Friday 22nd of September 2023

war is our business...

no fiction...


In 2017, explosive allegations first emerged that the authorities of the Chechen Republic were reportedly interning gay men in concentration camps. After a three year period of dormancy, the accusations have resurfaced in a new feature-length documentary by HBO Films entitled Welcome to Chechnya.

Shot between mid-2017 and early last year, the film has received widespread acclaim among Western media and film critics. Shortly after its release last month, the Trump administration and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced an increase in economic sanctions and imposed travel restrictions against Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and his family, citing the putative human rights abuses in the southern Russian republic covered in the film. 

Most of the boilerplate reviews of Welcome to Chechnya have heaped particular praise upon the documentary’s novelty use of ‘deepfake’ technology to hide the identities of alleged victims in the cinematic investigation. Yet at the closing of the film, one subject who previously appears with his likeness concealed by AI reveals himself at a news conference without the disguise — rendering the prior use of synthetic media fruitless. 

Maxim Lapunov, who is not even ethnically Chechen but a Russian native of Siberia, is still the only individual to have gone public with the charges. Despite the obvious credibility and authenticity questions regarding the use of such controversial technology, it has not prevented critics from lauding it unquestioningly.

Unfortunately, even some in alternative media have been regurgitating the film’s propaganda such as The Intercept, a slick online news publication owned by billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar whose financial ties to the national security state and U.S. soft power institutions conflict with the outlet’s purported mission. 

Notably, The Intercept’s glowing review of Welcome to Chechnya was written by Mehdi Hasan, a journalist who also works for Al-Jazeera, a news agency owned by the ruling emirs of Qatar, a theocratic dictatorship where homosexuality is actually illegal. 

The documentarians follow the work of a purported network of activists who evacuate individuals like Lapunov out of the Caucasian republic. This is the film’s primary source of drama, despite their encountering seemingly no difficulty from the local authorities in doing so. 

We are then subjected to random cell phone clips of apparent hate crimes and human rights abuses going on, but at no point does the film crew even visit the Argun prison where the anti-gay pogroms are alleged to have taken place. 

In 2017, the imperial hipsters at Vice news were given unrestricted access to the facility where nothing was found and the warden adamantly denied the allegations — but not without expressing his own disapproval of homosexuality which was assumed by his interrogators to be evidence of the detentions having occurred. 

In the HBO documentary, a similar hatchet job is done to Ramzan Kadyrov, whose uncomfortable denial of the existence of homosexuality in the deeply conservative and predominantly Muslim republic is implied to be proof that the purges must be happening.

One may recall this same sort of smear tactic was previously done to former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, Kadyrov and the warden’s predictable responses to the subject serve only as confirmation bias, not confirmation. 

The selective outrage in response to the alleged purges, like all things Russia-related, is highly politicized. Western viewers would have no idea that of the 74 countries worldwide where homosexuality is still criminalized, Russia isn’t among them. 

In more than a dozen of those nations, same-sex activity is punishable by death, a few of which happen to be close strategic allies of the United States, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. 

As recently as 2017, the US was one of 13 countries to vote against a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning countries with capital punishment for same-sex relations to avoid falling-out with those allies, most of which have legal systems established on their respective interpretations of Sharia law. 

While the local authorities of the Muslim-majority Chechen Republic have been allowed to introduce some elements of the fundamentalist religious code by the Russian government such as the banning of alcohol and gambling and requiring the wearing of hijab by women, as a federal subject it is still ultimately beholden to Russia’s secular constitution. 

In fact, it was Kadyrov’s predecessor, Alu Alkhanov, who hoped to govern Chechnya with Sharia law, not the current administration. Credulous audiences would have no clue that Kadyrov actually represents the more moderate wing of Chechen politics because there is absolutely no history or context provided, a deliberately misleading choice on the part of the filmmakers. 

The absence of any historical background deceptively suggests that the anti-gay sentiment in the mostly Muslim North Caucasus is somehow an extension of the homophobia in Russia itself, despite the autonomous differences in religion, culture, and society.

In the last decade, the weaponization of identity politics has been central to Washington’s ongoing demonization of Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, with the issue of LGBT rights particularly given significant attention. While homosexuality is decriminalized, there is admittedly no legal prohibition of discrimination against the LGBT community in Russia. 

In particular, human rights groups have condemned the notorious federal law passed in 2013 known as the ‘gay propaganda law’ that forbids the distribution of information promoting “non-traditional sexual relations” to minors, which entails the banning of gay pride parades and other LGBT rights demonstrations. 

However, the measure enjoys widespread support among the Russian people whose social conservatism has been resuscitated by the Orthodox Church since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is rather ironic and hypocritical that the West has since taken issue with this turn, considering it facilitated that political transformation. 

In reality, the reason for the relentless vilification of Putin has absolutely nothing to to do with the exaggerated plight of gays in Russia and a lot more to do with the reversal of policies under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin.

In the nineties, the mass privatization of the former state-owned enterprises during Russia’s conversion to capitalism resulted in the instant impoverishment of millions and the rapid rise of the notorious ‘oligarchs’ which the West characterized at the time as progression towards democracy. 

In the loans-for-shares scheme, a new ruling class of bankers and industrialists accumulated enormous wealth overnight and by the middle of the decade, owned or controlled much of the country’s media outlets. The oligarchs held enormous power and influence over the deeply unpopular Yeltsin, who would surely have lost reelection in 1996 without their backing and the assistance of Western meddling in the form of massive loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

While economic disparity and corruption persists today, overall the Russian economy has been rebuilt after its energy assets were re-nationalized and brought back under state control by the Putin administration, resulting in improved living standards and income levels for the last two decades. 

By the same measure, the Russian people can hardly be blamed for associating homosexuality with the unbridled neoliberalism, vulture capitalism and draconian austerity imposed on their country by Western capital. 

It is also truly paradoxical that the notion of “Russian oligarchs” has become synonymous with Putin in the minds of Westerners when many of the most obscenely wealthy oligarchs of the Yeltsin era now live in exile as his most ardent political opponents after they faced prosecution for their financial crimes. 

Not coincidentally, the initial reports of the ‘gay gulags’ in Chechnya were published in Novaya Gazeta, an anti-Putin newspaper partly owned by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the very man who ushered in the economic liberalization which auctioned off the state assets to oligarchs like co-owner Alexander Lebedev.

Gorbachev’s reforms, particularly that of perestroika (“restructuring”), also had destructive consequences for the national question and ethno-regional interests.

Lenin had famously called the Russian Empire a “prison house of nations”, in reference to its heterogeneous range of nationalities and ethnic groups. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 especially re-agitated ethno-national conflicts in the Caucasus, a region that had enjoyed several decades of relative harmony and stability under socialism with rights and representation that did not exist in pre-revolutionary Russia. 

While Azerbaijan and Georgia were granted independence, Chechnya and many other municipalities remained under federal control of the Russian Federation, as sovereignty did not constitutionally apply because it had never been an independent state. Not to mention, its oil and gas reserves are essential to Russia’s very economic survival. 

The jihadism which plagued the Caucasus was an outgrowth of the US-backed ‘holy war’ in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Jimmy Carter administration. It was the Polish-born Brzezinski who not only authored the geostrategy of arming the mujahideen against the Soviets but the efforts to turn Russia’s own large Muslim minority community against them. 

This was mostly unsuccessful as the majority of its 20 million Muslims (10% of the population) are harmoniously integrated into Russian society, but the Atlanticists did fan the flames of a militant secessionist movement in Chechnya that erupted in a violent insurgency and became increasingly Islamist as the conflict dragged on.

For Washington, the hope was that the West could gain access to Caspian oil by encouraging the al-Qaeda-linked separatists rebranded as “rebels” vulnerable to its domination in the energy-rich region. 

The collapse of the USSR already escalated hostilities between the intermingling ethnic communities of the region, but the antagonisms were intensified by CIA soft power cutouts like the Jamestown Foundation fomenting the secessionist insurrection.

As the separatist movement grew increasingly Wahhabist thanks to US-ally Saudi Arabia, its more moderate nationalist faction led by Akhmad Kadyrov eventually defected back to the Russian side. The elder Kadyrov would pay the price when he was assassinated in a 2004 stadium bombing in Grozny during an annual Victory Day celebration, with his son becoming one of his successors. 

The Kremlin’s support for the Kadyrovs should be understood as a compromise which prevented the more radical Islamists from taking power, which apparently Washington would be happier with running the North Caucasus. 

What a human rights utopia Chechnya would be as a breakaway Islamic state, under the salafists which during the Chechen wars committed unspeakable acts of terrorism including the taking of hospital patients, theater goers, and even hundreds of schoolchildren as hostages.

One can be certain that if there aren’t anti-gay pogroms going on in Chechnya now, there definitely would be without the likes of Kadyrov in power.

In the documentary, what the Chechen leader does implicitly acknowledge may be occurring are individual honor killings within families and clans, a social problem common in other Muslim countries such as Pakistan, and certainly not a human rights issue particular to Chechnya. Many instances of honor killings in the Muslim world have included homosexuality as a motive for the extrajudicial killings by relatives of victims believed to have betrayed the family honor. 

On the other hand, Kadyrov himself has overseen the establishment of unprecedented reconciliation commissions to address the issue of honor culture, blood feuds and vendetta codes of Caucasian tribes. Kadyrov’s promotion of reconciliation has made significant progress in reducing such killings which were rampant during the Chechen Wars as family members would often seek to avenge the deaths of loved ones.

Now that the region is in a period of relative stability, peace and economic recovery, with the once devastated city of Grozny now known as the ‘Dubai of the North Caucasus’, the West is suddenly feigning concern over human rights. 

The swift end brought to the conflict by Putin was another reason for his becoming a target of Washington who had been counting on the balkanization of southern Russia. 

In a pinnacle of imperial projection, the explanation for Putin’s rise to power has since been revised by the Atlanticists to his having somehow secretly masterminded the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings while director of the Federal Security Service (FSB, the KGB’s successor), as if the neocons hope to deflect all of the longstanding rumors about the Bush administration and the 9/11 attacks onto the Kremlin.

Except this Machiavellian conspiracy would be a lot more believable if the Chechen wars had not been going on since the early nineties, with much worse terrorist attacks already having been committed by the separatists, such as the taking of thousands of hospital patients as hostages in southern Russia. 

Since the end of the Chechen Wars, on the flip side the US has also backed Russian opposition figure and Putin critic Alexei Navalny, a right-wing Islamophobe who has pledged to secede the North Caucasus while comparing its Muslim inhabitants to cockroaches. 

Despite his anti-immigrant rhetoric and minuscule 2% support among Russians, Navalny has been depicted as a “pro-democracy” and “anti-corruption” campaigner in Western media, who have been crying foul over his recent suspected poisoning in Russia and ensuing comatose airlift to Germany. 

If only the naive American liberals who read The New York Times and The Washington Post had any idea that Mr. Navalny has far more in common with the dreaded Mr. Trump than Putin does

Meanwhile, the US has already experienced blowback for its nurturing of terrorism in the Caucasus in the form of the Boston Marathon bombings, which recently returned to the news when convicted Chechen-American perpetrator Dzokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence was vacated on appeal last month.

In the aftermath of the April 2013 attacks, it was revealed that Tsarnaev’s deceased older brother and co-conspirator Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been radicalized attending seminars financed by the Jamestown Foundation while traveling abroad in Tblisi, Georgia, and the brothers’ uncle Ruslan Tsarni had previously been married to the daughter of high-ranking US intelligence officer Graham Fuller, Brzezinski’s CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan, during the Afghan-Soviet war.

It also came to light that ‘Uncle Ruslan’ had previously worked for the CIA-linked United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and established a company called the Congress for Chechen International Organizations which funded Islamic militants in the Caucasus.

Despite the astounding ‘coincidences’ surrounding the Tsarnaev clan, Uncle Ruslan was never considered a person of interest by the FBI, who had ignored warnings by the Russian FSB of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s extremism prior to the attacks. 

Two years before Putin’s election, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the prime mover of the West‘s plan to dominate the globe by using Islam to bring down the USSR in delivering the Soviet equivalent of the Vietnam War, wrote in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997): 

…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.”

Those words were written before the return of both Russia and China on the world stage, developments that have thrown a monkey wrench into Washington’s plans which the Russophobic Warsaw-native did not anticipate in his blueprint for Western hegemony. 

When the US-backed headchoppers in the Syrian war nearly had control of Damascus, just a thousand miles or so from Sochi, the threat of jihadism returning to the Caucasus became very real. 

Beginning at the Munich Conference in 2007, Putin had begun to criticize the monopolistic expansion of NATO on Russia’s borders — but after the subsequent overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi where Moscow witnessed Libya transformed into a hotbed of terrorism like post-Saddam Iraq, the prospect of the same happening in Syria was an existential threat that could not be tolerated.

In mainstream media, reality has been inverted where Moscow’s self-defense has been portrayed as expansionism, even though the so-called “annexation” of Crimea was virtually nonviolent compared to the Nazi junta initiated by Washington in Ukraine and the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk who voted to join Russia did not wish to end up like those massacred in Odessa. Besides, is the US not currently annexing northeast Syria? 

The Crimean parliament and Syrian government invited Moscow, while the same cannot be said for the US presence in violation of international law. 

Those with no respect for the sovereignty of nations in Washington would prefer Americans to see Russia as an adversary. During the Cold War, the threat was communism, but with capitalism restored in Eastern Europe, it became necessary to manipulate liberals into perceiving Russia as a ultra-conservative regime.

They must also keep Americans from knowing the true history of US-Russia relations — that Russia was the first nation to recognize American independence when Catherine the Great’s neutrality during the Revolutionary War indirectly aided the Thirteen Colonies in their victory against the Loyalists and Great Britain. 

During the War of Independence, the Russian Empress had maintained relations with the U.S. and rebuffed British requests for military assistance. The Russian Empire also later helped secure the Union victory during the Civil War, with an Imperial Navy fleet off the shores of the Pacific preventing the Confederates from landing troops on the west coast and deterring intervention by the British and the French. 

Then as Allies in WWII, while the U.S. was victorious in the Pacific, it was the Soviets who truly won the war in Europe, a feat the Anglo-Americans are still trying to take credit for to this day. 

Unfortunately, despite his promising rhetorical embrace of détente with Moscow that has made him the subject of political persecution, Donald Trump has proven to be every bit as hostile toward Russia as his forerunners. With the latest actions taken by his state department regarding Chechnya that are right out of the Brzezinski playbook, the idiom that “the more things change, the more they stay the same” certainly applies to Washington and US-Russia relations.


Read more:

baiting the bear?...


Are We Deliberately Trying To Provoke A Military Crisis With Russia?

Tensions are becoming dangerous in Syria and on Russia's back doorstep.


by Ted Galen Carpenter

A dangerous vehicle collision between U.S and Russian soldiers in Northeastern Syria on Aug. 24 highlights the fragility of the relationship and the broader test of wills between the two major powers.

According to White House reports and a Russian video that went viral this week, it appeared that as the two sides were racing down a highway in armored vehicles, the Russians sideswiped the Americans, leaving four U.S. soldiers injured. It is but the latest clash as both sides continue their patrols in the volatile area. But it speaks of bigger problems with U.S. provocations on Russia’s backdoor in Eastern Europe.

A sober examination of U.S. policy toward Russia since the disintegration of the Soviet Union leads to two possible conclusions. One is that U.S. leaders, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been utterly tone-deaf to how Washington’s actions are perceived in Moscow. The other possibility is that those leaders adopted a policy of maximum jingoistic swagger intended to intimidate Russia, even if it meant obliterating a constructive bilateral relationship and eventually risking a dangerous showdown. Washington’s latest military moves, especially in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, are stoking alarming tensions.

There has been a long string of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one came in the late 1990s and the initial years of the twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany within NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain, the Clinton and Bush administrations successfully pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful military association directly to Russia’s western border. In addition, the United States initiated “rotational” deployments of its forces to the new members so that the U.S. military presence in those countries became permanent in all but name. Even Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was uneasy about those deployments and conceded that he should have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be unnecessarily provocative. 

As if such steps were not antagonistic enough, both Bush and Obama sought to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The latter country is not only within what Russia regards as its legitimate sphere of influence, but within its core security zone. Even key European members of NATO, especially France and Germany, believed that such a move was unwise and blocked Washington’s ambitions. That resistance, however, did not inhibit a Western effort to meddle in Ukraine’s internal affairs to help demonstrators unseat Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russia president and install a new, pro-NATO government in 2014.

Such provocative political steps, though, are now overshadowed by worrisome U.S. and NATO military moves. Weeks before the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump administration touted its plan to relocate some U.S. forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of Defense Mike Esper finally made the announcement, the media’s focus was largely on the point that 11,900 troops would leave that country.

However, Esper made it clear that only 6,400 would return to the United States; the other nearly 5,600 would be redeployed to other NATO members in Europe. Indeed, of the 6,400 coming back to the United States, “many of these or similar units will begin conducting rotational deployments back to Europe.”  Worse, of the 5,600 staying in Europe, it turns out that at least 1,000 are going to Poland’s eastern border with Russia. 

Another result of the redeployment will be to boost U.S. military power in the Black Sea. Esper confirmed that various units would “begin continuous rotations farther east in the Black Sea region, giving us a more enduring presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies along NATO’s southeastern flank.” Moscow is certain to regard that measure as another on a growing list of Black Sea provocations by the United States. 

Among other developments, there already has been a surge of alarming incidents between U.S. and Russian military aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve U.S. spy planes flying near the Russian coast—supposedly in international airspace. On July 30, a Russian Su-27 jet fighter intercepted two American surveillance aircraft; according to Russian officials, it was the fourth time in the final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in that sector approaching the Russian coast. Yet another interception occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy planes. Still others have taken place throughout mid-August. It is a reckless practice that easily could escalate into a broader, very dangerous confrontation.

The growing number of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging U.S. military presence along Russia’s border, especially in the Black Sea. They are taking place on Russia’s doorstep, thousands of miles away from the American homeland. Americans should consider how the United States would react if Russia decided to establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

The undeniable reality is that the United States and its NATO allies are crowding Russia; Russia is not crowding the United States. Washington’s bumptious policies already have wrecked a once-promising bilateral relationship and created a needless new cold war with Moscow. If more prudent U.S. policies are not adopted soon, that cold war might well turn hot.


Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur (2019).

the arsonist and the firefighter...

To Capture and Subdue: America’s Theft of Syrian Oil Has Very Little To Do With Money

Years of US support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS and efforts to effect regime change in the country have culminated in the theft of Syria’s oil, but is that really America’s coup de gras in Syria?

by Steven Chovanec

Near the end of July, one of the most important recent developments in U.S. foreign policy was quietly disclosed during a U.S. Senate hearing. Not surprisingly, hardly anybody talked about it and most are still completely unaware that it happened.

Answering questions from Senator Lindsey Graham, Secretary of State Pompeo confirmed that the State Department had awarded an American company, Delta Crescent Energy, with a contract to begin extracting oil in northeast Syria. The area is nominally controlled by the Kurds, yet their military force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), was formed under U.S. auspices and relies on an American military presence to secure its territory. That military presence will now be charged with protecting an American firm from the government of the country that it is operating within.

Pompeo confirmed that the plans for implanting the firm into the U.S.-held territory are “now in implementation” and that they could potentially be “very powerful.” This is quite a momentous event given its nature as a blatant example of neocolonial extraction, or, as Stephen Kinzer puts it writing for the Boston Globe, “This is a vivid throwback to earlier imperial eras, when conquerors felt free to loot the resources of any territory they could capture and subdue.”

Indeed, the history of how the U.S. came to be in a position to “capture and subdue” these resources is a sordid, yet informative tale that by itself arguably even rivals other such colonial adventures.


To capture and subdue

When a legitimate protest movement developed organically in Syria in early 2011, [note, this movement was fomented by the UK under the pretence of Arab Spring] the U.S. saw an opportunity to destabilize, and potentially overthrow, the government of a country that had long pushed back against its efforts for greater control in the region.

Syria had maintained itself outside of the orbit of U.S. influence and had frustratingly prevented American corporations from penetrating its economy to access its markets and resources.

As the foremost academic expert on Middle East affairs, Christopher Davidson, wrote in his seminal work, “Shadow Wars, The Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” discussing both Syria and Libya’s strategic importance, “the fact remained that these two regimes, sitting astride vast natural resources and in command of key ports, rivers, and borders, were still significant obstacles that had long frustrated the ambitions of Western governments and their constituent corporations to gain greater access.”

“With Syria,” Davidson wrote, “having long proven antagonistic to Western interests… a golden opportunity had presented itself in 2011 to oust [this] administration once and for all under the pretext of humanitarian and even democratic causes.”

The U.S., therefore, began organizing and overseeing a militarization of the uprising early on, and soon co-opted the movement along with allied states Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Writing at the end of 2011, Columbia University’s Joseph Massad explained how there was no longer any doubt that “the Syrian popular struggle for democracy [has] already been hijacked,” given that “the Arab League and imperial powers have taken over and assumed the leadership of their struggle.”

Soon, through the sponsoring of extremist elements, the insurgency was dominated by Salafists of the al-Qaeda variety.

According to the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by 2013 “there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad” and “the U.S. was arming extremists.” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that “although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists,” still “the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming.”

When ISIS split off from al-Qaeda and formed its own Caliphate, the U.S. continued pumping money and weapons into the insurgency, even though it was known that this aid was going into the hands of ISIS and other jihadists. U.S. allies directly supported ISIS.

U.S. officials admitted that they saw the rise of ISIS as a beneficial development that could help pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give in to America’s demands.

Leaked audio of then-Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “we were watching… and we know that this [ISIS] was growing… We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage — that Assad would then negotiate.” As ISIS was bearing down on the capital city of Damascus, the U.S. was pressing Assad to step down to a U.S.-approved government.

Then, however, Russia intervened with its air force to prevent an ISIS takeover of the country and shifted the balance of forces against the jihadist group. ISIS’ viability as a tool to pressure the government was spent.


The arsonist and the firefighter

So, a new strategy was implemented: instead of allowing Russia and Syria to take back the territories that ISIS captured throughout the war, the U.S. would use the ISIS threat as an excuse to take those territories before they were able to. Like an arsonist who comes to put out the fire, the U.S. would now charge itself with the task of stamping out the Islamist scourge and thereby legitimize its own seizure of Syrian land. The U.S. partnered with the Kurdish militias who acted as their “boots on the ground” in this endeavor and supported them with airstrikes.

The strategy of how these areas were taken was very specific. It was designed primarily to allow ISIS to escape and redirect itself back into the fight against Syria and Russia. This was done through leaving “an escape route for militants” or through deals that were made where ISIS voluntarily agreed to cede its territory. The militants were then able to escape and go wreak havoc against America’s enemies in Syria.

Interestingly, in terms of the oil fields now being handed off to an American corporation, the U.S. barely even fought ISIS to gain control over them; ISIS simply handed them over.

Syria and Russia were quickly closing in on the then-ISIS controlled oilfields, so the U.S. oversaw a deal between the Kurds and ISIS to give up control of the city. According to veteran Middle East war correspondent Elijah Magnier, “U.S.-backed forces advanced in north-eastern areas under ISIS control, with little or no military engagement: ISIS pulled out from more than 28 villages and oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River, surrendering these to the Kurdish-U.S. forces following an understanding these reached with the terrorist group.”

Sources quoted by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that ISIS preferred seeing the fields in the hands of the U.S. and the Kurds rather than the Syrian government.

The rationale behind this occupation was best described by Syria expert Joshua Landis, who wrote that the areas of northern Syria under control of the Kurds are the U.S.’ “main instrument in gaining leverage” over the government. By “denying Damascus access to North Syria” and “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources” “the U.S. will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resources.” So, by “promoting Kurdish nationalism in Syria” the U.S. “hopes to deny Iran and Russia the fruits of their victory,” while “keeping Damascus weak and divided,” this serving “no purpose other than to stop trade” and to “beggar Assad and keep Syria divided, weak and poor.”

Or, in the words of Jim Jeffrey, the Trump administrations special representative for Syria who is charged with overseeing U.S. policy, the intent is to “make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it.”


Anchoring American troops in Syria

This is the history by which an American firm was able to secure a contract to extract oil in Syria. And while the actual resources gained will not be of much value (Syria has only 0.1% of the world’s oil reserves), the presence of an American company will likely serve as a justification to maintain a U.S. military presence in the region. “It is a fiendishly clever maneuver aimed at anchoring American troops in Syria for a long time,” Stephen Kinzer explains, one that will aid the policymakers who hold “the view that the United States must remain militarily dominant in the Middle East.”

This analysis corroborates the extensive scholarship of people like Mason Gaffney, professor of economics emeritus at the University of California, who, writing in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, sums up his thesis that throughout its history “U.S. military spending has been largely devoted to protecting the overseas assets of multinational corporations that are based in the United States… The U.S. military provides its services by supporting compliant political leaders in developing countries and by punishing or deposing regimes that threaten the interests of U.S.-based corporations.”

In essence, by protecting this “global ‘sprawl’ of extractive companies” the U.S. Department of Defense “provides a giant subsidy to companies operating overseas,” one that is paid for by the taxpayer, not the corporate beneficiaries. It is hard to estimate the exact amount of money the U.S. has invested into the Syria effort, though it likely is near the trillion dollar figure. The U.S. taxpayer doesn’t get anything out of that, but companies that are awarded oil contracts do.

What is perhaps most important about this lesson however is that this is just a singular example of a common occurrence that happens all over the world. A primary function of U.S. foreign policy is to “make the world safe for American businesses,” and the upwards of a thousand military bases the U.S. has stationed across the globe are set up to help protect those corporate investments. While this history is unique to Syria, similar kinds of histories are responsible for U.S. corporation’s extractive activities in other global arenas.

So, next time you see headlines about Exxon being in some kind of legal dispute with, say, Venezuela, ask yourself how was it that those companies became involved with the resources of that part of the world? More often than not, the answer will be similar to how this U.S. company got involved in Syria.

Given all of this, it perhaps might seem to be too mild of a critique to simply say that this Syria enterprise harkens back to older imperial eras where conquerors simply took what they wished: the sophistication of colonialism has indeed improved by leaps and bounds since then.


Steven Chovanec is an independent journalist based in Chicago, IL. His writings have appeared in outlets such as The Hill, teleSUR, Truthout, MintPress News, Insurge-Intelligence, and others. Follow him on Twitter @stevechovanec


Read more:

Read from top...


Most likely Trump has no idea what the Pentagon is concocting here and there...


peace or the US empire. you can’t have both...


By Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz

Many people who consider themselves ‘anti-war’ aren’t actually comfortable with the idea of the US losing its position of unipolar domination over global affairs and taking a chance on a world without American imperialism.

Just in the last few days Israel has reportedly dropped cluster munitions and white phosphorus on southern Lebanon, bombed Gaza, and fired missiles on Damascus, because Israel is a nation whose existence depends on unceasing military violence.

In order for Israel to continue existing as the imperialist apartheid state that it is, it needs to wage war in all directions at all times, both against its neighbors and against the increasingly brutalized Palestinian population. If the bombings end, so too does Israel as we know it, because the regional population will never stand for its oppression, tyranny, and multiple illegal occupations.

Peace and Israel are therefore two mutually exclusive concepts. You can have peace or you can have today’s Israel; you can’t have both.

A nation that cannot exist without ceaseless war is not actually a nation at all: it’s an ongoing military operation with some suburbs and schools mixed in. A nation that cannot exist without constant war is like a house that can’t exist without constant construction: if your house needed 24/7/365 construction work in order to remain standing, you’d either completely redesign the way it’s built or you would move.

This is true of Israel, and on a larger scale it is true of the globe-spanning, empire-like oligarchic world order that is loosely centralized around the United States.

This US-centralized empire, of which Israel is a part, is entirely dependent upon endless war for survival. If military violence ceased to be a tool which power structures could use to enact their agendas, this empire would necessarily cease to exist, because there’d be nothing to stop nations from exercising their sovereignty on the world stage. Currencies, resources and commerce would begin moving along completely different channels.

This would bring an end not just to the US empire, but to the United States as we know it. Without the ability to bully and punish the world into alignment with its agendas, the US, if it continued to exist at all to any extent, would be completely unrecognizable. Whatever remained would be forced to develop a completely different kind of economy, because the US attained its economic supremacy not by means of the “free market” as some capitalism cultists like to imagine, but by rivers of human blood.

The US ‘economy’, if you can even call it that, is upheld not just by an incomprehensible web of debt and bureaucratic fiat, but by a petrodollar agreement on arms manufacturing and military alliances, by endless acts of mass-scale brutality, and by the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever to exist. The United States of America is built on war, is made of war, and is sustained by war. If the wars end, America as we know it ends.

I point this out partly because those of us who live within any part of the US-centralized empire should probably be aware that the lifestyles to which we are accustomed are built upon a steadily growing mountain of human bones. I also point this out because I think it’s important for those who claim they desire peace to be absolutely clear about what it is they are asking for.

A sincere desire for peace means wanting the end of the slaughter of human beings who live in other parts of the world more than you want your personal status quo to be maintained. A lot of people who think of themselves as “anti-war” aren’t actually comfortable with the idea of the United States losing its position of unipolar domination over the affairs of our planet and taking a chance on a world without US imperialism. When it comes down to the brass tacks of what peace really is and what it really means, many of the people whose lives are floated by the deluge of human blood don’t actually want it.

But at the very least they should be real with themselves about that. At the very least they should admit to themselves that beneath their antiwar facades they are clinging tooth and claw to a paradigm whose brick and mortar are relentless acts of mass murder.

Peace is necessarily a leap into the unknown. If you desire peace, you desire a world that is unlike the one that exists now and unlike any that have ever existed before. If you really want this — if you’ve actually internally grappled with its reality on a deep and visceral level and you still truly want it — this will necessarily change you as a person.

And it will change you for the better. It will make you a much more integrally honest person, because you have faced the reality of your situation head-on and still chosen the highest interest.

Just as our lifestyles are built on endless war, our lives are transformed by a true reckoning with an authentic desire for peace. This transformation is part of the same movement as our collective transformation from a self-destructive species to a species that collaborates harmoniously with itself and with its ecosystem. To participate in that inward transformation is a human being’s highest calling.

We cannot continue as we have. Our species will either drastically transform its behavior or it will go extinct. Time to take a leap into the unknown, and take a chance on peace. Be among the first to take the plunge.


Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.



Read more:



Read from top.


If the entire league of nations on this planet decided to be part of the US Empire, this could stuff up this theory, would it not?... But pigs will fly to Mars eventually... See also:


italy: a good US citizen...

In Europe civil air traffic is expected to drop by 60% this year compared to 2019, due to Covid-19 restrictions, putting more than 7 million jobs at risk. On the other hand, military air traffic is growing.

On Friday, August 28, six US Air Force B-52 strategic bombers flew over the thirty NATO countries in North America and Europe in a single day, flanked by eighty fighter-bombers from allied countries in different sections.

This large exercise called “Allied Sky” – said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – demonstrates “the powerful commitment of the United States to the Allies and confirms that we are able to deter aggression.” The allusion to “Russian aggression” in Europe is evident.

The B-52s, that were transferred on August 22 from North Dakota Minot Air Base to Fairford in Great Britain, are not old Cold War planes used only for parades. They have been continuously modernized, and retain their role as long-range strategic bombers. Now they are further enhanced.

The US Air Force will shortly equip seventy-six B-52s with new engines at a cost of $20 billion. These new engines will allow bombers to fly 8,000 km without refueling in flight, each carrying 35 tons of bombs and missiles armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. Last April, the US Air Force entrusted Raytheon Co. to produce a new long-range cruise missile, armed with a nuclear warhead for the B-52 bombers.

With these and other strategic nuclear attack bombers, including the B-2 Spirit, the US Air Force has made over 200 sorties over Europe since 2018, mainly over the Baltic and the Black Sea close to Russian airspace.

The Strategy of Controlled Chaos

European NATO countries participate in these exercises, particularly Italy. When a B-52 flew over our country on August 28, Italian fighters joined in. simulating a joint attack mission.

Immediately after, Italian Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighter-bombers took off to deploy to the Siauliai base in Lithuania, supported by about one hundred specialized soldiers. Beginning September 1, they will remain there for 8 months until April 2021, to “defend” the Baltic airspace. It is the fourth NATO “air policing” mission carried out in the Baltic area by Italian Air Force.

Italian fighters are ready 24 hours a day to scramble, to take off on alarm and intercept “unknown” aircrafts: they are always Russian airplanes flying between some internal airport and the Russian Kaliningrad exclave through international airspace over the Baltic.

The Lithuanian base of Siauliai, where they are deployed, has been upgraded by the United States; USA has tripled its capacity by investing 24 million euros in it. The reason is clear: the air base is just 220 km from Kaliningrad and 600 from St. Petersburg, a distance that a fighter like the Eurofighter Typhoon travels in a few minutes.

Why is NATO deploying these and other conventional and nuclear dual-capacity aircrafts close to Russia? Certainly not to defend the Baltic countries from a Russian attack which would mean the beginning of the thermonuclear world war if it happened. The same would happen if NATO planes attacked neighboring Russian cities from the Baltic.

The real reason for this deployment is to increase tension by creating the image of a dangerous enemy, Russia preparing to attack Europe. This is the strategy of tension implemented by Washington, with the complicity of European governments and Parliaments and the European Union.

This strategy involves a growing military spending increase at the expense of social spending. An example: the cost of a flight hour of a Eurofighter was calculated by the same Air Force in 66,000 euros (including the aircraft amortisation). An amount larger than two average gross salaries per year in public money.

Every time a Eurofighter takes off to “defend” the Baltic airspace, it burns in one hour the corresponding of two jobs in Italy.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.


Read more:



Yes we know. The Martians and the Jupiterians need to be kept at bay by a show of US mayonnaise in a few old tubs called B52. 



Read from top.

the best supplier of death...




From Vladimir Danilov


In 2015, during his speech at the Brookings Institution (a US research group that conducts studies and education on economics and politics), the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke talked about whether a victorious war and an active preparation to one could become the best means for bringing the US economy from the looming crisis, especially since it is the military spending of war times that helps reap the most benefits (in terms of employment, flow of funds in national financial system, trade competitiveness and, therefore, GDP).

In this context, it is important to remember that the US became a world power in part because of its arms trade during the First and Second World Wars. The US supplied weapons to Great Britain, France, the USSR and other allied powers. US gold reserves increased during both the wars as allies, at times, paid for the supplies they needed in gold and many countries wanted to store their reserves in a safe location. The Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 allowed the world to slowly transition from a gold standard to a US dollar standard, which, undoubtedly, boosted the US economy.

Unfortunately, reaping the benefits of war has, in recent years, started to play an ever increasing role in policies of the current US administration. And such an approach appears to have become even more relevant nowadays in light of the current economic crisis in the US and the decline in its hegemony in various parts of the world.

At present, Washington is benefitting from armed conflicts (that the United States often plays an active role in) in the Middle East, which not only generate revenue for the US military industrial complex but also have a negative impact on USA’s rivals, i.e. Europe, China and Asian nations — the biggest consumers of oil from this volatile region. At present, the EU is part of the US war machine on account of the way NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is structured. Europeans, therefore, rely on their American allies in battle, since European armies, for example, have no early warning and control aircraft or satellite-borne surveillance and navigation systems of their own. In addition, whenever tensions arise, the EU tends to increase arms purchases from the United States. And if a country starts looking for other suppliers, Washington can sanction the “culprit” and/ or threaten to take away its military support.

In order to ensure Europe remains its ally, the United States stokes fears within the EU on a regular basis via US-influenced media outlets and their reports about external enemies. Earlier, the Soviet Union was viewed as the West’s key opponent, but nowadays, the list of foes includes China, North Korea and Iran. In the past, the United States actively supported “the Afghan Mujaheddin insurgents battling the Afghan Marxist government and the Soviet Army,” thus facilitating the formation of Al-Qaeda (ed. note – a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation). Later on, another terrorist group, DAESH (also banned in Russia) was established in a similar manner. All of the aforementioned factors prompt Europeans to increase their military spending and buy new weapons and equipment from the United States, thus further enriching USA’s current political elites and the military industrial complex.

It is therefore not surprising that there is still an ongoing crisis on the Korean Peninsula; armed conflicts in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Libya; continuing unrest in Ukraine, and increasing tensions between the United States and China. In fact, the list goes on. After all, new or existing conflicts are spreading (at times, with Washington’s active involvement) throughout Asia, Latin America and Europe. And any of them could flare up at the behest of the puppeteers in Washington. It is especially advantageous for Washington if such conflicts happen far from the United States and, therefore, do not result in suffering and misfortune at home.

In the current environment, the United States does not appear to be too keen on using available international legal instruments that could help facilitate the resolution of conflicts in different regions of the world. In fact, Washington has shown a tendency to withdraw from various international agreements with the aim of replacing them with bilateral pacts that take into account mainly US interests (with US laws, i.e. the rule of the strongest, dominating). All of this is evidenced in Washington’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal; its recent exit from the World Health Organization (which is playing an important role during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic), and its disengagement from the International Court of Justice in the Hague. The latter step has made it increasingly difficult to hold US servicemen legally responsible for any past or future crimes committed against civilians during US interventions.

At present, tensions between the United States and China are intensifying in the South China Sea. In July, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “launched yet another evangelical crusade” — against China. “His speech was extremist, simplistic, and dangerous – and may well put the US on a path to conflict with China”. In part due to actions taken by the Trump administration, tensions between the two world powers are rising in diplomatic, trade and commerce, IT and military spheres.

Washington is also actively preparing for a confrontation against Russia. There has been an increasing number of reports about Russian fighter jets intercepting US reconnaissance planes over the Black, Baltic and Bering seas. Military aircraft of other nations (e.g. NATO member states) have also been involved in the aforementioned incidents. For instance, on August 28, a Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet “was scrambled to intercept NATO reconnaissance planes over the Baltic Sea”, identified as “a US Air Force strategic reconnaissance plane RC-135, a Swedish Air Force Gulfstream reconnaissance plane and a Danish Air Force Challenger reconnaissance aircraft”.

According to US magazine, The National Interest, “there has been a surge of alarming incidents between US and Russian military aircraft” over the past few months, and “most of the interceptions are taking place near Russia and thousands of miles away from the American homeland”. The article has also pointed out that “the undeniable reality is that the United States and its NATO allies are crowding Russia, not that Russia is crowding the United States”.

In the meantime, the United States is seemingly continuing with its preparation for a global confrontation. On August 28, six US Air Force B-52Н Stratofortress strategic bombers, built to carry nuclear weapons, flew over all 30 NATO nations in Europe. This single-day mission, titled Allied Sky, “was intended to demonstrate NATO solidarity, enhance readiness and provide training opportunities aimed at enhancing interoperability for all participating aircrews from the US and NATO allies”. In addition, in an interview with Fox News at the beginning of August, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper talked about the fact the United States was “moving many troops further east, closer to Russia’s border to deter them”. It is, therefore, not surprising that the United States and Poland recently signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which “allows US forces access to additional military installations in Poland” (including those located in the east). And last year, the two countries announced that 1,000 more servicemen would be added to the US forces already stationed in Poland. In addition, US troops withdrawn from Germany could be redeployed to Romania “to reinforce NATO’s southeastern flank”. From 2008 to 2012, Estonia’s Ämari Air Base (located approximately 250 km west of the Russian border) “faced a major overhaul of the obsolete base infrastructure”. The work was carried out “in order to link Ämari into the NATO collective air defense system”.

After World War II came to an end, the United States has intervened in dozens of wars and military conflicts. However, Washington was unable to secure a decisive victory in many of them. In fact, it has been said that the US army has won many battles but not necessarily wars. US interventions have brought suffering, death and misfortune to thousands of civilians world-wide. At the same time, they also helped generate income for the US military industrial complex. Thus, in many parts of the world, animosity towards the United States keeps growing.


Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



Read more:


Read from top.

the pentagon does not like doves...

Donald Trump is USA's first dove of peace in 50 years

World » Americas

US President Donald Trump cracked down on the US Department of Defense, on its administration, to be more precise. According to Trump, the Pentagon wants nothing but wars.

Everything for companies that make bombs and planes

It is an open secret that US generals unleash wars to contribute to the enrichment of companies that produce weapons, ammunition and military equipment.

"I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy," the US president said at a press conference at the White House on Monday.

President Donald Trump has said that he's getting the US out of "endless wars", but the top military leadership, beholden to arms manufacturers, isn't happy with him.

Trump reiterated that "we (that is, the US) are emerging from endless wars." He had previously urged the US involvement in "endless wars" should end and US soldiers should return to their homes from hot spots. Many critics of the current US president believe that the Trump administration is reluctant to defend democratic values and human rights in the world.

According to Trump, Democrat Joe Biden, Trump's rival in the presidential election, "sent our youth to fight in these crazy endless wars." He probably means the time, when Biden served as vice president

Trump's serious problems with ministers

The current president of the United States does have certain issues with defense ministers. The sitting head of the Pentagon, Mark Esper, is the fourth person to take this post during Trump's presidency.

First there was James Mattis, whom Donald Trump at first praised and then scolded. Then there was Acting Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan, whom the president wanted to be the head of the Defense Department. It turned out, however, that Shanahan had a conflict of interest because of his ties to Boeing Corporation. He could contribute to the enrichment of one of those "wonderful companies that make bombs, planes and everything else."

Then, for some time, the Pentagon was chaired by "acting" head Richard Vaughn Spencer.

Now Trump is looking for a replacement for Mark Esper. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie may become the next Pentagon chief, although this is likely to happen after the US elections, if Trump keeps his White House residency, of course. 

Generally speaking, Donald Trump is the first of US presidents in almost half a century who did not start a war. One should not label him as a dove of peace, of course, taking into consideration the fact that US armed forces have repeatedly attacked other countries. Yet, there was no large-scale military invasion during Trump's presidency. One should probably credit Trump for that.


Read more:






DOHA, Qatar — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Breitbart News exclusively — after meetings between Afghan government officials and Taliban leaders as part of the beginning of intra-Afghan peace negotiations — that the process is moving along on pace for a full withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the spring of 2021.

“I do,” Pompeo said when asked if the process is moving on pace with a Feb. 29 agreement between the United States and Taliban leadership that laid out the framework for the United States to reduce the troop count to zero by April or May of next year.

Read more:


Read from top.


See also:

how trump is protecting the middle-east...

threatening to bring peace to the world...




Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has blamed Russia for “tearing up our alliances”. By “alliances”, he means euphemistically the US empire lording it over vassals among the NATO military bloc.

It’s a tedious charge repeatedly made against Moscow by Washington which views Russia as an ever-present bogeyman, masterminding chaos and undermining US power. If it were not for those damn Ruskies, so the reasoning goes, how happy and harmonious the “free world” and its American patron would be.

What Biden fails to notice or admit is the US-led transatlantic alliance is doing a pretty good job at blowing itself up without any help from Russia whatsoever. And a big factor has been the open contempt and bullying by the Trump administration over the past four years which serves to starkly show how subservient the European “allies” really are.

For Biden to openly declare Russia as being the biggest threat is an astoundingly reckless gambit for ratcheting up tensions between the two nuclear superpowers. One can only shudder at the danger of confrontation if Biden is elected to the White House.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov deplored Biden’s rhetorical belligerence. "We can only regret the fact that this is how total hatred for the Russian Federation is being promoted, that our country is portrayed as an enemy. This is not true," he said.

Paradoxically, Russia does present a "threat" to US power. That’s because as a strong, independent nation with a formidable military, Russia is an obstacle to American ambitions of global dominance. The European NATO allies are mere vassals. But Russia – as well as China – are independent powers. From the point of view of Washington’s imperial objectives that poses an intolerable strategic problem.

Rod Ridenour explains this American dilemma in his excellent book, The Russian Peace Threat.

The Russian "problem" emerged with the 1917 revolution. America and its Western satraps sent soldiers to fight in support of counter-revolutionaries during Russia’s civil war. Failing that attempt to control Russia, the US and other Western capitalists sought to build up Nazi Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. That led to World War Two – the greatest conflagration in history during which up to 30 million Soviet citizens perished.

The Cold War was the next phase of US-led Western antagonism against Moscow. For nearly five decades, the world lived under the shadow of nuclear annihilation as American politicians and media constantly spewed Russophobia and "Red Baiting".

This ideological disease persists to this day in the US and among its minions in Europe, despite the Soviet Union having disappeared 30 years ago. The basic problem remains: Russia is strong, independent and a militarily well-defended country. As the largest territory on Earth, its prodigious natural resources, primarily energy, are an added prize for American imperialists.

Russia must therefore be demonized as an enemy because it poses a threat to US global power ambitions of total dominance. American capitalist power relies on having total dominance over the planet. Russia, and China, are not willing to capitulate to American diktats, and in that way, they must be presented as adversaries, malign powers and enemies.

There is no evidence to back up American accusations of Russia or China as a malign threat. For nearly a century, American scaremongering and warmongering against Russia is based on delusion, paranoia and deception. It is the utterances from brainwashed minds.

This keeps the profits flowing for the all-powerful military-industrial complex which props up American capitalism.

It permits a cover for American militarism around the world with over 800 overseas bases and missiles pointed at Russia and China.

It keeps the world in a state of alert for war between nuclear powers, thereby preventing peaceful and properly prosperous international relations.

While Biden accuses Russia of being a threat to security and "our alliances" (read US empire), Russian President Putin has been trying to extend the New START treaty limiting nuclear weapons, as well as offering an agreement to prevent missiles being reintroduced in Europe after the US walked away from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty last year.

Russia is a "threat" only in the sense that it "threatens" the US with peace. Because with peace and the absence of war, American power would cease to exist.


Read more:

Read from top. Read also: the "other" great reset... in the great reset...