Tag Archives: empire

The Third World Revolt vs American Greatness

Posted on by
Reply

By Christopher Roach

Source: Covert Geopolitics

Although losing a war and taking a blow to prestige can be a painful process, the American people’s interests require the dismantling of the American empire.

Back in my high-school debating days, policy debate teams frequently concluded their arguments with an extreme and somewhat absurd parade of horribles. This was a testament to their intelligence and creativity, plus being dead wrong carried few consequences. Through convoluted chains of logic, they argued that some small change in environmental or trade policy would lead to nuclear war or America’s domination by the “global south.”

Even then, this all struck me as ridiculous. How could the Third World, with its periodic famines and coups, ever threaten the United States? Back then we were fully dominant over the entire world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

A lot has changed.

The Birth of the Nonaligned Movement

During the Cold War, the various nations on the periphery acted, in some ways, as judges of the two competing systems. While the United States and Soviet Union were accused of manipulating the Third World for selfish reasons, the manipulation went both ways. Being coy, Third World leaders often managed to squeeze real benefits, like infrastructure projects, discounted military equipment, and other forms of aid by siding with one side or the other.

During the Cold War, the nations of the Third World were wary of being compelled to take sides, risking conflicts orthogonal to their own interests and sacrificing their sovereignty through excessive dependence on a patron. This is why the nonaligned movement gained power, with India in particular at the forefront, where it was joined by interested Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American nations.

These nations, which had gained sovereignty only very recently from their colonial masters, were understandably touchy about their independence. They did not want to exchange a formal colonial structure for an informal one.

When the Cold War ended, the United States remained the sole superpower for some time, but, rather than achieving worldwide assent, this instead fueled envy, fear, and resentment. No longer able to chart their own path, every nation became subordinate on some level to American power.

Aggressive Idealism Fuels Anti-Americanism

At the height of its military power, starting during the Clinton presidency, American leaders began to embrace an aggressive “idealism” that set out to change the character, values, and customs of other countries. Purely “humanitarian” interventions like Kosovo and Somalia became common.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, this idealism meant feminism and democracy. In Eastern Europe, it meant the promotion of gay rights and secularism, alienating the conservative and religious people who once idealized the United States. In Latin America, idealism demanded capitalism and loosened trade restrictions.

The invocation of “Freedom” and “Democracy,” while it sounds noble and idealistic to our ears, began to sound like a threat to nations who were out of step with the West’s ruling classes. Unilateral American military intervention in such diverse places as Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Syria, and Libya made nations on the sidelines wary that they could be next.

Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa—the so-called BRICS—do not have much in common. They have diverse economic and political systems, distinct languages, very different histories, and members appeared on both sides of Cold War alliances. But they share a common orientation to American power:  our aspirations to maintain “sole superpower” status threatens their national power and independence.  Perceiving this as a zero-sum game, they seek to pivot world attention, prosperity, and power away from the United States and its Western European allies.

Among these American competitors, China and Russia stand out most of all. Through their de facto alliance, they now dominate the Eurasian landmass. Their industrial capacity has revealed significant advantages in a war of attrition. And, finally, with their history as former American enemies, they have a habitual and strong resistance to American interference with their destinies.

While Russia and China’s conduct is easily understood, the growing and diverse anti-American coalition, along with these other nations’ willingness to accept Russian and Chinese leadership, needs explanation.  The heart of the matter is sovereignty. American demands and desires currently constrain each of the BRICS nations and the many smaller nations of the Third World, whether it is in energy, central banking, sanctions, trade, or even domestic policies on issues like feminism and gay rights.

The proposed “multipolar world” has a lot of momentum because it does not require submission to a particular Chinese or Russian model for internal governance. Russia and China are mostly agnostic about internal affairs, unlike the “idealistic” United States. Rather, the alternative promotes a more organic (and potentially chaotic) distribution of power from the current system.

Finally, neither Russia nor China could displace the United States. Thus, at most, they can usher in a world of “multipolarity,” where all countries will be less constrained, and larger countries like them have, at most, regional strength.

Ukraine War Now Existential for the American Empire

The current war in Ukraine is bringing a lot of things to a head. The United States and Europe imagined the rest of the world would view the conflict as a morality play: a big, powerful bully dominating its innocent and unassuming neighbor. This, indeed, is how most leaders and many people in the West perceive events.

But this has been a tough sell in the Third World, which is the chief reason sanctions have faced resistance. While Russia is bigger than Ukraine, Ukraine is big relative to its separatist eastern provinces, with whom it has had a conflict since 2014. Since most developing nations began as anti-colonial movements for national liberation, Ukraine’s attempts to forcibly reintegrate the East does not look so different from the types of struggles Brazil and India had during their independence movements.

Moreover, with Ukraine aligned so closely with the West—using NATO tanks, NATO mercenaries, and NATO money to prosecute its defense—much of the world does not perceive a bully pushing around its stalwart neighbor, but rather an American bully using its Ukrainian lackey for realpolitik designs against Russia. This is a particularly popular view in China, of course. But, judging from editorials and open source comments, it is also widely held in places like Africa and India, where many people view Russia in a positive light because of its opposition to the United States.

Until now, American power rested on actual American superiority in economics, military power, and cultural influence.  The United States soundly defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War, emerged from the Cold War intact and wealthy, and soon proceeded to project power with great skill in the early days of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. But since that time, we have departed Afghanistan and Iraq without a victory. In parallel, we spread chaos in Libya and Syria, failing to conclude regime change operations in the latter.

American military prowess is no longer undisputed or inevitable, undermining the broader claim of America as the “sole superpower.” This was all avoidable, but having overextended itself, the visible evidence of American decline is now confirmed. This is what happens when a nation is ruled by disloyal, short-sighted, and foolish people.

To state the obvious, losing wars is never good for an empire. The Ottoman and Russian empires dissolved under the stresses of the First World War. While part of the victorious allies, World War II cemented the subordinate status of France and the United Kingdom, and their empires fell apart after the war. Finally, and most recently, the Soviet Union broke apart after its costly and controversial campaign in Afghanistan.

Russia’s attempts to assert power in its near-abroad fueled America’s interest in the current Ukraine War.  The theory was that we would pursue our interests on the cheap, prevent challenges to American hegemony, with the added benefit that Ukrainians would be doing the dying. Because of our military and economic superiority, supporters claimed the war would kill Russians, weaken their military, and destabilize Putin’s hold on power.

Proponents of the war did not really consider what would happen in the reverse case. What if not Russia, but the United States found itself strained economically, losing critical and hard-to-replace weapons in a war of attrition, visibly demonstrating its impotence and weakness on the world stage? Wouldn’t the same dire consequences intended for Russia now happen to us?

Indeed, they would. Luckily, actual American security does not depend on the continuation of America’s dominance of the globe, nor does American prosperity. Indeed, our prosperity has declined as the requirements of the military industrial complex and the behemoth welfare state devalue our currency and impoverish taxpayers. Further, our aspirations to maintain sole superpower status has endangered us by fueling anti-Americanism, while encouraging significant moral compromise at home.

Although losing a war and taking a blow to prestige can be a painful process, the American people’s interests require the dismantling of the American empire. Our current course risks manifesting the dire and once-implausible scenarios popular on the high school debate circuit. It is time to change course.

NATO Now Acknowledges that Western Media Lie About Ukraine’s War

Posted on by
2

By Eric Zuesse

Source: The Duran

On September 7th, NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged that the war in Ukraine did not start on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, like Western ‘news’-media say, but much earlier, in 2014, and that Russia’s invasion in 2022 resulted from NATO’s efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO and to bring NATO’s military forces closer to Russia’s borders: “He [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.” In other words: Russia’s invasion actually was defensive, not aggressive, on Russia’s side. And Stoltenberg proudly proclaimed that Russia has been defeated in that defensive objective, because instead both Sweden and especially Finland (one of the nearest nations to The Kremlin, other than the nearest of all, which is Ukraine) rushed to join NATO as a direct result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Stoltenberg was so proud of having turned to dust Putin’s goal of making Russia safer, that Stoltenberg repeated many times NATO having done the exact opposite of what Putin was urging. Stoltenberg was clearly proud to have overseen the frustration of Russia’s need for a defense against a possible blitz-nuclear attack by NATO.

Furthermore: Stoltenberg acknowledged that this war is and has been good for NATO because it’s forcing NATO member countries to increase their expenditures on military weapons, and is thereby forcing down these countries’ expenditures on other matters that voters usually care more about.

Here are excerpts from what he said:

https://archive.ph/HKPPW

“Opening remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) followed by an exchange of views with Members of the European Parliament”

07 September 2023

The war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014. The full-fledged invasion happened last year, but the war, the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia went into eastern Donbas in 2014.

Since then, NATO has implemented the biggest adaptation on this Alliance in modern history, in decades. And part of that is to invest more in defence. I think I’ve told you before that I know it’s hard to allocate money for defence, because most politicians want to spend money on health, on education, on infrastructure instead of defence. …

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty, that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member.

Earlier, Stoltenberg had said on 9 May 2023, “The war started in 2014.” He even was explicit that “You have to remember that the war didn’t start in 2022” (referring to Russia’s response on 24 February 2022 by invading Ukraine). Here is the best short video (only ten minutes long) accurately showing in the original historic video clips how Ukraine’s war started, and it is very clear there that the U.S. Government, U.S. President Obama, started it in February 2014, by means of a coup, which the Obama Administration had had in the planning stages for quite some time. The founder and head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor even called it “the most blatant coup in history”. The smoking-gun piece of evidence proving that it had been a coup by the U.S. Government is this recording of Obama’s mastermind of the coup, Victoria Nuland, telling Obama’s Ambassador in Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, a month before the coup became climaxed, whom to get appointed to lead the post-coup Ukraine. And, then, the smoking-gun piece of evidence proving that even the top officials of the EU didn’t know that it had been a coup instead of the ‘democratic revolution’ that the U.S. regime claimed, is this recording of the EU’s minister of foreign affairs being told in a phone call from Kiev, by her investigator there, immediately after the coup was over, that it had been a coup. On 4 November 2019, after enough verified evidence had become known about it and about how the war in Ukraine had actually been started by the U.S. Government, I headlined “The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base in Crimea”, which was the only part of Obama’s plan that failed; and that article documented also how the war had been started by that coup.

Stoltenberg’s speech on September 7th ignored America’s coup, and he even ignored that the coup was quickly followed by the breakaway of Crimea because a plebiscite was held there on 16 March 2014, which produced a 90%+ vote for Crimea to again be a part of Russia, of which Crimea had been a part from 1783 to 1954. And he ignored that the breakaway of Donbass resulted after the Obama-installed Ukrainian government started in April 2014 an ethic-cleansing invasion of Donbass because over 90% of the voters there had voted for the Ukrainian President whom Obama’s coup had replaced, and Obama didn’t want those voters ever again to vote in a Ukrainian election.

So, although what Stoltenberg said there was true, it was very incomplete, because it failed to mention the coup, and the coup-regime’s ethnic-cleansing campaign, though those American initiatives were actually the things that started the war in Ukraine.

9/11, 22 Years Later: Will We Ever Get the Truth?

Posted on by
1

By Kevin Barrett

Source: The Unz Review

On June 6, Tucker Carlson, America’s most-watched TV pundit, launched a new show on Twitter. No longer reined in by Fox News executives, Carlson was free to ask a big, explosive question: “What exactly happened on 9/11?” He answered himself: “Well, it’s still classified.”

A few months earlier, Carlson had appeared on Clayton Morris’s podcast and brought up World Trade Center Building 7, widely viewed as the Achilles heel of the official story of 9/11:

“If you say, like, ‘What actually happened with building 7? Like that is weird, right? It doesn’t—like, what is that?’… If you were to say something like that on television, they’d flip out. You’d, like, lose your job over that. It’s an attack on my country. Can I ask? I don’t really understand. Do buildings actually collapse? No, they—maybe they do. I don’t know. But, like, why can’t I ask questions about that?”

Carlson’s words betray his cognitive dissonance. “Do buildings actually collapse (like that)? No, they—maybe they do.” He almost blurts out the obvious truth—“no, they don’t”—before correcting himself with the (possibly sarcastic) “maybe they do. I don’t know.”

Carlson built his career by cultivating a reputation for straight talk, unfazed by political correctness. But as he suggests, straight talk about 9/11 in general, and WTC-7 in particular, is unwelcome in today’s USA. In mainstream media, even asking questions in unacceptable.

Why can’t we ask questions about Building 7? Because the answers are all-too-obvious—and all-too-embarrassing to the rulers of the intertwined American and Israeli empires.

World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story high-rise, collapsed into its own footprint at 5:21 pm on September 11, 2001, seven hours after the Twin Towers were destroyed. Numerous witnesses reported police and emergency personnel announcing that WTC-7 was about to come down. Seconds before it fell, witnesses overheard a countdown to demolition (“five-four-three-two-one”) on police radio, followed by the massive explosion that precipitated the “collapse.”

The building fell at absolute free-fall for the first two-and-a-half seconds, and near-free-fall thereafter. That means that all of WTC-7’s vertical supports had somehow been simultaneously and completely removed. The only known mechanism that can do that is professionally-prepared-and-timed explosives.

The obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 threw a monkey wrench into the US government’s official 9/11 narrative. WTC-7 had been one of the most important buildings in America. It housed the CIA’s second-largest headquarters after Langley, Virginia, as well as the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission with its Enron files, the Internal Revenue Service, and many of America’s biggest corporate heavy hitters. What’s more, WTC-7’s 23rd floor was the home of New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), where the local and federal governments would manage their joint response to any major disaster—like 9/11.

The OEM response to 9/11 should have been run from the 23rd floor of WTC-7. But it wasn’t. Why not? In an ABC-TV interview with Peter Jennings conducted on the morning of 9/11, then-NYC-mayor Rudy Giuliani provided the answer: “We were told the World Trade Center was going to collapse,” so they moved to an alternate site. Giuliani’s confession of foreknowledge of the unprecedented and vanishingly improbable “collapse” of the Twin Towers raises the question of why the 343 firefighters who died on 9/11 didn’t get the same warning.

Giuliani wasn’t the only one with foreknowledge of a “building collapse” on 9/11. Both the BBC and CNN reported WTC-7’s “collapse” before it happened.

Though Building 7 was an obvious controlled implosion, it couldn’t be acknowledged. Obviously the none-too-competent alleged hijackers blamed for 9/11 were not plausible suspects in the highly professional implosion of one of the most secure buildings in America.

For seven years, the feds stalled and obfuscated. A 2002 FEMA report sidestepped WTC-7, admitting that any hypothesis the authors could imagine (not including the unthinkable one, demolition) had “only a low probability of occurrence.” The 9/11 Commission Report, issued in 2004, did not even mention the destruction of the WTC-7. Network TV imposed a blackout on footage of its “collapse.”

Finally, in 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its long-overdue report on WTC-7. According to the authors, a hitherto-unknown physical phenomenon, “thermal expansion,” had caused a beam to unseat itself, magically removing all of the building’s vertical support and setting off 2.5 seconds of absolute free-fall followed by about five seconds of near-free-fall.

The NIST report, of course, is ludicrous. For details, watch the film Seven featuring University of Alaska professor Leroy Hulsey, who led a detailed computer simulation of the building’s destruction.

But we didn’t really need to wait for Hulsey’s report. Just listen to Larry Silverstein, the close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu who bought the World Trade Center two months before 9/11, doubled the insurance, and fortuitously skipped his usual breakfast at the top of the North Tower that morning. In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, broadcast in 2002, Silverstein confesses to “pulling” (i.e. demolishing) Building 7. He later collected roughly three-quarters of a billion dollars in insurance money on that very building, along with four billion for the rest of the World Trade Center—the fruits of his bizarre double indemnity claim that he had suffered two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks from the two planes.

The obvious fact that the authorities lied and are still lying about Building 7 raises the question of what else are they lying about—and points to the only slightly less-obvious demolitions of the Twin Towers. Like Building 7, the Twin Towers disappeared at near-free-fall acceleration into the path of most resistance, indicating that they too had had all of their vertical supports taken out with synchronic precision. Just as the sudden demise of Building 7 cannot be plausibly blamed on a few minor office fires of undetermined origin, the likewise sudden, symmetrical, and complete destructions of Towers 1 and 2 cannot possibly have been the result of random damage caused by relatively modest office fires kindled by kerosene (jet fuel).

But the Towers were “overkilled” in unconventional explosive demolitions quite unlike the implosion of Building 7. Indeed, so much explosive force was used to pulverize the Towers that most of the contents of the buildings, including more than 1100 human bodies, were apparently vaporized into nothingness. And of the 1,640-odd victims who did leave at least a sliver of fingernail or a splinter of bone to be recovered by the most meticulous sifting-and-bucketing operation in history, many were blasted to smithereens, leaving only a few bone fragments to be recovered years later from the rooftops of neighboring buildings: “For example, a search in 2010 found 76 more fragments of remains on the roof of the 40-story Deutsche Bank building 250 feet from the South Tower. Previously, over 750 human bone fragments, each less than a half-inch long, were collected from this roof.”* How the massively explosive destruction of the two Towers, and the vaporization of its occupants and their office equipment, could ever have been mistaken for a natural gravity-driven collapse is one of those mysteries that will leave future historians scratching their heads.

The explosive destruction of the World Trade Center, conducted in such a way that it could be (quasi-)plausibly blamed on plane crashes and fires, required immense amounts of money and expertise, as well as insider access to the buildings. One often-overlooked requirement was that the perpetrators, who had invested so much in their elaborate demolition plans, would have needed to be 100% certain that planes would hit the buildings to provide a pretext for the demolitions. So they could not have simply allowed radical hijackers to attempt to seize control of planes and try to fly them into the Towers. The odds of successful plane-into-building hits, given that there had been no successful hijackings in the US for decades, would have been near zero. So, the perpetrators must have controlled the aviation aspect of 9/11, presumably by flying planes into targets by remote control. That would explain why there is no evidence that any alleged hijackers were even on board the alleged attack planes, and abundant evidence to the contrary.

Obviously powerful insiders were responsible. The question is, which insiders?**

The short answer, to which most students of the issue would agree, is “the neoconservatives.” Fanatically loyal to Israel, and desperate to turn the US military against their Muslim enemies, the authors of Rebuilding America’s Defenses (September 2000) famously announced that their yearned-for “process of transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor.”

9/11 was the neocons’ new Pearl Harbor. 9/11’s shocking imagery and 2000+ casualties closely resembled the original 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, whose psychological impact transformed an 80%-antiwar opinion into an angry hornets’ nest of warmongers. But 9/11 was not merely designed to launch the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or even the destruction of “seven countries in five years.” Its less-obvious but more important purpose was to implant Islamophobia deeply and permanently into the western subconscious mind. By equating Islam with terrorism, 9/11 hoodwinked the west into viewing Israel’s enemies as its own. The 9/11-triggered Islamophobia epidemic will probably continue to fester and spread for decades to come. Indeed, it will likely outlast the zionist entity itself.

But despite PNAC’s prognostications, 9/11 failed to contribute to the establishment of a “new American century.” Though the US military was successfully hijacked and turned against Israel’s enemies, the cost to the empire itself was astronomical, not only in terms of dollars but also in reputation and soft power.

While the US was bogged down in West Asia, fighting countries it should have befriended, peer competitors Russia and China arose to challenge America’s imperial dominance, and the BRICS alliance emerged heralding a multipolar world. When the dust settles, it is likely that 9/11 will be seen to have hastened the demise of the US empire by two or three decades. And the zionist entity, too, will soon be relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history, 9/11 or no 9/11.

So, the whole murderous hoax—a vivid display of the evil men are capable of—will turn out to be futile. As the Qur’an tells us, “They plot and Allah plans; and Allah is the best of planners.”

—

*WTC Bone Fragments Still Surface a Decade After 9/11

https://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/596-wtc-bone-fragments-still-surface-a-decade-after-911.html

**Two notable books that offer somewhat different lists of likely perpetrators are Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9/11, which focuses on the billionaire zionist oligarchs who privatized the World Trade Center shortly before 9/11 alongside their Mossad accomplices; and Kevin Ryan’s Another 19, offering an alternative list of suspected Deep State operatives with the means, motive, and opportunity to have contributed to one or more aspects of the crimes of 9/11.

How the Russian David Can Finally Defeat the U.S.-NATO Goliath

Posted on by
Reply

By Eric Zuesse

Source: The Duran

When the Soviet Union broke up, and ended its Warsaw Pact military alliance, and ended its communism — all of which happened in 1991 — there was a very clearly understood verbal agreement that the U.S. and its NATO military alliance against the Soviet Union made to the Soviet leaders, repeatedly promising that NATO would not expand toward Russia’s borders; or, as George Herbert Walker Bush’s U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, famously put it at the time, that NATO would not expand even “one inch to the east.” In other words, America promised that if the Cold War would end on the Soviet side, then it would end also on the American side, and so its military alliance wouldn’t expand to become nearer to Russia’s command-center The Kremlin, which would constitute a threat to blitz-invade Russia from that more-nearby nation.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, didn’t demand the termination of America’s military alliance against the Soviet Union, as a condition for the Soviet Union to end its military alliance against America and its NATO, but demanded only that NATO no longer would be a military alliance against Russia — that NATO would not take any of the former Warsaw Pact countries, nor any of the former Soviet countries, the countries that adjoin or are near to Russia and that would then become a threat to become a staging-area to invade Russia.

That was the agreement: to end the Cold War on both sides, not merely on the Russian side. But, on 24 February 1990, G.H.W. Bush secretly started telling his allied European heads-of-state that he and they would not be keeping their part of the bargain, because “We prevailed, they didn’t.” In other words, he was saying that they would go for conquest against Russia itself, and that they all had actually been liars to the contrary — that their instructions now were to go for conquest against Russia.

However, the expansion toward Russia’s borders couldn’t take place immediately, because they needed to continue the pretense of friendliness at least for a while in order to infiltrate their billionaires into Russia’s economy in partnership with whomever in Russia would get privatized Russian businesses so as to make Russia so dependent upon American capital as to become peacefully an American colony. That’s what happened during the 1990s, the Yeltsin years. Then, in 1999, Bill Clinton finally sprung upon Russia the start of NATO’s expansion, by adding Czechoslovakia and Poland to NATO. By the time that Putin came into power in 2000, it was already clear that America was an imperialistic, hostile, nation, and a liar, never to be trusted on anything.

In 2007 — after George W. Bush brought, into NATO, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia — Putin said at the Munich Security Conference, on 10 February 2007, that NATO’s expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?” It was a remarkably weak statement on the matter, but even so was unacceptable to the imperialists. And, from that moment on, the U.S. Government and media started turning openly against him and for “regime-change in Russia.” Americans’ favorability ratings of Russia, which had been 58% in 2006, never again reached that high a level, and reached a new low of 24% in 2015 (after America’s coup grabbed Ukraine), and a new all-time low of 9% in 2023, while American’s favorability toward Ukraine as a new U.S. vassal nation reached an all-time high of 68% in 2023. The American masses were interpreting things in precisely the ways that America’s Government and billionaires, and their media, wanted them to.

If America wins its war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine, then the next step will be placing its missiles against The Kremlin onto Ukraine’s border 300 miles and five minutes of missile-flying distance away from their target, to blitz-behead Russia, and so to ‘win’ WW III.

At this stage, Russia has only two realistic options to achieve national security: either it will form a mutual-defense pact with China guaranteeing that any nation which invades either Russia or China will immediately find itself in a WW III against BOTH China and Russia; or else, it will relocate Russia’s capital city out of Moscow, which is now only seven minutes away from NATO, into Novosibirsk, which is nearly 2,000 miles and 40 minutes away from NATO and also away from Japan — truly a safe location for Russia’s capital city (which no western-Russian city can be). Russia is the only nation that is so vast it contains a city located nearly 2,000 miles away from any U.S.-or-allied military base or launching site. It needs to take advantage of this unique national-security asset which it contains.

Other countries have moved their capital cities, for far lesser reasons; so, Russia should do it now, in order to achieve national security (which is the biggest reason imaginable).  And, then, all of the trillions of dollars that America has been spending to conquer Russia will be immediately turned to dust. Once Russia has moved its capital to Novosibirsk, nothing that America does will be able to threaten Russia seriously again. It would radically transform international relations, because U.S.-and-allied aggression would finally have a natural limit. There would then be one country, at last, that the voracious U.S. empire won’t be able to grab. And this, of course, would also make Russia a magnet for all other countries that haven’t yet been successfully grabbed by the U.S. and now hosting any of its 900 foreign military bases. So: the number of U.S.-occupied countries might then finally begin to decline — which decline would add yet more to the entire world’s security, by removing the world’s biggest national-security threat. America’s foreign military bases threaten every nation, and don’t merely vassalize the given nation. Simply moving Russia’s capital to Novosibirsk would achieve all of this — for Russia, and for the world.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

ECOWAS Fiery Talk Towards Niger Loses Its Edge After Biden Talks With Its President

Posted on by
Reply

Biden’s little chat with Tinubu says a lot about the realities of what is going to happen and what can happen on the ground.

By Martin Jay

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

Three interesting facets of news over Niger appear to be doing the rounds. Firstly, that a terrorist group in Nigeria has openly appealed to the Nigerian President – who also happens to be the ECOWAS leader – to avoid at all costs a military intervention in Niger; secondly, that Joe Biden took the initiative to meet the same gentleman Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the corridors of the United Nations, hinting that huge amounts of U.S. investment could be directed towards Nigeria if Tinubu played ball; and thirdly, that just recently, the stakes were raised in Niger when its junta announced that it had invited the armies of both Mali and Burkina Faso onto its soil to help defend themselves against an “intervention” which ECOWAS has threatened was on the cards only days earlier.

But Biden’s little chat with Tinubu says a lot about the realities of what is going to happen and what can happen on the ground as clearly his administration does not want another proxy war between East and West on its hands before the re-election run up next year. The question of whether the U.S. would support ECOWAS militarily has been answered by Biden’s bribe to the Nigerian president. It’s not going to happen.

Tinubu, who is certainly the man at the centre of events, gives the impression in interviews that he is under great pressure from ECOWAS members to intervene, but he is the one cooling tempers and looking for a diplomatic solution. And yet, his comments to the press seem to have been written by the U.S. state department such is the proximity of his office and the U.S. administration – debunking the myth of how much ECOWAS is influenced by France (given that the majority of the countries are former French colonies). The Nigerian president’s role as ECOWAS chief is under the spotlight.

What does he really want? Are his objectives focussed more on Nigeria rather than the bloc?

Joe Biden’s offer of a fresh injection of investment from U.S. firms hasn’t seemed to hit the mark. It seems that Tinubu is after even faster and even easier cash.

Tinubu said that African democracies are “currently under assault by anti-democratic forces within and outside the continent”, which is really state department jargon for “the Russians are coming”.

He then called on the “American-backed development finance and multilateral institutions, which were designed to support war-torn Europe after World War II, to adopt a swift and comprehensive reform to meet the developmental requirements of young democracies in Africa”.

The translation isn’t too cryptic. Can the U.S. intervene and, also, while they’re at it, pump our central bank full of never-never-pay soft loans from IMF and World bank? Cheers!

Neither Biden nor Tinubu though seem to be bothered about the possibility of a fourth francophone African country falling into the hands of Mother Russia. Mali and Burkina Faso, who both can be assumed to be vassals of Russia have shown great solidarity with Niger which has lost no time kicking the French out and becoming a major pain in the arse for western elites who are confused about the events and want to oversimplify the nuances. “We lost Niger to the Russians” may be the well worn cliché although the facts on the ground and more complicated. There certainly seems in Niger to be an endearment towards the new junta’s government but Russia’s role so far is unclear.

About the only thing that Putin and Biden agree on is they don’t want a war in Niger.

It’s easy to forget though that Niger was a key player in ECOWAS and that many of its members placed great importance on Niger’s front line assault on Islamic groups in the region – which, if given more freedoms, could cause havoc right across West Africa but in particular in neighbouring Nigeria.

For the moment though, the so-called pressure from ECOWAS is unlikely to manifest itself beyond chest beating. ECOWAS members may have the hunger for intervention but they don’t have the guts for a war, which neither the U.S. or Russia will bankroll, so sobriety is likely to take over the narrative in the coming days. The war in Ukraine, the abysmal foreign policy blunders of Biden, the deluded arrogance of Macron and the emergence of BRICS have all contributed to the current crisis in Africa as the old relationship with the West is put to the test, with disastrous consequences. The only thing left of Obama’s “soft power” idea he conjured up in 2015 after his humiliation in Syria is a suitcase full of cash for a corrupt West African leader to share with his cabal. Pretty pathetic.

Summer of the Hawks

Posted on by
2
Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks during the Mandela Washington Fellowship Summit for Young African Leaders in Washington, DC, August 2, 2023. (Official State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy)

By Seymour Hersh

Source: Rise Up Times

It’s been weeks since we looked into the adventures of the Biden administration’s foreign policy cluster, led by Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland. How has the trio of war hawks spent the summer?

Sullivan, the national security adviser, recently brought an American delegation to the second international peace summit earlier this month at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The summit was led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, who in June announced a merger between his state-backed golf tour and the PGA. Four years earlier MBS was accused of ordering the assassination and dismemberment of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, for perceived disloyalty to the state.

As unlikely as it sounds, there was such a peace summit and its stars did include MBS, Sullivan, and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. What was missing was a representative of Russia, which was not invited to the summit. It included just a handful of heads of state from the fewer than fifty nations that sent delegates. The conference lasted two days, and attracted what could only be described as little international attention.

Reuters reported that Zelensky’s goal was to get international support for “the principles” that that he will consider as a basis for the settlement of the war, including “the withdrawal of all Russian troops and the return of all Ukrainian territory.” Russia’s formal response to the non-event came not from President Vladimir Putin but from Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov. He called the summit “a reflection of the West’s attempt to continue futile, doomed efforts” to mobilize the Global South behind Zelensky.

India and China both sent delegations to the session, perhaps drawn to Saudi Arabia for its immense oil reserves. One Indian academic observer dismissed the event as achieving little more than “good advertising for MBS’s convening power within the Global South; the kingdom’s positioning in the same; and perhaps more narrowly, aiding American efforts to build consensus by making sure China attends the meeting with . . . Jake Sullivan in the same room.”

Meanwhile, far away on the battlefield in Ukraine, Russia continued to thwart Zelensky’s ongoing counteroffensive. I asked an American intelligence official why it was Sullivan who emerged from the Biden administration’s foreign policy circle to preside over the inconsequential conference in Saudi Arabia.

“Jeddah was Sullivan’s baby,” the official said. “He planned it to be Biden’s equivalent of [President Woodrow] Wilson’s Versailles. The grand alliance of the free world meeting in a victory celebration after the humiliating defeat of the hated foe to determine the shape of nations for the next generation. Fame and Glory. Promotion and re-election. The jewel in the crown was to be Zelensky’s achievement of Putin’s unconditional surrender after the lightning spring offensive. They were even planning a Nuremberg type trial at the world court, with Jake as our representative. Just one more fuck-up, but who is counting? Forty nations showed up, all but six looking for free food after the Odessa shutdown”—a reference to Putin’s curtailing of Ukrainian wheat shipments in response to Zelensky’s renewed attacks on the bridge linking Crimea to the Russian mainland.

Enough about Sullivan. Let us now turn to Victoria Nuland, an architect of the 2014 overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, one of the American moves that led us to where we are, though it was Putin who initiated the horrid current war. The ultra-hawkish Nuland was promoted early this summer by Biden, over the heated objections of many in the State Department, to be the acting deputy secretary of state. She has not been formally nominated as the deputy for fear that her nomination would lead to a hellish fight in the Senate.

It was Nuland who was sent last week to see what could be salvaged after a coup led to the overthrow of a pro-Western government in Niger, one of a group of former French colonies in West Africa that have remained in the French sphere of influence. President Mohamed Bazoum, who was democratically elected, was tossed out of office by a junta led by the head of his presidential guard, General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The general suspended the constitution and jailed potential political opponents. Five other military officers were named to his cabinet. All of this generated enormous public support on the streets in Niamey, Niger’s capital—enough support to discourage outside Western intervention.

There were grim reports in the Western press that initially viewed the upheaval in East-West terms: some of the supporters of the coup were carrying Russian flags as they marched in the streets. The New York Times saw the coup as a blow to the main US ally in the region, Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who controls vast oil and gas reserves. Tinubu threatened the new government in Niger with military action unless they returned power to Bazoum. He set a deadline that passed without any outside intervention.

The revolution in Niger was not seen by those living in the region in east-west terms but as a long needed rejection of long-standing French economic and political control. It is a scenario that may be repeated again and again throughout the French-dominated Sahel nations in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are distinctions that do not bode well for the new government in Niger. The nation is blessed, or perhaps cursed, by having a significant amount of the remaining natural uranium deposits in the world. As the world warms up, a return to nuclear generated power is seen as inevitable, with obvious implications for the value of the stuff underground in Niger. The raw uranium ore, when separated, filtered and processed is known worldwide as yellowcake.

The corruption so often “talked about in Niger is not about petty bribes by government officials, but about an entire structure—developed during French colonial rule—that prevents Niger from establishing sovereignty over its raw materials and over its development,” according to a recent analysis published by Baltimore’s Real News Network. Three out of four laptops in France are powered by nuclear energy, much of which is derived from uranium mines in Niger effectively controlled by its former colonial overlord.

Niger is also the home of three American drone bases targeting Islamic radicals throughout the region. There  are also undeclared Special Forces outposts in the region, whose soldiers receive double pay while on their risky combat assignments. The American official told me that “the 1,500 US troops now in Niger are exactly the number of American troops who were in South Vietnam at the time John F. Kennedy took over the presidency in 1961.”

Into this scene came Victoria Nuland, who must have drawn the short straw inside the Biden Administration. She was sent to negotiate with the new regime and to arrange a meeting with the ousted President Bazoum, whose life remains under constant threat from the governing junta. The New York Times reported that she got nowhere after talks she described as “extremely frank and at times quite difficult.” The intelligence official put her remarks to the Times in American military lingo: “Victoria set out to save the Niger uranium owners from the barbaric Russians and got a huge single-finger salute.”

Quieter in recent weeks than Sullivan and Nuland has been Secretary of State Tony Blinken. Where was he? I asked that question of the official, who said that Blinken “has figured out that the United States”—that is, our ally Ukraine—“will not win the war” against Russia. “The word was getting to him through the Agency [CIA] that the Ukrainian offense was not going to work. It was a show by Zelensky and there were some in the administration who believed his bullshit.

“Blinken wanted to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine as Kissinger did in Paris to end the Vietnam war.” Instead, the official said, “it was going to be a big lose and Blinken found himself way over his skis. But he does not want to go down as the court jester.”

It was at this moment of doubt, the official said, that Bill Burns, the CIA director, “made his move to join the sinking ship.” He was referring to Burns’s speech earlier this summer at the annual Ditchley conference near London. He appeared to put aside his earlier doubts about expanding NATO to the east and affirmed his support at least five times for Biden’s program.

“Burns does not lack self-confidence and ambition,” the intelligence official said, especially when Blinken, the ardent war hawk, was suddenly having doubts. Burns served in a prior administration as deputy secretary of state and running the CIA was hardly a just reward.

Burns would not replace a disillusioned Blinken, but only get a token promotion: an appointment to Biden’s cabinet. The cabinet meets no more than once a month and, as recorded by C-SPAN, the meetings tend to be tightly scripted affairs and to begin with the president reading from a prepared text.

Tony Blinken, who publicly vowed just a few months ago that there would be no immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, is still in office and, if asked, would certainly dispute any notion of discontent with Zelensky or the administration’s murderous and failing war policy in Ukraine.

So the White House’s wishful approach to the war, when it comes to realistic talk to the American people, will continue apace. But the end is nearing, even if the assessments supplied by Biden to the public are out of a comic strip.

This piece is from Seymour Hersh’s Substack, you may subscribe to it here.

From Burkina Faso to Niger to Gabon, Western Hegemony Dying in Africa

Posted on by
1

By Harun Elbinawi

Source: Covert Geopolitics

Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 was undeniably one of the biggest evil summits in modern history. Greedy and racist European colonialists sat down in the German city and divided Africans as if they were sharing bread on a breakfast table.

The conference was organized by Otto von Bismarck, the first chancellor of Germany at the request of King Leopold II of Belgium, the Western genocidal barbarian that murdered more than 10 million innocent Africans in Congo.

Most Africans are not even aware of this genocide in Congo perpetrated by the Belgium colonialists because it is not in our history books written by the white colonialists.

European colonialism in Africa lasted more than a century with only the ancient Kingdom of Ethiopia spared because they defeated the Italian colonialists on the battlefield.

Trillions and trillions of dollars were stolen from Africa, millions of Africans were murdered by the European colonialists and Africans were massively brainwashed that they had no history before European colonialism.

The wave of ‘independence’ in Africa from the 1950s and 1960s did not represent true independence. What actually happened was that colonialism was cleverly replaced with neocolonialism by the genocidal imperialist barbarians of the West.

The massive looting of rich resources in Africa continued under Western puppet leadership. The courageous African leaders who refused to dance to the tune of the European colonialists were eliminated.

This was what happened to African heroes, Patrick Lumumba of Congo and Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso. Congo has all mineral resources except for crude oil.

The uranium used by the US regime to make the atomic bombs unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mined in Congo.

French greed in Africa

Among the European colonialists, French colonialism was more brutal and exploitative.

France killed more than 1.5 million civilians in Algeria alone. They murdered tens of thousands of civilians in other African countries.

One of the Modus Operandi of the French colonialists was to assemble Islamic scholars in a hall and exterminate all of them. They did this in Algeria, Chad, Mali and Senegal.

And the greed of their neocolonialism is extreme. Even after independence, France is still controlling the wealth of its former colonies in Africa.

The rich resources of French nations are still controlled by France and they continue to pay colonial tax to France.

French goods and services dominate their markets. The domineering presence of France in these countries has been excruciating and devastating for local populations.

Niger Republic does not know the quantity of uranium France was taking from there, which is worst than slavery.

No evil lasts forever

There is a popular saying that “No evil lasts forever”.

France’s neocolonialism in Africa will not last forever. Popular military coups against puppets of France imperialism have started and are gathering momentum.

The recent military coup in the West African state of Niger Republic does not stand in isolation but follows similar upheavals in the neighboring countries of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea in recent years.

Mali is facing insurgency that is backed by Western hegemony. Mali expelled French troops because they were actively aiding the insurgents to justify its military presence in the African country.

Now, on Wednesday, we woke up with the news of another puppet of the Western hegemonic barbarians in Gabon overthrown by the military. Ali Bango inherited the Gabon presidency from his corrupt Father, Omar Bongo.

Early on Wednesday, some military personnel appeared on state TV and announced that they were seizing power and dislodging a family that has ruled the country for 56 years.

The military officers introduced themselves as members of the Committee of Transition and the Restoration of Institutions.

“Today the country is undergoing a severe institutional, political, economic, and social crisis,” the officers said in a statement, dubbing the recent election illegitimate.

“In the name of the Gabonese people … we have decided to defend the peace by putting an end to the current regime.”

Pertinently, Gabon’s former president had 70 bank accounts, 39 apartments, 2 Ferraris, 6 Mercedes Benz cars, 3 Porsches and a Bugatti in France. He ruled for 42 years (from 1967 to 2009). French leaders loved Bongo because he was loyal to them.

His son, Ali Bongo has been the president for 14 years (2009 – 2023). He has just been overthrown in a  coup.

Failure of Western liberal democracy

The fact is that the Western liberal democracy has not only failed in Africa but has failed woefully.

Democracy in Africa has become a tool for the corrupt ruling elites to steal the wealth of their respective countries and transfer it to Western financial institutions while the populations remain in abject poverty and hunger.

Democracy is just another system of government hijacked by the Western hegemonic barbarians, the biggest enemies of the human race. Democracy is now an imperialist tool of Western hegemony in Africa. This is a bitter and undeniable fact.

The people of Gabon will definitely celebrate this military coup as it marks the end of French interference and looting in their country. Another setback for the French leaders.

Africa must rise again

The most noticeable current in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger Republic and Gabon is that the change of governments all have popular support as the people of those countries are tired of France’s imperialism, arrogance and terrorism.

Today France has the 4th largest gold reserves in the world and there is no single gold mine in France.

These gold mines are all in Mali, Niger Republic and other African countries. The France neocolonialism in Africa must end. Its time has come.

When He Was Vice-President, Joe Biden Acted Like Ukraine Was His ‘Own Backyard’: Fired Ukraine Prosecutor

Posted on by
Reply

“Biden was personally engaged in corruption in Ukraine”

By Arjun Singh

Source: Global Research.ca

The former Ukrainian prosecutor who was fired at the insistence of then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2016 after investigating Burisma, claimed that Biden treated Ukraine like his “own backyard,” according to comments made during an interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Saturday.

Viktor Shokin was fired by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 after Biden — who was in charge of Ukrainian policy during the Obama administration — gave him an ultimatum, saying that Ukraine would not receive $1 billion dollars in aid until Shokin was dismissed. In an interview with Brian Kilmeade on “One Nation” on Saturday, Shokin claimed that Biden treated Ukraine as if it were his “own backyard.”

“I developed a very firm understanding of the fact that the vice president was only acting in his own interest. He, generally speaking, handled Ukraine like it was his own backyard,” Shokin told Kilmeade. “The office of Poroshenko, the president, was humiliated, but the entire country was humiliated,” Shokin added, describing Biden’s ultimatum that he be dismissed, which Biden publicly boasted about at a Council on Foreign Relations event on Jan. 23, 2018.

“I’m going to be leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid,” Biden said at the event.

At the time of Shokin’s firing, his office was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had hired Biden’s son, Hunter, to join its board. FBI documents released by Congress in July suggested that Hunter was hired to enable Burisma to utilize his father’s political influence and avoid threats to the company.

Shokin also suggested that Biden was personally engaged in corruption in Ukraine, citing his firing as one instance. “They were being bribed. The fact that Joe Biden gave away $1 billion in U.S. money in exchange for my dismissal, my firing, isn’t that alone a case of corruption?” he said.

“For years, these false claims have been debunked, and no matter how much air time Fox gives them, they will remain false,” said White House spokesperson Iam Sams in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Fox is giving a platform for these lies to a former Ukrainian prosecutor general whose office his own deputy called a hotbed of corruption, drawing demands for reform not only from then-Vice President Biden but also from U.S. diplomats, international partners, and Republican Senators like Ron Johnson.”