The U.S. Government’s Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
11
December, 2018
The
following combination of articles explains — and they link to
conclusive evidence proving — that the United States Government is
actually designing its nuclear forces now with the intention to win a
nuclear war against Russia (World War III), and no longer (if
they ever really were)
adhering to the idea (“Mutually Assured Destruction”) that WW III
would produce unacceptable catastrophe for both sides, and must
therefore be prevented. The U.S. Government is definitely set upon
winning WW III, not avoiding WW III. Nuclear weapons are thus being
built and deployed by the U.S. Government with the intention to
conquer Russia, and this goal has become NATO’s mission, and its
only remaining core function, though this fact is not publicly
acknowledged. Here are these articles, and their key quotes, showing
this:
“Back
in 2011, before the B61-12 development program had progressed to the
point of no return, FAS
sent a letter to
the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense pointing
out the contradiction with the administration’s policy and
implications for nuclear strategy. They never responded.”
“As
from March 2020, the United States will begin to deploy in Italy,
Germany, Belgium, and Holland (where B-61 nuclear bombs are already
based), and probably also in other European countries, the first
nuclear bomb with precision guidance in their arsenal, the B61-12.
Its function is primarily anti-Russian. This new bomb is designed
with penetrating capacity, enabling it to explode underground in
order to destroy the central command bunkers with its first strike.
How would the United States react if Russia deployed nuclear bombs in
Mexico, right next to their territory?”
“The
US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the
public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads
in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military
capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented
revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the
targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This
increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall
killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of
roughly three — and it creates 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.”
“The
U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in,
and the fundamental plan to establish, ‘Nuclear Primacy’ against
Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so
conquer, Russia.”
CONCLUSIONS
The
U.S. Government’s statements to the public, alleging that Russia
is the
‘aggressor’,
and that the U.S. Government designs its nuclear program only for
‘defense’ against Russia and other nations, is as
much of a lie as
was the
U.S. Government’s statement in 2002 that Iraq needed to be invaded
because the IAEA had found (which it never did) that Iraq was within
six months of having a nuclear bomb.
The U.S. Government is not to be trusted — no more now than it was
then. And also the U.S. regime invaded and destroyed Libya, and
Syria, and Yemen, on the basis of lies.
No such serial liar should be trusted.
The
U.S. regime’s real goal is conquest and control of the entire world
— including especially
Russia.
After the end of the Soviet Union, and of its communism, and of its
Warsaw Pact military alliance that had been established in order to
defend against America’s NATO military alliance, there is no
excuse for this. The
U.S. regime’s guilt here is especially outrageous regarding Russia,
because invading Russia would destroy the entire world.
The
U.S. regime’s craving to control the entire world is sheer
evil, and is ‘justified’ entirely on lies (such
as the lie that Putin had “seized” Crimea
— this being the alleged ‘justification’ for NATO’s ramping
up troops and missiles on and near Russia’s borders). One of
these lies is that “Putin
wants to conquer Ukraine”. Only
the grossest of fools could believe that.
But it’s not just the Crimea-Ukraine issue where the U.S. regime
lies: All
U.S. sanctions against Russia are based on clearly proven lies.
Furthermore,
the U.S. regime’s increasing
moves towards a police-state if not toward ultimately military
law for
Americans, are drastically reducing Americans’ own freedoms, and
this is extremely bad for the American people. The increasing
percentages of the U.S. Government’s spending that go to the
military have also been spreading poverty and concentrating wealth in
the aristocracy; so, only America’s billionaires are benefiting
from this imperialism, even within the U.S.
The
United States Government is no
‘democracy’,
and it has now become the enemy of the entire world, except of the
regimes that rule its allied countries, but even its allied countries
will be immiserated by such a war as America’s rulers are
preparing, on behalf of the owners of Lockheed Martin and other such
corporations.
The
U.S. regime is the enemy of publics everywhere. It is the biggest
threat to the world in all of human history, if Hitler’s regime
wasn’t that. And it will be worse even than Hitler’s regime, if
its military bases and personnel aren’t expelled from every country
before the secretly planned blitz-invasion of Russia ultimately
occurs. Only doing that could now prevent such an attack. If this
won’t be done, then NATO’s invasion of Russia will. It has come
down to that choice, for each and every nation.
On
20 October 2016, NBC News bannered “Philippine
Leader Duterte Ditches U.S. for China, Says ‘America Has Lost’”.
On
1 May 2017, Global Research headlined an opinion-article, “No
More Crimes Against Peace: Why Canada Must Leave NATO Now”.
Europe’s
emerging competitor to America’s NATO is called “Permanent
Structured Cooperation”,
a dull name so as to avoid especially the U.S. public’s attention.
It was announced
on 8 September 2017,
and then established
on 11 December 2017, with a list of “Ambitious and more binding
common commitments” and with
25 EU Member States (all of the 28 EU members except: UK, Denmark,
and Malta), signing onto those commitments. Its creation was the
start of the end of NATO.
This has been inevitable ever since the
U.S. coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and installation there of a
nazi regime,
which the U.S. regime had planned to become a member both of NATO and
of the EU.
On
9 November 2019,
U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted, “President Macron of France
has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to
protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia. Very insulting, but
perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the
U.S. subsidizes greatly!” Perhaps Macron wants to keep France out
of WW III. Perhaps, also, Macron wants France to be free to determine
its own international policies without needing to adhere to the
demands of America’s billionaires, especially the demands which
America’s billionaires share with Saudi Arabia’s royal family and
Israel’s billionaires,* such
as to conquer Syria so
as to install there a leader who would be chosen by King Saud and
cooperate with America’s billionaires.
For example: on December 7th, Al Masdar News headlined “Syria
accuses US Coalition of completely destroying hospital in Deir
Ezzor”.
Deir Ezzor is Syria’s oil-producing region, and the U.S. regime and
its allies want to steal Syria’s oil and they’ve therefore
been trying
for years to destroy the Government’s infrastructures and grab
control there.
To
understand the
broader geostrategic context in
which these daily events are happening, click here.
NOTE:
There is a possibility that Ukraine might, on
December 14th,
invade its former Donbass region and provoke there a Russian response
that the U.S. regime might use as a pretext to invade Russia, but I
doubt that the U.S. regime yet feels confident enough that it
possesses “Nuclear Primacy” so as to invade Russia at the present
time. So, if such a Ukrainian invasion occurs, the Ukrainian regime,
which was
installed by the American regime,
might turn out to be disappointed.
——
* On
November 27th, “President
Trump’s full Washington Post interview transcript,
annotated” included
Trump’s fullest explanation, to-date, on why he will not blame
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud for Khashoggi’s murder:
“They’ve been a great ally. Without them, Israel would be in a
lot more trouble. We need to have a counterbalance to Iran. … It’s
very, very important to maintain that relationship. It’s very
important to have Saudi Arabia as an ally, if we’re going to stay
in that part of the world. Now, are we going to stay in that part of
the world? One reason to is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of
a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever
produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you
don’t have to stay there” (other than to do the will of Israel’s
billionaires, and of America’s billionaires who also share in the
control of Israel’s Government). An
astute observer noted
about that comment from Trump:
“As
Trump explains now that he holds not only the relations with the
Saudis, in order to serve Israel’s interests, but that Israel is “a
reason” for the US and its troops remain in the region. With that,
Trump has broken a long-standing taboo, because the simple
information that Israeli interests are the reason that the US and its
troops are in the region, has so far tried to suppress the Zionist
lobby with great force and quite successfully. After all, the naked
truth does not sound good to the Zionist regime and its henchmen:
rows of bombed and destroyed countries, thousands of dead US soldiers
and many more cripples, trillions of dollars in costs, and what this
all is about: Israel.”
Like
many traditionalists, that observer refuses to consider that the
royal Saud family might be dominant over the Jewish billionaires,
instead of vice-versa such as is the case because the Sauds control
the exchange-rate of the dollar and the Jewish billionaires don’t
even control much oil at all. But that’s a relatively minor
disagreement, in the present context.
Furthermore,
on December 8th, The
Atlantic bannered “The
U.S. Is Paying More Than It Bargained for in the Yemen War” and
reported that the Pentagon had written to The
Atlantic that
(as they quoted from the Pentagon), “Although DoD has received some
reimbursement for inflight refueling assistance provided to the
Saudi-led coalition (SLC), U.S. Central Command recently reviewed its
records and found errors in accounting where DoD failed to charge the
SLC adequately for fuel and refueling services,” and the Pentagon
refused to indicate just how much of that expense had been charged to
U.S. taxpayers — that is, added to the federal debt. However, the
Pentagon had to have known the answer to that question because
otherwise the Pentagon wouldn’t now be demanding from Crown Prince
Salman al-Saud this reimbursement. You don’t demand reimbursement
unless you know precisely how much the demand is for. The likely
reason why Trump makes this demand at the present time would be that
with the public information now known about the murder of Khashoggi,
Trump now has a vastly better bargaining-position to demand this
money. Trump’s bargaining-position against al-Saud has been greatly
improved. He represents both America’s billionaires and Israel’s
billionaires. He does not represent the American public. In effect:
he negotiates here for those billionaires, against al-Saud.
—————
Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records,
1910-2010, and
of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.