Why Are Obama/NATO Stoking a Thermo-Nuclear War With Russia?
So what on earth would be the payoff of a thermo-nuclear war with Russia? It would end all life on the planet.
Are Obama and the crazed neocons and crazed neo-liberal interventionists so obsessed with geo-political and military gamesmanship they just can’t resist raising the ante to F*CKING THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR?
Why does Russian involvement with Ukraine have anything to do with US national security for one thing?
What on earth are the NATO leaders thinking, as well?
With the latest extraordinary threat from the barbaric forces of the Islamist State one would think any remotely mature world leader and world power would want to promote cooperation and partnership among fellow world leaders and powers?
So much of the war-mongering propaganda against Russia is framed on the lame and usual pretext of "bringing democracy" to needy and deserving global citizens -- this time in Ukraine.
Robert Parry in “The Whys Behind the Ukraine Crisis”:
As I wrote last April, “There is a ‘little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly’ quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon’s Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with ‘regime change’ – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your ‘regime change’ in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
... It has become more like a global version of Israel’s “Samson Option,” the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Robert Parry speculates as to why Obama and those insistent war-mongering politicians and advisers are so very gung-ho over punishing and agitating Russia to the point of thermo-nuclear war. Why are they willing to risk so much? Parry acknowledges that Putin deserves disdain for “retrograde policies on gay rights” for example. “But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler,” insists Parry.
Parry reflects back on the real motives behind the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among them were Cheney’s obsession with oil, George W. Bush’s “psychological rivalry with his father”, profiteering of the military industrial complex and “the neocons’ interest in orchestrating ‘regime change’ in countries considered hostile to Israel.”
Parry sees Israel’s influence and interests in the Middle East as a big part of this current US and NATO recklessness.
We know that American politicians are totally enthralled to the will of Israel, as opposed to their own citizens! Look at the willful and enormous sums of money and amount of weaponry as well as unconditional political support provided to Israel during this latest slaughter war of Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza.
War addict neocons like Sen. John McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland became directly active in the coup in Ukraine last winter. They and other neocons were very much against the Obama-Putin agreement with the Syrian government regarding chemical weapons which averted a US bombing campaign against Syria. Russia was also promoting US negotiations with Iran over limiting its nuclear program.
You would think that kind of Russian-US diplomacy to avoid more murderous militarism would be considered laudable. But not to the war-mongerers with too much power for too long in Washington along with a President with no respect for international law.
The “regime change” of Syria and Iran are obsessions with the Israeli government. Regime change in Syria and Iran are consequently priority goals for those crazed and obsequious to Israel neocons and pols.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran’s nuclear plants was an “existential” necessity.
We’ve all had a 50-day horrifying taste of Netanyahu’s lack of respect for non-Israeli human life. We've witnessed a long history of US politicians' lack of respect for human lives globally.
Parry on Assistant Secretary Nuland's push for military provocation against Russia and gas company interests:
... regarding this energy motive, it shouldn’t be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations,” she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company’s logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine’s energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial bonanza to investors and an end to Russia’s dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe’s third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas.”]
Further supporting the “natural gas motive” is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup.
Then, just three months later, Ukraine’s largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings, appointed Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their voices amid Washington’s near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, dismissed the idea that Hunter Biden’s new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: “It can’t be that because your dad is the vice president, you can’t do anything,”
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State John Kerry, including Kerry’s former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported, “Leiter’s involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry’s son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity company.”
According to investigative journalism in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Parry adds the motive of monetary contractual bonanzas of war once again to the mighty and rapacious military industrial complex. The amoral profits uber human lives and even the life of the planet capitalism code.
Finally, there is a serious economic threat to the U.S. from Russia and China in their experimenting with a non-dollar currency for global trade.
Still believe the US only wants to bring “democracy” to those poor eastern Ukrainians (of course, to the hell with any protesting western Ukrainians who happen to be Russian and who thus can easily be labeled "terrorists" and exterminated per craven US leaders and mainstream media).
Parry calls out this manipulative media propaganda of Washington's supposed “democracy-bringing” and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is hungrily and imperialistically trying to reclaim Russian territory lost to the Soviet Union in 1991. It is Russia that is exercising tremendous patience and restraint to relentlessly insistent provocations from the US and NATO countries insists Parry.
Parry does a good job summing up the recent history of US/EU illegitimate regime changing in Ukraine:
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union’s reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin’s collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for “regime change.”
Plus, if “democracy promotion” were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly endorsed the coup regime that emerged as “legitimate” and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets.
We have a say-anything President and an obediently parroting corporate mainstream media willing to manufacture citizen consent to risk war with Russia.
Will we really follow them down this particular garden path to war -- this time and this path to a probable, thermo-nuclear one?
[cross-posted on open salon]