Wednesday, May 17, 2017

What’s Behind Restoration of the Cold War? Eric Zuesse

Will Trump be brave enough to save us? Is he a narcissist that doesn't care about anyone else and so doesn't have a soul? Is he being blackmailed by neocon gangsters and so is trapped? Trump is affable, which makes him seem human, but is this just a persona to get the best businesses deals. Let's hope deep down he is not one of the ruling elite and thinks a bit like we do. Nuclear war must scare him too.

Why doesn't this real news get in our press? Even if Eric Zuesse sees things in black and white, why is there no debate about this?  The British public is constantly told how bad Russia and China are, so they back the renewal of Trident. More billions of profit for the few, at the tax payers expense.

The Guardian, a supposed leftist paper, constantly keeps bashing Russia, while Saudi Arabia, a far more dreadful regime, is never mentioned. Surely the Guardian editors know they are spreading propaganda. And I have to be careful what I say on the Guardian's CIF, otherwise I will get pre moderated.

Eric Zeus, Whats Behind the New Cold War


What’s behind restoration of the Cold War is a fall-off in the global armaments trade after the capitalist-versus-communist Cold War ended with the 9 November 1989 opening-up of the Berlin Wall, and after the ideological excuse for buying and using nuclear weapons thus ended when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance against America’s NATO alliance ended soon thereafter, in 1991. Weapons became less needed, because there was no longer an ideological excuse available for invading, and for perpetrating (and/or backing) coups in, foreign countries. And this reduction in the weapons-market harmed the major investors in arms-manufacturing international corporations. Their business was suffering. 
Any nation’s armaments-industry is crucial to that given nation’s aristocracy; and, so, the fall-off in the arms business was especially problematic for international capitalists —  
For America’s aristocracy (and its allied aristocracies abroad), this decline in weapons-income was tolerable so long as the U.S. group were able to siphon some wealth out of Russia, and also out of its allies such as Ukraine. But, by the time when George W. Bush became U.S. President in 2001, America’s aristocracy worked in conjunction with Saudi Arabia’s aristocracy — the Saudi royal family, the largest foreign purchaser of U.S. weapons — to replace the Soviet enemy, by a new jihadist enemy, so as to have an ongoing excuse for invasions, to keep those arms-makers busy. 
This flatlined military spending was unacceptable to the U.S. aristocracy, who control the U.S. government. Therefore, starting by no later than 2011, the Obama-Clinton U.S. State Department began preparations to overthrow the Russia-friendly democratically elected (in 2010) government of Ukraine, which is the European country that has the longest border with Russia and therefore the most opportunities for placing U.S. missiles on Russia’s border so as to be able to surprise-attack Russia faster than Russia will be able to launch its missiles in retaliation — in other words, to conquer Russia. That U.S. coup in Ukraine was carried out in February 2014; and, afterward, the international arms-trade boomed again. 
For these reasons, nuclear war is now not only on the table, as it was during the Cold War, but, in the currently spreading now hot war using jihadists and other proxy fighters in order to overthrow and replace Russia’s allies, America is finally going for the nuclear jugular. Even if it’s not a sound thing to do if those weapons are ever used, it’s the only way America’s aristocrats know to boost the value of their investments, at least in the short term (which is the time-perspective that increasingly has come to dominate among America’s aristocrats and their allies). 
America’s new President, Donald Trump, will have to decide whether to culminate this, or whether instead to condemn and repudiate it. If he decides to do the latter, then he will be condemning and repudiating the entire U.S. aristocracy, which no U.S. President (except for Jimmy Carter in his retirement) has ever done. American Presidents have been assassinated for less than that. And, in any case, courage is not a trait that’s commonly attributed to Trump, even by his own most ardent admirers. However, unless he turns out to be a person of extraordinary courage, World War III now appears to be virtually inevitable, to occur rather soon, and the only real question would be: Which side will nuclear-blitz-attack the other the first?

15 comments:

Bob said...

No debate in the press because it is owned by one side. Little debate in the public because most people are disgusted by politics and politicians. When you have leaders who don't believe in global warming yet believe a nuclear war can be "won", then all hope is lost. We're toast.

Kaivey said...

Gee! I hope not. Isn't mankind crazy? How did such crazy people get in control? What happened to the moderate left, only the populist right is warning about this. As much as I don't like Alex Jones, at least he's warning people.

I spoke to my brother about why I like Putin. He's was horrified, he kills all his political opponents, he said. He's not interested in politics, he gets his news from the MSM.

Bob said...

You can hate Putin and not want a nuclear war. Does your brother want WW III ?

Kaivey said...

He doesn't understand. It's sad, because I could fill on the real news about Putin, but he's not interested. Most people aren't, if you try to tell them it goes in one ear and out the other.

Kaivey said...

I sent the article of to George Monbiot, who won't write about it in the Guardian. They won't let him..

Bob said...

It's about finding a way to co-exist, even if people believe that Putin is evil. But none of this will matter if analysts are telling our leaders that a nuclear war can be won.

Salsabob said...

What horsepucky. The Little Green Men in Ukraine are a foreign power from the east not the West. And Obama bent over backwards, under much criticism, to keep us the hell out of Syria; it was Ruskie bombs that leveled Aleppo. One can agree or disagree with Putin's motivations/rightfulness/utility/justification over these actions, but it is asinine hate-US-first to believe those actions are not the prime drivers moving us toward 'cold war.'

Penguin pop said...

"You can hate Putin and not want a nuclear war. Does your brother want WW III ?"

One should never forget about Putin's BS and history of assassinating political opponents. Russia has plenty of its own problems. You can also be critical of US foreign policy and be intellectually honest about Russia, Turkey, etc. and all these places too.

Kaivey said...

Russian Opposition: Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader

Posted on March 1, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog


U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

But Itina Khakamada – a top ally of Nemtsov in the opposition – said the killing was “clearly not in Putin’s interest. It’s aimed at rocking the situation.”

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev agrees.

Mikhail Delyagin – a top advisor to Nemtsov for a year and a half – said that Putin didn’t do it

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/russian-opposition-putin-assassinate-opposition-leader.html

MRW said...

Penguin, One should never forget about Putin's BS and history of assassinating political opponents..

That's bullshit. You've swallowed the kool-aid. I don't have the time or inclination to disabuse you of this notion by going through my files to give you links that would at least convince you to research.

The "Putin murdered Nemtsov" falsehood was disproved two years ago on many fronts, NONE of which were published in either Canada and US. Or Britain.

Don't forget we had Chrystia Freeland, granddaughter of the recently revealed ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Nazi collaborator (see John Helmer's Dancing with Bears), who was still reporting for major US publications— Financial Times, Washington Post, Reuters, The Economist—before her elevation to Canadian Foreign Minister, doing her damnedest as a covert right-wing Ukrainian to demonize Russia as an evil peril for five solid years both in print and broadcast in advance of Maidan.

Her cute little face and perky intelligence was a fixture on US news shows sowing these seeds. It’s all bullshit. Thank god, Helmer did his job investigating her recently, and she’s been partly defanged. But only in the minds of those who fucking read.

Kaivey is right at May 17, 2017 at 11:06 AM

MRW said...

Penguin, you need to read more Mark Ames. At least you'll find his writing entertaining as well as informative.

Kaivey said...

Mark Ames is great. His writings on the Koch brothers and the liberation movement was superb.

Bob said...

Too much focus on Putin, not enough on our own so-called "leaders".

Penguin pop said...

"
That's bullshit. You've swallowed the kool-aid. I don't have the time or inclination to disabuse you of this notion by going through my files to give you links that would at least convince you to research.

The "Putin murdered Nemtsov" falsehood was disproved two years ago on many fronts, NONE of which were published in either Canada and US. Or Britain.

Don't forget we had Chrystia Freeland, granddaughter of the recently revealed ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Nazi collaborator (see John Helmer's Dancing with Bears), who was still reporting for major US publications— Financial Times, Washington Post, Reuters, The Economist—before her elevation to Canadian Foreign Minister, doing her damnedest as a covert right-wing Ukrainian to demonize Russia as an evil peril for five solid years both in print and broadcast in advance of Maidan.

Her cute little face and perky intelligence was a fixture on US news shows sowing these seeds. It’s all bullshit. Thank god, Helmer did his job investigating her recently, and she’s been partly defanged. But only in the minds of those who fucking read."

Looking back, I got that confused with all the stuff I had heard about Putin poisoning critics of his, though if Mark Ames can debunk all those things I've heard, I'd be happy to hear it too.

This story for example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-critic-who-says-he-was-poisoned-twice-wont-back-down/

Penguin pop said...

MRW, I'm naturally distrusting of many of these power players of the world. In my mind, I don't think of Putin as one of the "good guys" either on the world stage, no more what I think about Erdogan and all the batshit that's been going on in Turkey in the past few years.