US won't stand for peer competitors
This article originally appeared at CounterPunch
“I want to appeal to the Ukrainian people, to 
the mothers, the fathers, the sisters and the grandparents. Stop sending
 your sons and brothers to this pointless, merciless slaughter. The 
interests of the Ukrainian government are not your interests. I beg of 
you: Come to your senses. You do not have to water Donbass fields with 
Ukrainian blood. It’s not worth it.”
— Alexander Zakharchenko, Prime Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic
Washington needs a war in Ukraine to achieve its strategic objectives. This point cannot be overstated.
The US wants to push NATO to Russia’s western 
border. It wants a land-bridge to Asia to spread US military bases 
across the continent. It wants to control the pipeline corridors from 
Russia to Europe to monitor Moscow’s revenues and to ensure that gas 
continues to be denominated in dollars. And it wants a weaker, unstable 
Russia that is more prone to regime change, fragmentation and, 
ultimately, foreign control.
These objectives cannot be achieved peacefully, indeed,
 if the fighting stopped tomorrow, the sanctions would be lifted shortly
 after, and the Russian economy would begin to recover. How would that 
benefit Washington?
It wouldn’t. It would undermine Washington’s 
broader plan to integrate China and Russia into the prevailing economic 
system, the dollar system. Powerbrokers in the US realize that the 
present system must either expand or collapse. Either China and Russia 
are brought to heel and persuaded to accept a subordinate role in the 
US-led global order or Washington’s tenure as global hegemon will come 
to an end.
This is why hostilities in East Ukraine have 
escalated and will continue to escalate. This is why the U.S. Congress 
approved a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and 
lethal aid for Ukraine’s military. This is why Washington has sent 
military trainers to Ukraine and is preparing to provide $3 billion in 
“anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees, and radars
 that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.”
All of Washington’s actions are designed with 
one purpose in mind, to intensify the fighting and escalate the 
conflict. The heavy losses sustained by Ukraine’s inexperienced army and
 the terrible suffering of the civilians in Lugansk and Donetsk are of 
no interest to US war-planners.
Their job is to make sure that peace is avoided 
at all cost because peace would derail US plans to pivot to Asia and 
remain the world’s only superpower. Here’s an except from an article in 
the WSWS:
“The ultimate aim of the US and its allies is to
 reduce Russia to an impoverished and semi-colonial status. Such a 
strategy, historically associated with Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, is again being openly promoted.
In a speech last year at the Wilson Center, 
Brzezinski called on Washington to provide Kiev with “weapons designed 
particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban 
warfare of resistance.” In line with the policies now recommended in the
 report by the Brookings Institution and other think tanks calling for 
US arms to the Kiev regime, Brzezinski called for providing “anti-tank 
weapons…weapons capable for use in urban short-range fighting.”
While the strategy outlined by Brzezinski is 
politically criminal—trapping Russia in an ethnic urban war in Ukraine 
that would threaten the deaths of millions, if not billions of people—it
 is fully aligned with the policies he has promoted against Russia for 
decades.” (“The US arming of Ukraine and the danger of World War III“, 
World Socialist Web Site)
Non-lethal military aid will inevitably lead to 
lethal military aid, sophisticated weaponry, no-fly zones, covert 
assistance, foreign contractors, Special ops, and boots on the ground. 
We’ve seen it all before. There is no popular opposition to the war in 
the US, no thriving antiwar movement that can shut down cities, order a 
general strike or disrupt the status quo.
So there’s no way to stop the persistent drive 
to war. The media and the political class have given Obama carte 
blanche, the authority to prosecute the conflict as he sees fit. That increases the probability of a broader war by this summer following the spring thaw.
While the possibility of a nuclear conflagration
 cannot be excluded, it won’t effect US plans for the near future. No 
one thinks that Putin will launch a nuclear war to protect the Donbass, 
so the deterrent value of the weapons is lost.
And Washington isn’t worried about the costs 
either. Despite botched military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, 
Libya and half a dozen other countries around the world; US stocks are 
still soaring, foreign investment
 in US Treasuries is at record levels, the US economy is growing at a 
faster pace than any of its global competitors, and the dollar has risen
 an eye-watering 13 percent against a basket of foreign currencies since
 last June. America has paid nothing for decimating vast swathes of the 
planet and killing more than a million people. Why would they stop now?
They won’t, which is why the fighting in Ukraine is going to escalate. Check this out from the WSWS:
“On Monday, the New York Times announced that 
the Obama administration is moving to directly arm the Ukrainian army 
and the fascistic militias supporting the NATO-backed regime in Kiev, 
after its recent setbacks in the offensive against pro-Russian 
separatist forces in east Ukraine.
The article cites a joint report issued Monday 
by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, and the Chicago 
Council on Global Affairs and delivered to President Obama, advising the
 White House and NATO on the best way to escalate the war in Ukraine….
According to the Times, US officials are rapidly
 shifting to support the report’s proposals. NATO military commander in 
Europe General Philip M. Breedlove, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, US 
Secretary of State John Kerry, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
 General Martin Dempsey all supported discussions on directly arming 
Kiev. National Security Advisor Susan Rice is reconsidering her 
opposition to arming Kiev, paving the way for Obama’s approval.” 
(“Washington moves toward arming Ukrainian regime“, World Socialist Web 
Site)
See what’s going on? The die is already cast. 
There will be a war with Russia because that’s what the political 
establishment wants. It’s that simple. And while previous provocations 
failed to lure Putin into the Ukrainian cauldron, this new surge of 
violence–a spring offensive– is bound to do the trick.
Putin is not going to sit on his hands while 
proxies armed with US weapons and US logistical support pound the 
Donbass to Fallujah-type rubble. He’ll do what any responsible leader 
would do. He’ll protect his people. That means war. (See the vast damage
 that Obama’s proxy war has done to E. Ukraine here: “An overview of the
 socio – humanitarian situation on the territory of Donetsk People’s 
Republic as a consequence of military action from 17 to 23 January 
2015“)
Asymmetrical Warfare: Falling Oil Prices
Keep in mind, that the Russian economy has 
already been battered by economic sanctions, oil price manipulation, and
 a vicious attack of the ruble.
Until this week, the mainstream media dismissed 
the idea that the Saudis were deliberately pushing down oil prices to 
hurt Russia. They said the Saudis were merely trying to retain “market 
share” by maintaining current production levels and letting prices fall 
naturally.
But it was all bunkum as the New York Times 
finally admitted on Tuesday in an article titled: “Saudi Oil Is Seen as 
Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad”. Here’s a clip from the
 article:
“Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure 
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for 
President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global 
oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the 
effects of plummeting oil prices…
Saudi officials say — and they have told the 
United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin 
because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive 
up prices….Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one 
of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an
 impact on global statecraft…..
Saudi Arabia’s leverage depends on how seriously
 Moscow views its declining oil revenue. “If they are hurting so bad 
that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good 
position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well,” said F. Gregory
 Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of 
Government and Public Service (“Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry 
Russian Support From Syria’s Assad“, New York Times)
The Saudis “think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability” to manipulate prices?
That says it all, doesn’t it?
What’s interesting about this article is the way
 it conflicts with previous pieces in the Times. For example, just two 
weeks ago, in an article titled “Who Will Rule the Oil Market?” the 
author failed to see any political motive behind the Saudi’s action.
According to the narrative, the Saudis were just
 afraid that “they would lose market share permanently” if they cut 
production and kept prices high. Now the Times has done a 180 and joined
 the so called conspiracy nuts who said that prices were manipulated for
 political reasons.
In fact, the sudden price plunge had nothing to 
do with deflationary pressures, supply-demand dynamics, or any other 
mumbo-jumbo market forces. It was 100 percent politics.
The attack on the ruble was also politically 
motivated, although the details are much more sketchy. There’s an 
interesting interview with Alistair Crooke that’s worth a read for those
 who are curious about how the Pentagon’s “full spectrum dominance” 
applies to financial warfare. According to Crooke:
“…with Ukraine, we have entered a new era: We 
have a substantial, geostrategic conflict taking place, but it’s 
effectively a geo-financial war between the US and Russia. We have the 
collapse in the oil prices; we have the currency wars; we have the 
contrived “shorting” — selling short — of the ruble. We have a 
geo-financial war, and what we are seeing as a consequence of this 
geo-financial war is that first of all, it has brought about a close 
alliance between Russia and China.
China understands that Russia constitutes the 
first domino; if Russia is to fall, China will be next. These two states
 are together moving to create a parallel financial system, disentangled
 from the Western financial system. ……
For some time, the international order was 
structured around the United Nations and the corpus of international 
law, but more and more the West has tended to bypass the UN as an 
institution designed to maintain the international order, and instead 
relies on economic sanctions to pressure some countries. We have a 
dollar-based financial system, and through instrumentalizing America’s 
position as controller of all dollar transactions, the US has been able 
to bypass the old tools of diplomacy and the UN — in order to further 
its aims.
But increasingly, this monopoly over the reserve
 currency has become the unilateral tool of the United States — 
displacing multilateral action at the UN. The US claims jurisdiction 
over any dollar-denominated transaction that takes place anywhere in the
 world. And most business and trading transactions in the world are 
denominated in dollars. This essentially constitutes the 
financialization of the global order: The International Order depends 
more on control by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve than on the UN as
 before.” (“Turkey might become hostage to ISIL just like Pakistan did“,
 Today’s Zaman)
Financial warfare, asymmetrical warfare, Forth 
Generation warfare, space warfare, information warfare, nuclear warfare,
 laser, chemical, and biological warfare. The US has expanded its 
arsenal well beyond the traditional range of conventional weaponry. The 
goal, of course, is to preserve the post-1991 world order (The 
dissolution up of the Soviet Union) and maintain full spectrum 
dominance.
The emergence of a multi-polar world order 
spearheaded by Moscow poses the greatest single threat to Washington’s 
plans for continued domination. The first significant clash between 
these two competing world views will likely take place sometime this 
summer in East Ukraine. God help us.
NOTE: The Novorussia Armed Forces (NAF) 
currently have 8,000 Ukrainian regulars surrounded in Debaltsevo, East 
Ukraine. This is a very big deal although the media has been 
(predictably) keeping the story out of the headlines.
Evacuation corridors have been opened to allow 
civilians to leave the area. Fighting could break out at anytime. At 
present, it looks like a good part of the Kiev’s Nazi army could be 
destroyed in one fell swoop. This is why Merkel and Hollande have taken 
an emergency flight to Moscow to talk with Putin. They are not 
interested in peace. They merely want to save their proxy army from 
annihilation.
I expect Putin may intervene on behalf of the 
Ukrainian soldiers, but I think commander Zakharchenko will resist. If 
he lets these troops go now, what assurance does he have that they won’t
 be back in a month or so with high-powered weaponry provided by our 
war-mongering congress and White House?
Tell me; what choice does Zakharchenko really 
have? If his comrades are killed in future combat because he let Kiev’s 
army escape, who can he blame but himself?
There are no good choices.
 
 
 


No comments:
Post a Comment