Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...



Recommended Posts

 PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

Can We Trust Russophobes with Our Foreign Policy?

Posted By pcr3 On January 20, 2022 @ 7:02 am In Articles & Columns | Comments Disabled

Can We Trust Russophobes with Our Foreign Policy?

Paul Craig Roberts

Biden on TV January 19 Threatening Russia with Disastrous Consequences and Being Held Accountable if She Invades Ukraine raises the question why Washington wasn’t held accountable when Washington invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and overthrew Ukraine with a color revolution? It is Washington that has invaded Ukraine, not Russia.

How come it is only Russia who is yet to invade anyone who is to be held accountable?

And how is Biden going to hold Russia accountable and deliver disastrous consequences to Russia?

Washington could not defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban, or the Viet Cong, or a third world Chinese army 70 years ago in Korea. No one thinks Washington can defeat a Russian army. If the highly disciplined and motivated Wehrmacht that had the advantage of surprise couldn’t do it, no country can do it.

Note that no member of the presstitute media asked Biden why he has chosen NOT to defuse the situation by accommodating Russia’s security need. Why has Washington decided NOT to give peace a chance? This is the question of our time, and it is not asked.

Such pertinent questions do not occur to Americans, because they are indoctrinated to see Russia as the enemy. It is a holdover from the 20th century Cold War. Americans are accustomed to regarding Russia as the enemy.

Consequently, Americans do not see the danger in a situation in which America’s chief foreign policy officials, such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, are Russophobes bubbling over with hatred of Russia. When the people entrusted with critical negotiations with the other side have emotional hatred of the other side, there is no balance. Emotion wins over reason, and the chance for accommodation is lost.

As a former member of the Cold War “Committee on the Present Danger,” I can say that the members of the committee were anti-Soviet. But everyone of us understood that if we permitted emotion to prevail over reason, the situation would become unmanageable. The stakes–nuclear war–were too high. The challenge was to wind down the threat, not to escalate it.

After the Soviet collapse the neoconservatives took over US foreign policy, demolished all the arms control and other agreements hammered out over the Cold War years and have been at work escalating the tensions with Russia since the Clinton regime broke the promise of the US government not to move NATO to Russia’s border.

Russia has been patient with Washington while her strength grew. Today Russia is a preeminent military power backed by another preeminent power, China, and Washington carries on in delusions of omnipotence.

This is a formula for catastrophe.

The situation can be defused extremely easily. Russia is not asking for anything but a sense of security. They have made it completely clear that they will no longer tolerate the sense of insecurity in which they exist. They are not demanding that Washington turn over Ukraine, or Eastern Europe, or Western Europe to them. They have simply said, “Get off our doorstep.” It is an easy demand with which to agree. President John F. Kennedy saw the necessity of this step many decades ago.

The fact that Washington politics together with neoconservative blind hatred of Russia has prevented this necessary step from being taken leaves open a range of possible miscalculations that could result in the death of life on earth.

The profits and power of the US military/security complex are not worth this risk.

Share this page
Copyright © 2020 PaulCraigRoberts.org. All rights reserved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

The Insanity of the West Accelerates

Posted By pcr3 On January 24, 2022 @ 7:32 am In Articles & Columns | Comments Disabled

The Insanity of the West Accelerates

Paul Craig Roberts

The New York Times reports that Biden is going to forestall Russian aggression against Ukraine by deploying between 1,000 and 5,000 US troops on Russia’s border and is prepared to increase the number of troops tenfold to 10,000 to 50,000 soldiers. A Russian army would eat this small number for a snack in 5 minutes. Clearly the purpose of the deployment is not military. The purpose is to heighten the “Russian threat” in the minds of the people in advance of a false flag event that will be blamed on the Kremlin.

If Biden wants to deter Russia all he needs to do is to give Russia the security guarantee she says she needs. Why does Biden want Russia to be insecure?

The cause of the problem is obvious. In 2014 the US in an attempt to deprive Russia of her Black Sea naval base overthrew a Russian-friendly and democratically elected Ukrainian government and installed a neo-Nazi regime that began war against the Russian inhabitants of the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine, formerly parts of Russia that had been transferred during the Soviet era into the the Soviet Union’s Ukrainian province.

To stabilize the situation, Russia hammered out the Minsk Agreement but neither Ukraine nor the Western signatories kept the agreement.

Russia does not want the broke and troublesome Ukraine. Russia just wants Ukraine not to become a place for US missile bases.

It is a simple demand easy to accept in the interest of peace.

But peace is unprofitable and is the last thing the US military/security complex wants. Therefore Washington is responding to the Russian/US/NATO security talks by deploying troops on Russia’s borders. The stupid British are stirring the pot of “Russian aggression” by withdrawing the embassy staff from Kiev. https://www.rt.com/russia/546916-uk-begins-evacuation-diplomats/ [1]
We have been hearing from US/NATO about the “growing Russian threat” for a long time. What happens to credibility that is already damaged if there is no Russian invasion? It seems that Washington and its NATO puppets are so far out on the limb that they simply must provoke a Russian invasion.

The Russians are waiting in vain for Washington’s written response to their proposal for mutual security. Washington has answered with more accusations, more provocations.

Is the Kremlin having difficulty understanding: (1) that Trump was removed from office because he said he wanted to normalize relations with Russia, (2) that Russia is the necessary enemy for the power and profit of the US military/security complex, and (3) Russia is regarded as the obstacle to US hegemony? How can it be that in the face of all evidence to the contrary the Kremlin has the delusion that Washington is interested in Russians feeling secure.

While the Kremlin wastes time, weapons pour into Ukraine and the Western media prepare their people for “Russian aggression.” Russian protests of intentions attributed to her are pointless. The Western media knows the required narrative and is not interested in any facts.

The question really is whether Russia can accept that she has an enemy.

Copyright © 2020 PaulCraigRoberts.org. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chronicles Magazine of American Culture

Blog January 24, 2022
U.S-Russia Tensions May Abate After Geneva Meeting
By Srdja Trifkovic


Amid the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, multiple U.S. and defense officials have told the press that the Biden administration is in the final stages of selecting military units for deployment to Eastern Europe. The U.S. accuses Russia of planning to invade Ukraine, despite threats of heavy reprisals, while Moscow insists on guarantees that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO.

But despite this bellicose development, reading between the lines of the Jan. 21 meeting between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva, Switzerland, suggests that there will be no war.

From the outset Lavrov said he did not expect “a breakthrough,” while for his part Blinken pledged a “united, rapid and severe” response if an invasion does take place. Moscow is also calling for the withdrawal of foreign NATO troops and nuclear missiles from former Warsaw Pact member-states. The U.S. will present a formal written response to those demands next week, but it is unlikely to accept them.

The two sides have agreed, however, to continue the talks after Washington’s response is delivered. This is an encouraging development since no further high-level meetings had been on the agenda before the meeting in Geneva. Blinken suggested the creation of a framework for deescalation, while Lavrov did not exclude the possibility of a summit meeting between presidents Biden and Putin, albeit after thorough preparation.

There was another potentially positive development. After the talks Blinken said that he also discussed Iran with Mr. Lavrov, warning there was only a brief window to bring talks to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal to a successful conclusion. Interestingly, he added that the deal was an example of how Moscow and Washington can work together on security issues and urged Russia to use its influence and relationship with Iran to impress upon Tehran the sense of urgency. It is not common in diplomatic talks between intransigent adversaries to suggest some areas of joint action on security issues which fall outside the main focus of the talks.

The possibility of a softer line from Washington was also apparent in President Biden’s remarkable statement during the long press conference on Jan. 19. He had predicted Russia would move against Ukraine, but suggested there was a split within NATO on how to respond if Moscow took action that stopped short of an all-out invasion.

“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion,” Biden said, “and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.” Of course, he was only stating the obvious, but his frankness was stunning. The White House spent the following two days trying to clear up this remark, insisting that there was no change in its resolve to deter Russia and keep the Alliance united.

There is no monolithic Western front against Putin, however. Speaking in Strasbourg also on Jan. 19, French President Emmanuel Macron called on the European Union to quickly draw up a new security plan containing proposals to help ease tensions with Russia. The EU must in coming weeks “complete a European proposal building a new security and stability order,” Macron said. “We should build it among Europeans, then share it with our allies in the framework of NATO, and then propose it for negotiation to Russia.” The French leader pitched his initiative as “a vital need for Europe to affirm its sovereignty.”

Students of modern European history will easily detect in Macron’s words an echo of his larger-than-life predecessor at the Élysée Palace, Charles De Gaulle, who stated at the height of the Cold War in 1959 that “it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals . . . which will decide the fate of the world.” De Gaulle never doubted that the Russians were Europeans and considered them to be Western, since he considered Europe to be the true West. He always spoke of “Russia” and not the Soviet Union, viewing regimes as temporary, but nations as permanent. He also withdrew France from the military structure of NATO in 1966.

There are several EU member states which are likely to welcome Macron’s initiative, including Hungary, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, and Spain, but France needs to take resolute unilateral action to make the European voice more clearly articulated. Relying on the clumsy, slow EU machinery in Brussels to do so would lead nowhere, not least because assorted leftist Russophobes like German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock would sabotage any such attempt. Macron can and should say that he opposes Ukraine’s bid to join NATO both because it would deeply destabilize the whole of Europe and because it would lastingly demolish the vision—still possible—of the Old Continent, safe and stable from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Macron’s call for a distinct European position, coupled with Biden’s possibly unintended admission of Western disunity, may at last prompt Blinken and other policymakers at the Department of State and the White House—not to mention the Republican hawks on the Hill—to step back from the brink of further escalation. In Geneva on Jan. 21, we saw at least a hint that this may happen. It would reduce the danger of a catastrophic war over a piece of Eastern Europe which does not have the slightest bearing on the security and well-being of the American people.


Srdja Trifkovic

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad.

U.S-Russia Tensions May Abate After Geneva Meeting | Chronicles (chroniclesmagazine.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual Takeout
International January 24, 2022
It’s Irrational to Send Our Sons to War With Ukraine
By Jeff Minick  3 ½ min

“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong,” Muhammad Ali famously said when asked about his opposition to the draft and the Vietnam War.           

Well, I ain’t got no quarrel with them Russians either.           

We seem to be inching closer and closer to a war with Russia over Ukraine. No one in our government offers much of an explanation as to why we should do battle with Putin and his military over a country that many Americans couldn’t find on a map, much less care a rap about. The extent of our government’s rationale to fight yet another war thousands of miles from home and on the Russian doorstep seems to be nothing other than “Putin Bad.”           

Some commentators believe that the Biden administration may be desperately looking for a casus belli—or a situation to justify war—to distract Americans from Biden’s track record. In one year, Biden’s administration has done tremendous damage to this country and is now looking for any excuse to shift voter attention away from disasters ranging from Afghanistan to inflation to COVID policies to our own southern border crisis, and the list goes on.           

Here’s the thing: I don’t want American soldiers coming home in body bags … as distractions. I also don’t want our military, where morale and fighting spirit seem dampened these days, fighting against a powerful Russian military on its own border. The supply logistics alone are a nightmare.           

Yet that nightmare is looking like a very real possibility. At American Greatness, Julia Gorin describes a horrific conversation with, of all people, her hair stylist, who casually mentions that a high-ranking Air Force officer who had come in that morning for a cut, told her out of the blue that the United States was preparing for war with Russia over the Ukraine. This officer, whom the stylist’s boyfriend has known for 35 years, has been coordinating with the Marines over the exchange of various weapons.           

Like other observers, Gorin sees such a conflict as a means to take our attention off the failed policies of the current administration.           

If we were talking about a war to defend Taiwan, my views might be entirely different. We have a long relationship with the free citizens of Taiwan. We also share strong economic bonds. That tiny country is the world’s largest manufacturer of chips—I don’t mean Doritos—and these are vital to our national security. We have a very real interest in the survival of that island nation.           

And yet, despite all the Chinese saber-rattling of the last year, our government continues to take aim at the Russians. Ask yourselves why that is. Could it possibly be that American politicians and corporations are in cahoots with the Chinese? Are some of our elites victims of Chinese blackmail? Why are they bending over backwards to please the Chinese while threatening the Russians?

Like many Americans, I have a personal stake in opposing a war with Russia. He’s called Michael, and he’s my 16-year-old grandson, a physically strong kid who plays soccer and rugby and who excels academically. Whatever he decides to do with his life, I anticipate great things from him.           

That won’t happen if he dies in some faraway place as a distraction.           

So a note to our government: If you want to send my grandson off to war, or any of my other grandchildren, then you’d better have an incredibly good reason for putting them in a uniform, handing them a weapon, and shipping them off to kill or be killed. You’d better show me, and every other parent and grandparent in this country, precisely how and why those sacrifices will benefit or save this country.           

The Greek historian Herodotus once wrote, “In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons.”           

And in war, grandfathers bury their grandsons.



Image Credit: 

U.S. National Archives & DVIDS, Public Domain

Jeff Minick

Jeff Minick lives in Front Royal, Virginia, and may be found online at jeffminick.com. He is the author of two novels, Amanda Bell and Dust on Their Wings, and two works of non-fiction, Learning as I Go and Movies Make the Man.

It’s Irrational to Send Our Sons to War With Ukraine | Intellectual Takeout

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Ukraine–A Domestic Brawl That Is Not Our Fight
By Larry Johnson
Gateway Pundit

January 25, 2022


Friday night two New York police officers were shot trying to intervene in a domestic fight between a mother and son. One was killed and one was critically wounded. The survival of that officer remains in doubt. Ask any police officer about the risk of trying to separate warring parties, whether it is a fight between a husband and wife or a parent and child. It is damn dangerous and can go south fast.

The shooting that happened in that Harlem apartment last Friday is an apt metaphor for the United States sticking its nose in the internal affairs of Ukraine. You cannot understand the current situation without understanding the history of Ukraine during the last 100 years. The vast majority of Americans cannot find Ukraine on a map much less converse knowledgeably about the underlying ethnic and religious divisions that fractured this manufactured nation.

Please watch this short video. It provides an excellent overview:

Ukraine has a bloody, horrific past. While many Americans have trouble remembering what happened four years ago, the psyche wounds from the Holomodor, the Nazi invasion, the Soviet conquest of the Nazis and the Holocaust are still fresh and suppurating. The rancid **** oozing from this history continues to poison Ukraine’s politics, both domestic and international.

The Biden Administration and the Brits are busy trying to sell their respective citizens the lie that we are arming Ukraine to fend off a Russian effort to re-establish the Soviet empire. This is dangerous nonsense. Ukraine is not a Jeffersonian democracy yearning to breathe free air. It is a fractured country and now much of the West is hell bent on ignoring this reality and adopting saber rattling towards Russia while treating Ukraine as an expendable pawn.

Russia remembers history. Between 20 and 26 million Russians died in World War II. The parents and grandparents of Russia’s current political class paid that price. Almost every family in Russia lost a loved one because, in their world view, they failed to stop a growing military threat on their western border.

Read the Whole Article


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JakeHolman changed the title to TRUMPISM IN EUROPE AND UKRAINE WAR

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...