view
that Russia must be defeated — he supports it because the U.S.
aristocracy want to control the whole world. (Some of ObamaÕs own words on that
will be following here shortly.) ThatÕs it in a nutshell: Obama represents the
U.S. aristocracy, not the U.S. public. And so do almost all
members of the U.S. Congress. Like I said before: democracy has
ended in the United Sates — this is a dictatorship. (I have a book coming
out soon which will explain how and why that happened; its title will be
Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism, and Economics.)
However, historically, the origin of
this war can be seen in the following sources: The great investigative historian and journalist
George Eliason, an American who lives in Donbass, the former UkraineÕs
war-zone, has written extensively about the background of this conflict,
especially in two articles, one being ÒThe Nazis
Even Hitler Was Afraid Of,Ó and the other being ÒWhy Bandera
Have the Largest Geo-Political Voice in EU.Ó Especially the
latter one is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the warÕs
background.
However, an important thing thatÕs left
out of the second of those two articles is that even as early as the 1960s,
both in the British Parliament and in the U.S. Congress, conservatives were
pushing this very same basic idea, which now is being pushed so hard by Obama,
and by todayÕs Republican Party (as well as by Hillary Clinton and other
leaders of the Clintonite, or anti-FDR, post-Reagan, Democratic Party), that
what Ôthe WestÕ was fighting against during the Cold War wasnÕt just communism,
but was, even more importantly, Russia itself, as being something thatÕs
instrinsically dangerous, irrespective of communism.
Here, then, is a speech by a Republican in
the U.S. House, on 18 February 1969, saying that our enemy is Russia, not at
all Marxism. And here
is a speech by a Conservative in the British House of Commons, on 31 July 1961,
saying the same thing, though more briefly.
Both speeches cite an alleged article by
Karl Marx in which Marx allegedly said that ÒRussiaÕs policy is unchangeable.
RussiaÕs methods, tactics and maneuvers may change but the lodestar of Russian
policy—world domination—is a fixed star.Ó
This alleged Marx-article was cited by
both men, admiring Marx (the founder of communism, which both men allegedly
opposed) as the Republican said: ÒKarl MarxÕs reports are an excellent
survey of RussiaÕs policy during fifty years before the Crimean War
and of the traditional political maxims of the Russian Empire
which go back a long way in history. It is a historically valid political
expose which does credit to his sharp, analytical powers and to his gift
or interpretation.Ó (Those Ôsharp, analytical powersÕ led to a
labor-theory-of-value and other false assumptions that collapsed communist
economies.) Their saying
this, during a time when the U.S. public thought that what we were against in
the Cold War was the ideology communism, and not an ethnicity of Russians (or
of anyone else), should be understood within the context of EliasonÕs ÒWhy Bandera
Have the Largest Geo-Political Voice in EU.Ó Eliason explained
it there.
Essentially, what the conservatives are
saying is that the only final solution to Ôthe Russian problemÕ is to
exterminate them. They donÕt come right out and say it, but thatÕs their
underlying position. (As I just noted, they were even willing to cite Marx to
support it.) The CIA nurtured this
bigotry, for decades. Here
is a lengthy BBC documentary on it. And here is a short, and more
up-to-date Russian TV documentary on it. Of course, the U.S. Government and the
American-aristocracy-controlled media donÕt produce such documentaries; this
type of information is severely suppressed in the U.S.
This CIA operation is the view that has
now taken over in Washington and controls the U.S. Government. (Eliason has
pretty well explained that, too.) Europe will need to go with either the U.S. or Russia,
because the U.S. has now laid down the gauntlet, regarding Ukraine.
Barack Obama, in his
National Security Strategy 2015 uses the word ÒaggressionÓ 18 times, and 17 of
them are referring to Russia. In point of fact, he concentrates even
more on Russia as the enemy than on jihadist Islamists as the #1 enemy. What
Mitt Romney said in public (that ÒRussia is AmericaÕs Ônumber one geopolitical
foe,ÕÓ as Fox Noise
summarized it and Obama still publicly says he disagrees with, even
though his actions
prove otherwise) he believes in practice,
if not in private. (He knows that polls show Americans are far more concerned
about jihadist Islam than about Russia; Obama is a gifted
and proven liar,
and he does read the polls and modulate his rhetoric accordingly.)
He also has said
this about the nation that he leads: ÒThe United States is and remains the one
indispensable nation. [So: all other nations are Ôdispensable.Õ] That has been
true for the century passed [he misspelled ÔpastÕ] and it will be true for the
century to come.Ó And he didnÕt mince words about what the enemies of Ôthe one
indispensable nationÕ are: ÒRussiaÕs aggression toward former Soviet states
unnerves capitals in Europe, while ChinaÕs economic rise and military reach
worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with
us.Ó He was saying this, about Òcompetition,Ó to military men, whose
ÒcompetitorsÓ are dealt with by bombs instead of by lowered prices. Obama
(perhaps he should be renamed ÒOÕBombaÓ) knew what he was doing: identifying as
ÔenemiesÕ the foreign aristocracies that seek to compete (economically, not
militarily) against AmericaÕs aristocracy. For Obama to have raised
economic-competitive issues in his address at West Point was despicable, but it
shows where his heart is at — itÕs with the American aristocracy, the
only segment of the population whose incomes and wealth are rising during his
Presidency (the first time thatÕs happened in U.S. history after an economic
crash: normally, economic inequality goes down after a crash).
And, now, Obama is committed to the view
that Russia is seeking to control the world — even though he insists that
only his nation, America, is Ôthe one indispensable nation.Õ Which nation,
then, is actually seeking to control the world? Should any nation? (ThatÕs the
basic difference he has with RussiaÕs Vladimir Putin, who answers a resounding
ÒnoÓ to that question.) This is
the origin of Òthe Ônew Cold WarÕ,Ó which is really a new hot version of the
old conservative war against Russia — a war conservatives have been
hankering for, during decades, for it to become hot, and which it now is.
The closer the EU gets to this war
— meaning the hotter that it becomes — the more they seem to be
finding it too hot for to handle. Maybe theyÕll abandon
Obama, the U.S. Congress, and the aristocracy that AmericaÕs Government
represents. Maybe NATO will be left with just the U.S. and a few fanatical
racist anti-Russian European nations (Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Croatia). (And, throw in
Israel if Rupert Murdoch gets his way.) But AmericaÕs Republicans,
BritainÕs Tories, and other conservative Western parties (and virtually all
concerned aristocrats)
in the West will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent that shrinkage or elimination
of NATO from happening: they are, indeed, demanding the
conquest of Russia. ThatÕs ObamaÕs basic position, too. But if
Germany, France, and a few other countries, abandon NATO — which should
have been disbanded when communism and the U.S.S.R. ended — then the U.S.
aristocracy might cease their demand, and maybe an all-out nuclear war can be
avoided. The very idea of surrounding Russia with NATO nations (already 12
former Warsaw Pact members) as Ôthe WestÕ is doing, is so evil it constitutes,
alone, reason to consider NATO in the post-Soviet era to be ipso-facto or
automatically a criminal enterprise, an outrage against the worldÕs future
— not an organization for international security (such as it pretends)
but instead an enormous and criminal agency promoting global insecurity.
ItÕs things like this that led to World
War I. But this would be WW III — and almost inevitably nuclear. And
there is no justification for it, whatsoever. The origin of the Ônew Cold WarÕ is a decades-long
international criminal operation.
Anyone who doesnÕt think that the United States is so corrupt should
just dig a little deeper: things like this
are now routine in America. Are we finally ÒcompetingÓ with Ukraine? Obama is throwing stones from a
glass house. He could destroy the whole thing. And Republicans are egging him
on to do that.
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.