Tuesday 22nd of October 2019

with drone and god on his/her side...

Yalta

A bitter pill to swallow: 


Churchill did not win the war. Stalin did.

Not even the Americans, the Canadians nor the Australian won WWII.
The Russians did. 
And this is a bitter historic pill to swallow.
As Churchill and Montgomery (Monty) were fighting in Egypt, loosing Tobruk to Rommel, then luckily they won El Alamein through the sheer courage of troopers, having twice as many Allied troops opposed to the Axis forces and breaking the German codes. Rommel was still not yet fully defeated. At El Alamein, Both sides lost about 2500 fighters and 20,000 Germans were made prisoners. Rommel regrouped.
El Alamein was a success of sorts for Churchill, who to say the least was a racist excentric and full of his own hubris. There were better and more honest talent in the British Parliament, but Churchill prevailed because of his boisterous cunning and annoying image of chubby bovver boy with cigars. 
Churchill was fighting the war in North Africa to preserve the integrity of the "British Empire", including India and especially Egypt. 
The Americans in some way did not like this old colonialist boots-and-all style of Empire. They preferred sowing "freedom" alla Yankee-Doodle-Yankee: you become dependent economically of our superior mercantilism and we'll share with you how to cook hamburgers, how to become fat on fast food and soft drinks... and how to chew chewing gum and spit tobacco while watching our Hollywood propaganda on how great we are. And look at our cars! two tons of chrome, leather and ostentation. The alternative? We bomb the shit out of you... The choice is clear, simple.
While the British were considering the loss of 2500 men quite severe at Al Alamein, in the same year, 1942, on the Eastern front, the Russians and the Germans were loosing more than 500,000 men each over six months or so, in the battle for Stalingrad — the bloodiest single battle of all time. The Russian eventually prevailed.
This was real rivers of blood, real crap that made Stalin become the leader that the west became to fear. Sure, like Churchill, Stalin made some strategic mistakes, but hindsight is a great counsel. After this battle, the Russians, not in a good mood, were converging towards Berlin, while the yanks were doing the same, not so much to defeat the Germans but to stop the Russian invasion of Germany and Poland which had taken a massive momentum. 
Hence the Yalta agreement which saw Germany cut into bits after capitulation. 
To some extend, Stalin was self-restrained. He could have played hard ball. The Russians and the Americans were on par in developing the atom bomb, though the US used it first, on Japan. So Stalin did not have to fear the Yanks. The Yanks hated this.
But Stalin did not want to antagonise the Americans who to say the least have tried everything to antagonise the Russians ever since.
There is an Empire mentality pervading Yankeedom. The Americans want to control everything. Really, they want you to be happy — under their guidance and know-how on how to be fat, gross and evangelically perverted, as long as you don't know you are like Truman, in the movie of the same name — The Truman Show. They hate real competition, despite fostering the idea of competition. 
"You can compete against us as long as you don't win" is the American unofficial motto.
The race to the bottom by all the present brain-damaged presidential candidates to get the top job is perverse. Few of the candidates have the intellectual rigour to understand anything beyond ferocious hubris, grand larceny and hypocrisy. Lucky, the President only represents the discreet behind-the-scene real forces of the empire, but the wrong president could upset the apple cart and push a few buttons too many. Dubya nearly did. Many people paid the price for his folly. That the President was not impeached nor taken to an international war crime tribunal is short of a miracle — or how American gangsters protection system works at this level. Favours had to be called.
So, every day, the Americans hate the Russians. First because they beat the Yanks to Berlin and then the Ruskies had the temerity to have the first artificial satellite orbiting the planet. 
"We'll be first to go to the moon, then".
The saving grace of the Americans has been the invention of the personal computers. The Russians are better technological engineers. They have to. Siberia's hard conditions gives them something to develop heavy duty systems that are far more than timber huts in the Rockies. The Russians can crunch numbers like you would not believe.
But Silicon Valley was a boon to the US. 
Mr Gates and Mr Jobs and their mates created a new-world freedom, which they still try to control. Here is an "American" toy. Play with it as long as we make and control the rules of the game. Fair's fair. 
But the constant pounding of Russia, in order to politically inflate America's ideology is becoming tiresome. They hate Putin, because he does not heed. Putin put a stop to the raping of Russia by the West. He protects Russia from these lousy hypocritical games the Yanks love to play, including officially arming Europe to the teeth against Iran while knowingly doing it is against Russia. Putin is not an angel, sure, but no President of the US has been or ever been. 
The Americans meddling in the Middle-East is not about "peace", nor "people" — it's about oil. We know that. They are prepared to let Syria fall in the hands of hardball extremist Sunnis, who would destroy the other sects in the country, so they can get the oil. It's also about the price of oil which HAS TO BE TRADED IN US DOLLARS. This was Saddam Hussein's sin: he was selling oil in ROUBLES. Same with Gaddafi who wanted to create an African Central Bank. The Yanks could not have that. Under gloriously promoted fake excuses of delivering freedom, the Americans destroyed the lad — and Libya as well. Unfortunately, there was a pimple called Benghazi. The thugs hired by the US to destroy Gaddafi, well, were thugs and they also destroyed the US Embassy in their enthusiasm. Someone has to pay for this indiscretion. The finger points at Mrs Clinton, but the real culprits are hiding in the corridors of oil merchantizers.
Of course through all this, our glorious MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda) only sees the little pictures. They print and show us videos of vignettes of courage and a few poppies. None see the greater historical momentum in which hypocritical nastiness rules the politics of American domination.
Syngenta is being bought by the Chinese government. Cash. The Chinese government has lots of American Cash reserves. More than four trillions of it. They can manipulate the market. We see all this with the price of coal tanking south which makes Australia's economy under the "economic expertise" of the CONservatives government, look like Uganda's. At least, it cannot be denied that under Julia Gillard, the Australian economy was doing far better and being one of the best in the world. 
So the Chinese are placing about 20 per cent more cash than the stock-market value of this "Swiss" company. But the yanks might have something to say about the deal. The Chinese can play the game hard ball if they have to. Anyone dealing with the Chinese know this. In order to make a little profit one needs to drop one's trousers or play a weird game of high and low chairs. 
Syngenta is in direct competition with Monsanto. Syngenta has about half as less market share than Monsanto, but it looks than under the Chinese this could change. So what do the Chinese buy? Expertise and patents. And a market which they can expand within China. Leverage with India where the Yanks have been fiddling with so badly that many Indian farmers have taken their own life.
And of course, China can make better deals with Russia. 
But the yanks "might" object to the sale of Syngenta. Like trying to defeat the deal between France and Germany since the 1960s, the Americans have been trying to kill off the Russian-Chinese alliance. 
The Empire is kicking and hates the Chinese "nation" building in the South China Sea... We'll see.
And the Russians? They will have to react to the American hubris and we'll blame them for increasing the armament along their borders, giving us the reason to increase the European defences there "in retaliation". But they might not. They know that Napoleon and Hitler broke their neck in trying the stint before. I don't think even a mad US president would be prepared to take the plunge into the frozen Volga, even with drones and god on his/her side.


Gus Leonisky
Your local read-between-the-lines historian

 

of course, the russians are to be blamed, once more...

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry has demanded Russia stop bombing the Syrian opposition, implicitly blaming Moscow for the collapse in peace talks.

Key points:
  • John Kerry demands Russia stop bombing Syrian opposition
  • Latest Russian-backed offensive led to collapse of UN peace talks
  • Turkey says talks "pointless" while Russia attacks

Speaking in London ahead of a conference on the Syrian humanitarian effort, Mr Kerry said he had called Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for a "robust" discussion.

In Geneva on Wednesday, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended attempts to begin a dialogue between Bashar al-Assad's regime and the Syrian opposition until February 25.

Alongside Britain's Foreign Minister Phillip Hammond, Mr Kerry read out sections of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, passed in December, calling for an immediate ceasefire.

"Russia has a responsibility, as do all parties, to live up to it," he said.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/us-demands-russia-stop-syria-bombing-after-talks-suspended/7142104

 

The point here is that Russia's intervention in Syria has tipped the balance of power and the US does not like it. The Russians are winning the war that the Americans have encouraged to fester for the last four years, leading to the creation of ISIS.

And of course, Kerry has righteousness on his side since he mentions something "humanitarian" in a sentence...

 

meanwhile, the chinese are cooking...

 

HONG KONG — China is spending billions of dollars on a major push to make its own microchips, an effort that could bolster its military capabilities as well as its homegrown technology industry.

Those ambitions are starting to be noticed in Washington.

Worries over China’s chip ambitions were the main reason that United States officials blocked the proposed purchase for as much as $2.9 billion of a controlling stake in a unit of the Dutch electronics company Philips by Chinese investors, according to one expert and a second person involved with the deal discussions.

The rare blockage underscores growing concern in Washington about Chinese efforts to acquire the know-how to make the semiconductors that work as the brains of all kinds of sophisticated electronics, including military applications like missile systems.

In the case of the Philips deal, the company said late last month that it would terminate a March 2015 agreement to sell a majority stake in its auto and light-emitting diode components business known as Lumileds to a group that included the Chinese investors GO Scale Capital and GSR Ventures. It cited concerns raised by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviews whether foreign investments in the country present a national security risk.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/technology/concern-grows-in-us-over-chinas-drive-to-make-chips.html?

 

The US does not have to worry... The Chinese can easily build NEW chips from old ones being discarded on garbage heaps or those available at Officeworks, made in China... That a chip is twice the size and half as slow should not worry Chinese armament manufacturers... It's still is a small chip with a precision of 1/100000000000 on the ground. Put three together and you get more precision still.

what crap is washington going to do to stop this?


Analysis: Russia’s triumph in Aleppo


Mike Whitney writes in Global Research:

“This is the beginning of the end of jihadi presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war and terror, people can finally see the end in sight.”

— Edward Dark, Twitter, Moon of Alabama

A last ditch effort to stop a Russian-led military offensive in northern Syria ended in failure on Wednesday when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and heavy Russian air cover broke a 40-month siege on the villages of Nubl and al-Zahra in northwestern Aleppo province. The Obama administration had hoped that it could forestall the onslaught by cobbling together an eleventh-hour ceasefire agreement at the Geneva peace talks.  But when the news that Syrian armored units had crashed through al Nusra’s defenses and forced the jihadists to retreat, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended the negotiations tacitly acknowledging that the mission had failed.

“I have indicated from the first day that I won’t talk for the sake of talking,” the envoy told reporters, saying he needed immediate help from international backers led by the United States and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides of a war that has also drawn in regional powers.” (Reuters)  De Mistura then announced a “temporary pause” in the stillborn negotiations which had only formally begun just hours earlier. Developments on the battlefield had convinced the Italian-Swedish diplomat that it was pointless to continue while government forces were effecting a solution through military means.

After months of grinding away at enemy positions across the country,  the Russian strategy has begun to bear fruit. Loyalist ground forces have made great strides on the battlefield rolling back the war-weary insurgents on virtually all fronts. A broad swathe of the Turkish border is now under SAA control while the ubiquitous Russian bombers continue to inflict heavy losses on demoralized anti-regime militants. Wednesday’s lightening attack on the strategic towns of  Nubl and Zahraa was just the icing on the cake.  The bold maneuver severed critical supply-lines to Turkey while  tightening the military noose around the country’s largest city leaving hundreds of terrorists stranded in a battered cauldron with no way out.

For the last two weeks, the Obama team has been following developments on the ground with growing concern. This is why Secretary of State John Kerry hurriedly assembled a diplomatic mission to convene emergency peace talks in Geneva despite the fact that the various participants had not even agreed to attend. A sense of urgency bordering on panic was palpable from the onset. The goal was never to achieve a negotiated settlement or an honorable peace, but (as Foreign Policy magazine noted) to implement “a broad ‘freeze’ over the whole province of Aleppo, which would then be replicated in other regions later.” This was the real objective, to stop the bleeding any way possible and prevent the inevitable encirclement of Aleppo.

The recapturing of Nubl and Zahraa leaves the jihadists with just one route for transporting weapons, food and fuel to their urban stronghold. When loyalist forces break the blockade at Bab al Hawa to the northeast, the loop will be closed, the perimeter will tighten, the cauldron will be split into smaller enclaves within the city, and the terrorists will either surrender or face certain annihilation. Wednesday’s triumph by the Russian-led coalition is a sign that that day may be approaching sooner than anyone had anticipated. […]


Comment Bevin:

If the Syrian government does prevail it will signal the end of an era in international relations. For the past thirty years and more the “supreme war crime,’ as defined at Nurnburg (sic), has become routine. Not only the United States but its satellites have felt themselves free to despatch armies wherever they choose. In Afghanistan the government was overthrown by guerrillas working for Saudi Arabia, Iran was attacked, without provocation, by Iraq, again sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the USA. The pattern was well established, the attack on Syria, long planned and ruthlessly executed was intended to end as that on Libya had.
It was clear, after the Libyan aggression, that Russia, China and the rest of the world would have to choose between accepting the right of the USA to impose dictators wherever it found it convenient to do so or to call a halt to these increasingly frequent and scandalously cynical adventures.
It is to be hoped that, after having restrained themselves to a fault, as Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan. Libya, Iraq and other countries were handed over to US puppets , Russia and China faced the fact that if they allowed the process to go on they would be next, as the USA attempts to establish its hegemony through ‘globalisation.’
Nothing could be less relevant than the personalities or domestic policies of the rulers of countries resisting this sinister plan of world domination. To support Russia’s Syrian operations involves no endorsement of the government in Moscow- which is answerable only to the people of Russia- it is simply a re-affirmation of the rights of nations to choose their own governments and of the criminality of foreign interventions employing mercenaries to terrorise people into submission.
As to Syria, its population having been, by war, reduced from 23 to 18 million, there is a bill of reparations which must be collected-those responsible, most notably Saudi Arabia, the Qatar statelet and Turkey not only owe the people of Syria the cost of war damage, they owe the people of Europe for the cost of dealing with the refugees pouring in. It will be a consolation to these three countries that much of the blame must also be shouldered by NATO, particularly its head in Washington.

we're idiots...

 

Recently, General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, admitted that,

"It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing."

Decoded, this means that intelligence reports indicate that Russia is not a threat to the West. 

Since Russian aggression is not a threat, then increased NATO deployments to encircle Russia are a threat --- to Russia.

Decoded again:  We are the bad guys, Russia is not.

But this hasn’t stopped Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, from confirming, according to CBC news, that

“Canada will send a battle group of soldiers to Latvia by early 2017 as part of a NATO plan to counter fears of Russian aggression in eastern Europe.”  

So, Canada’s decision to provoke Russia is based on groundless fears.

Since reasonable foreign policy decisions are few and far between, Canadians might want to pay heed to a recent observation made by Paul Craig Roberts:

“ …  only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army. In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.”

Decoded? We’re idiots.

 

Read more: http://ahtribune.com/politics/1073-engineered-fears.html

 

Read from top.

dishonoring the fallen pawns...

 

In Crimea the mortal remains of German soldiers are often found. They cannot be buried in the beautiful, almost celestially German military cemetery near the port city of Sevastopol, because the responsible German authorities refuse to cooperate with the Russian authorities. If you address this matter to the President of the Federal Republic, an answer will not be given. What is one to think of an administration that due to the current NATO policy behaves in this fashion towards its fallen soldiers?

 


It is an act of decency and responsibility for the past and future to commemorate the dead. We have seen too many of such occasions in the last century. None of this should be forgotten, because this creates new misery. Isn’t that especially applicable to Stalingrad and the immeasurable death toll that people beyond Brest paid for the German Reich’s attack on the then Soviet Union? Why were the million victims of this war seventy-five years after the end of the Stalingrad battle not commemorated? Why does the Federal Government refuse to honour the victims? Why do we let ourselves be manipulated against Russia by a mendacious and aggressive policy? This policy comes precisely from those alleged allies who wanted to destroy both Germany and the Danube Monarchy in 1914 in the war against Austria-Hungary and imperial Germany!

Why are all in Europe again talking about war against Russia, instead of finally realizing that it was Moscow which placed the key to Germany’s unity in our trustworthy hands? 

 

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/CC_20180223_04.pdf

 

May I add that Germany does not have any cenotaphs, nor any monuments commemorating war... 

 

Read from top.

completely falsified by propaganda of the Atlantic Alliance...

Why the USSR Did Not ‘Win’ World War II (Part I)


by  Michael Jabara Carley

Over time, it is possible to completely rewrite history and interchange the roles of the actors. Professor Michael Jabara Carley examines here the example of the Second World War. This important event, extensively studied by many historians, was completely falsified, after 70 years of propaganda by the Atlantic Alliance.


The title of this article is intended to be ironic because of course the Red Army did play the predominant role in destroying Nazi Germany during World War II. You would not know it, however, reading the western Mainstream Media (MSM), or watching television, or going to the cinema in the west where the Soviet role in the war has almost entirely disappeared.

If in the West the Red Army is largely absent from World War II, the Soviet Union’s responsibility for igniting the war is omnipresent. The MSM and western politicians tend to regard the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941 as the Soviet Union’s just reward for the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill put it, the USSR “brought their own fate upon themselves when by their Pact with [Joachim von] Ribbentrop they let Hitler loose on Poland and so started the war…” Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR, was Stalin’s fault and therefore an expatiation of sins, so that Soviet resistance should not be viewed as anything more than penitence.

Whereas France and Britain “appeased” Nazi Germany, one MSM commentator recently noted, the USSR “collaborated” with Hitler. You see how western propaganda works, and it’s none too subtle. Just watch for the key words and read between the lines. France and Britain were innocents in the woods, who unwisely “appeased” Hitler in hopes of preserving European peace. On the other hand, the totalitarian Stalin “collaborated” with the totalitarian Hitler to encourage war, not preserve the peace. Stalin not only collaborated with Hitler, the USSR and Nazi Germany were “allies” who carved up Europe. The USSR was “the wolf”; the West was “the lamb”. These are not only metaphors of the English-speaking world; France 2 has promoted the same narrative in the much publicised television series, “Apocalypse” (2010) and “Apocalypse Staline” (2015) [1]. World War II erupted because of the non-aggression pact, that dirty deal, which marked the beginning of the short-lived “alliance” of the two “totalitarian” states. Hitler and Stalin each had a foot in the same boot.

 

REad more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article190843.html

 

Read from top. Note date.

 

oh…, nothing much...

 

by Michael Jabara Carley


...

How many of you have not seen some Hollywood film in which the Normandy landings are the great turning point of the war? “What if the landings had failed,” one often hears? “Oh…, nothing much,” is the appropriate reply. The war would have gone on longer, and the Red Army would have planted its flags on the Normandy beaches coming from the east. Then there are the movies about the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, the “decisive” factor in winning the war. In Hollywood films about World War II, the Red Army is invisible. It is as if the Americans (and British) were claiming laurels they didn’t earn.

I like to ask students in my university course on the Second World War, who has heard of operation Overlord? Everyone raises a hand. Then I ask who has heard of Operation Bagration? Hardly anyone raises a hand. I ask facetiously who “won” the war against Nazi Germany and the answer is “America” of course. Only a few students—normally those who have had other courses with me—will answer the Soviet Union.

The truth is uphill work in a western world where “fake news” is the norm. The OSCE and European Parliament put the blame for World War II on the Soviet Union, read Russia and President Vladimir Putin, as the subliminal message. Hitler is almost forgotten in this tohu-bohu of evidence-free accusations. Behind the bogus historical narrative are the Baltic states, Poland, and the Ukraine, spewing out hatred of Russia. The Baltics and the Ukraine now remember Nazi collaborators as national heroes and celebrate their deeds. In Poland, for some people, this is hard to swallow; they remember the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who murdered tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia. Unfortunately, such memories have not stopped Polish hooligans from vandalising monuments to Red Army war dead or desecrating Soviet war cemeteries. Polish “nationalists” cannot bear the memory of the Red Army freeing Poland from the Nazi invader.

Now, each year on Victory Day the “immortal regiment”, the bessmertnyi polk, marches; Russians in cities and towns across the country and abroad, march together carrying large photographs of family members, men and women, who fought in the war. “We remember,” they want to say: “and we will never forget you.”

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/10/the-russian-v-day-story-or-the-histo...

 

Read from top

or it will be ww3...

The Post-World-War-II world order was dominated by the one WWII major combatant that had only 0.32% of its population (the lowest percentage) killed by the war: the United States. The Soviet Union’s comparable number killed by the war was the highest — it was 13.7% — 42.8 times higher than America’s. The US was the main force that defeated Japan and so won WWII in Asia. The USSR, however, was the main force that defeated Germany and so won WWII in Europe. The USSR suffered vastly more than did the US to achieve its victory. In addition to suffering 42.8 times the number of war-deaths than did US, the USSR’s financial expenditures invested in the conflict, as calculated by Jan Ludvik, were 4.8 times higher than were America’s financial expenditures on the war.

Thus, at the war’s end, the Soviet Union was exhausted and in a much weaker condition than it had been before the war. By contrast, the US, having had none of the war’s battles occurring on its territory, was (by comparison) barely even scratched by the war, and it was thus clearly and overwhelmingly the new and dominant world-power emerging from the war. 

That was the actual situation in 1945.

The US Government did not sit on its haunches with its enormous post-war advantage, but invested wisely in order to expand it. One of the first investments the US made after the war was the Marshall Plan to rebuild the European countries that had now become the US aristocracy’s vassal-states. The heavily damaged USSR possessed no such extra cash to invest in (rebuilding) its vassals. Furthermore, the USSR’s communist regime was additionally hobbled by Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, which produced prices that contained no useful information about demand and thus no constructive information for planners. (Planning is essential regardless whether an enterprise is private or public.) Thus, the USSR was doomed to lose in its economic competition with The West, so that the Cold War was actually a losing proposition for them, from the very start of the post-war era. America’s post-WW-II dominance, combined with Marx’s crippling economic theory, and produced the exodus of East Europeans to The West. 

America’s aristocracy thus increasingly rose on top internationally. Like any aristocracy, the American aristocracy’s main concerns were foreign trade, and so US international corporations increasingly expanded even at the expense of the corporations owned by its competing, now-vassal, aristocracies, and the US aristocracy’s corporations and brands thus came to dominate the entire capitalist sphere. The growth-bug, if it becomes an addiction, is itself a disease. Out of control, it is a cancer, which can destroy the organism. This is what happened in America. Conquering also the communist sphere was the US aristocracy’s long-term goal, so that they would ultimately dominate every nation, the entire world. By the time of 1980, the US aristocracy’s top goal (world domination) became also the US Government’s top goal. The cancer had spread to the culture’s brain. Growth, backed by “Greed is good” economics, became practically the American religion, viewed as patriotic, and not merely as the nation’s economic model (which was bad enough, with its increasingly imperialistic thrust — such as 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya, 2012 - Syria, 2014 Ukraine, 2016 - Yemen, and maybe now Iran).

America’s unchallengeable dominance lasted from then till now, but clearly has now reached near its end. The United States is trying to restore its post-Soviet (post-1991) global supremacy, by intensifying the US regime's secret war against Russia and its allies, which started on the night of 24 February 1990 and which could reach a crescendo soon in WWIII unless something will be done by America’s allies to force the by-now wildly flailing US aristocracy to accept peacefully the end of the American aristocracy’s hegemony — the termination of their, until recently, unchallengeable control over the world. By now, with the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance gone since 1991 and yet no peace-dividend but only ever-increasing wealth-concentration into the tiny number of billionaires who benefit from war weaponry-sales and conquests, America needs to abandon its addiction to growth, or else it will proceed forward on its current path, to WWIII. That’s its current path.

According to Josh Rogin in the Washington Post on November 14th, US Vice President Mike Pence had just said, as Rogin phrased it, that “the United States has no intention of ceding influence or control over the [Pacific] region to Beijing” and that if China won’t do everything that the US demands, then the US is fully prepared to force China to obey. The same newspaper had earlier presented Robert D. Kaplan, on October 9th, saying, “The United States must face up to an important fact: the western Pacific is no longer a unipolar American naval lake, as it was for decades after World War II. The return of China to the status of great power ensures a more complicated multipolar situation. The United States must make at least some room for Chinese air and naval power in the Indo-Pacific region.” But the US regime is now making clear that it won’t do that. 

The US regime appears to be determined to coerce both Russia and China to comply with all American demands. With both of those countries, as with Iran, the US regime is now threatening hot war. Trump, as the “deal-maker,” is offering no concessions, but only demands, which must be complied with, or else. The United States is threatening WWIII. But what nations will be America’s allies, this time around? If many European nations abandon the US, then what?

Key for the US regime is keeping the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. 

Rockefeller Capital Management, Global Foresight, Third Quarter 2018 presents Jimmy Chang, Chief Investment Strategist, headlining “Nothing Trumps the Dollar, Yet”. He writes: “The reserve currency status gives the US a significant advantage in handling its finances. American economist Barry Eichengreen observed that it cost only a few cents for the US to print a $100 bill, but other countries would need to produce $100 of actual goods or services to obtain that $100 bill. The world’s need for the greenback allows the US to issue debt in its own currency at very low interest rates. French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who later became the president, coined [in 1965] the term 'exorbitant privilege' to describe America’s advantage” of the US dollar over any other nation’s currency. That “exorbitant advantage” never went away. Chang concludes: “As for the King Dollar, its short-term outlook appears robust.” However, few other observers now share that view. Increasing numbers of countries are pricing goods in other currencies, and China's yuan and the EU’s euro are especially significant contenders to end dollar-dominance and to end the advantages that US-based international corporations enjoy from dollar-dominance. 

Other than dollar-dominance, the key barrier to world peace is NATO, the military alliance of the northern aggressor-nations. Proposals have been put forth for the EU to have its own army, which initially would be allied with NATO (i.e., with the US regime). On November 17th, Russian Television bannered “EU army: Will it be easy for Europe to get rid of American political diktat?” and pointed to the US vassal-nations that would be especially likely to stay in NATO: UK, Poland, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Perhaps the other EU nations and Russia could form their own military alliance, which will formally be committed to the independence of those US vassal-nations, and which will welcome individual peace-treaties with each of them, so as to indicate that aggression is only the US regime’s way, and thus to lay the groundwork for peace instead of war, going forward. Clearly, the people who control the US are addicted to invasions and coups (“regime-change”s), instead of to respecting the sovereignty of each nation and the right of self-determination of people everywhere. America’s conquest-addiction threatens, actually, every other nation. 

Perhaps a reformed and truly independent EU can provide the new reserve currency, and also in other ways the foundation for global peace between nations. NATO will be irrevocably opposed to this, but it could happen. And if and when it does, it might tame the aristocratic beast that rides the American warfare state, but this isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. A step forward toward it is the courageous statement by “The Saker” at the American news-commentary site, Unz dot com, on November 15th, “Thanking Vets for Their ‘Service’ – Why?” He boldly notes that after World War II, all US invasions have been criminal, and that it’s a remarkably long string of evil — and this doesn’t even include the many coups, which have likewise destroyed some nations. 

Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is replaced by nationalism. 

Only by restoring patriotism and eliminating nationalism can WWIII be avoided. Ending dollar-dominance is part of the path toward an internationally peaceful world that focuses more on serving the public’s needs and less on serving the aristocrats’ cravings. But ending NATO is also necessary.

Either these things will be done, or there will be WWIII.

Read more:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/19/world-order-that-now-e...

 

 

Read from top.