Will Russia Take All Of Ukraine?
Will Russia Take All Of Ukraine?
Written by Eric ZUESSE on 26/02/2023
A key statement in Vladimir Putin’s February 21st State-of-the-Union Speech (called “Presidential Address to Federal Assembly”) was a mere sentence-fragment buried late in that nearly two-hour-long encyclopedic speech to the nation, in which fragment he said “the longer the range of the Western systems that will be supplied to Ukraine, the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders. This is obvious.” He left the matter at that, because the sentence-fragment that “the longer the range of the Western systems that will be supplied to Ukraine, the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders” wasn’t intended by him to be pondered (or even necessarily even noticed) by Russians (who might be alarmed to think much about its implications it), but instead by Russia’s enemies, especially in the U.S. White House, which for months now has been considering whether to use Ukraine’s troops in order to launch American bombs against Russian cities instead of (as now) against Russian forces that are insideUkraine. Putin is telling Biden: If you do that, we will take all of Ukraine, so that that nation, which borders the closest to The Kremlin of any nation’s borders — only around 300 miles away from The Kremlin — and for which reason America had grabbed Ukraine in its successful February 2014 coup and installed a rabidly anti-Russian government there then, in order ultimately to checkmate Russia by placing your missiles only five minutes away from The Kremlin — then we will move that border so that it will be around 800 miles away from us (in Moldova) instead of any longer in Ukraine. Putin always, in public, plays down the flight-distance-to-Moscow issue, but it’s central to planners at the Pentagon and White House, and has been ever since 25 July 1945, when the U.S. Government decided to conquer Russia.
Daniel Ellsberg, of “Pentagon Papers” fame, has written that during his time at the U.S. Government’s Rand Corporation, as a planner for nuclear war, the only way to get ahead in the business (America’s Military-Industrial Complex, or war-business) was to support the idea that no matter how many millions or billions of people would be killed and how total the devastation from the usage of nuclear weapons would be, it would be a good nuclear war, a U.S. “victory,” if even more deaths and destruction would be done to the Soviet Union and to China than would be done to America and its allies. Basically, this means that the U.S. Government never actually did believe in or accept its publicly endorsed concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” of “M.A.D,” that a war between the U.S. and its ‘enemies’ would be lost by BOTH sides and that therefore the only reason for nuclear weapons is to PREVENT a World War III. Even back in the 1960s, the view instead was what after 2006 became labelled “Nuclear Primacy”, that America ought to blitz-invade Russia so fast and so totally as to disable Russia’s retaliatory capability. But until around 2006, America was espousing the “Mutually Assufred Destruction” (M.A.D.) nuclear meta-strategy, that these weapons existed only in order to prevent them from ever being used.
The American empire is and has been bent upon the single overriding goal of total global conquest. Usually it uses subversions, sanctions, coups, and proxy soldiers (such as Al Qaeda in Syria, and nazis in Ukraine), but all of it is predicated ultimately upon the final ‘victory’ being by means of a blitz nuclear invasion and annihilation of both Russia and China. This is the U.S.-and-allied “Deep State.” It consists, actually, of the controlling owners of the weapons-firms such as Lockheed Martin, and of the ‘news’-media such as the Washington Post, and of the extraction firms such as ExxonMobil: it consists of America’s billionaires, the people for whom this is an astoundingly profitable business. America’s taxpayers constantly subsidize them vastly more than is ever being publicized, and in vastly more ways than is generally known, because the entire Deep State censors it out, so that America’s voters vote on the basis of ignorance and misunderstanding, in order to keep the dictatorship functioning and in power.
In fact: all of this U.S. imperialism has been enormously profitable for America’s billionaires, and especially for the ones who have been investing the most heavily in ‘defense’ industries. This has been most clearly and most blatantly so after the ‘ideological’ ‘justification’ for the Truman-and-Eisenhower start, in 1945, of the Cold War, finally ended in 1991. Beginning at around 1990 — the very same period when G.H.W. Bush started secretly instructing America’s ‘allies’ that the Cold War would continue on the U.S. side even after the Soviet Uinion would break up and end its communism, and end its side of the Cold War — the “Cumulative Returns, Indexed to 1951,” for the total stock “Market” vs. for “Industrials” vs. for “Defense,” which three segments had previously moved in tandem with each other, sharply diverged after 1990, so that “Defense” has since been soaring, it’s rising much faster than the other two sectors, both of which other two sectors (“Market and “Industrials”) continued after 1990 rising in tandem with each other. That — 1990 — was the time when market valuations on America’s armaments producers suddenly took off and left the rest of the economy ever-increasingly behind. It’s all shown right there in that chart. This means that the decision by George Herbert Walker Bush to go for blood, instead of to serve the needs of the American people, has been vastly profitable for America’s aristocracy. Interesting, too, is that the period after 1990 has been when the U.S. Government became increasingly involved in invading the Middle East. The arms-markets there were growing by leaps and bounds. However, after 2020, the U.S.-and-allied regimes seem to be refocusing again on “great power competition”, which they now openly equate with economic “competition,” not religious or any other type of ideological competition. They openly presume that the military ought to serve their billionaires and no longer “national” (meaning public) defense. They openly presume that imperialism is right, and that it’s okay for nations to fight each other in order to further enrich their respective aristocracies. More than ever, the U.N. is just an international platform for each nation’s PR. FDR’s vision is dead and gone. The imperialists — Churchill, Hitler, etc. — won.
On 27 October 2022, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists headlined “The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review: Arms Control Subdued By Military Rivalry”, and reported that “the Biden administration finally released an unclassified version of its long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).” That’s the official U.S. policy now on use of nuclear weapons, and it adheres to the “Nuclear Primacy” view that America’s nuclear weapons exist in order to conquer Russia, and not in order to prevent nuclear war with Russia:
Although Joe Biden during his presidential election campaign spoke strongly in favor of adopting no-first-use and sole-purpose policies, the NPR explicitly rejects both for now. From an arms control and risk reduction perspective, the NPR is a disappointment. Previous efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and the role that nuclear weapons play have been subdued by renewed strategic competition abroad and opposition from defense hawks at home. … The public version of the NPR doesn’t explain why a no-first-use policy against nuclear attack is not possible.
“First-use” is the euphemism for “aggressive” (which is the “Nuclear Primacy” aim), as opposed to “defensive” (which was the M.A.D. aim — which continues on the Russian side). “Nuclear Primacy” aims for a blitz nuclear invasion that destroys the Kremlin so fast as to decapitate Russia’s central command far too quickly for Russia’s retaliatory weapons to be able to be launched. Already, on 1 March 2017, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had reported that the changes America was making to its missiles were “exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”
So, on 24 June 2022, I headlined “Biden forces Russia to retake all of Ukraine” and I closed by saying — and will also close here: “In order for the U.S. to win this conflict, the entire world will have to accept rule by America’s Government (i.e., being a U.S. ‘ally’). In order for Russia to win this conflict, the U.S. Government would have to change what has been its overriding objective ever since, actually, 25 July 1945: hegemony.”
Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
https://orientalreview.org/2023/02/26/will-russia-take-all-of-ukraine/
No comments:
Post a Comment