The Cold War made a lot of money for the military/security complex
for four decades dating from Churchill’s March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton,
Missouri declaring a Soviet “Iron Curtain” until Reagan and Gorbachev
ended the Cold War in the late 1980s. During the Cold War Americans
heard endlessly about “the Captive Nations.” The Captive Nations were
the Baltics and the Soviet bloc, usually summarized as “Eastern Europe.”
These nations were captive because their foreign policies were
dictated by Moscow, just as these same Captive Nations, plus the UK,
Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Ukraine, have their
foreign policies dictated today by Washington. Washington intends to
expand the Captive Nations to include Azerbaijan, former constituent
parts of Soviet Central Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia.
During the Cold War Americans thought of Western Europe and Great
Britain as independent sovereign countries. Whether they were or not,
they most certainly are not today. We are now almost seven decades
after WWII, and US troops still occupy Germany. No European government
dares to take a stance different from that of the US Department of
State.
Not long ago there was talk both in the UK and Germany about
departing the European Union, and Washington told both countries that
talk of that kind must stop as it was not in Washington’s interest for
any country to exit the EU. The talk stopped. Great Britain and Germany
are such complete vassals of Washington that neither country can
publicly discuss its own future.
When Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge with prosecuting authority,
attempted to indict members of the George W. Bush regime for violating
international law by torturing detainees, he was slapped down.
In Modern Britain, Stephane Aderca writes that the UK is so
proud of being Washington’s “junior partner” that the British government
agreed to a one-sided extradition treaty under which Washington merely
has to declare “reasonable suspicion” in order to obtain extradition
from the UK, but the UK must prove “probable cause.” Being Washington’s
“junior partner,” Aderca reports, is an ego-boost for British elites,
giving them a feeling of self-importance.
Under the rule of the Soviet Union, a larger entity than present day
Russia, the captive nations had poor economic performance. Under
Washington’s rule, these same captives have poor economic performance
due to their looting by Wall Street and the IMF.
As Giuseppe di Lampedusa said, “Things have to change in order to remain the same.”
The looting of Europe by Wall Street has gone beyond Greece, Italy,
Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Ukraine, and is now focused on France and
Great Britain. The American authorities are demanding $10 billion from
France’s largest bank on a trumped-up charge of financing trade with
Iran, as if it is any business whatsoever of Washington’s who French
banks choose to finance. And despite Great Britain’s total subservience
to Washington, Barclays bank has a civil fraud suit filed against it by
the NY State Attorney General.
The charges against Barclays PLC are likely correct. But as no US
banks were charged, most of which are similarly guilty, the US charge
against Barclays means that big pension funds and mutual funds must flee
Barclays as customers, because the pension funds and mutual funds would
be subject to lawsuits for negligence if they stayed with a bank under
charges.
The result, of course, of the US charges against foreign banks is
that US banks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are given a competitive
advantage and gain market share in their own dark pools.
So, what are we witnessing? Clearly and unequivocally, we are
witnessing the use of US law to create financial hegemony for US
financial institutions. The US Department of Justice (sic) has had
evidence for five years of Citigroup’s participation in the fixing of
the LIBOR interest rate, but no indictment has been forthcoming.
The bought and paid for governments of Washington’s European puppet
states are so corrupt that the leaders permit Washington control over
their countries in order to advance American financial, political, and
economic hegemony.
Washington is organizing the world against Russia and China for
Washington’s benefit. On June 27 Washington’s puppet states that
comprise the EU issued an ultimatum to Russia.The absurdity of this
ultimatum is obvious. Militarily, Washington’s EU puppets are harmless.
Russia could wipe out Europe in a few minutes. Here we have the weak
issuing an ultimatum to the strong.
The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition
in southern and eastern Ukraine to Washington’s stooge government in
Kiev. But, as every educated person knows, including the White House,
10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for
the separatist unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine. These territories
are former constituent parts of Russia that were added to the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and
Russia were two parts of the same country.
These Russians want to return to Russia because they are threatened
by the stooge government in Kiev that Washington has installed.
Washington, determined to force Putin into military action that can be
used to justify more sanctions, is intent on forcing the issue, not on
resolving the issue.
What is Putin to do? He has been given 72 hours to submit to an
ultimatum from a collection of puppet states that he can wipe out at a
moment’s notice or seriously inconvenience by turning off the flow of
Russian natural gas to Europe.
Historically, such a stupid challenge to power would result in
consequences. But Putin is a humanist who favors peace. He will not
willingly give up his strategy of demonstrating to Europe that the
provocations are coming from Washington, not from Russia. Putin’s hope,
and Russia’s, is that Europe will eventually realize that Europe is
being badly used by Washington.
Washington has hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs in Russia hiding
behind various guises such as “human rights,” and Washington can unleash
these NGOs on Putin at will, as Washington did with the protests
against Putin’s election. Washington’s fifth columns claimed that Putin
stole the election even though polls showed that Putin was the clear
and undisputed winner.
In 1991 Russians were, for the most part, delighted to be released
from communism and looked to the West as an ally in the construction of a
civil society based on good will. This was Russia’s mistake. As the
Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines make clear, Russia is the enemy
whose rise to influence must be prevented at all cost.
Putin’s dilemma is that he is caught between his heart-felt desire to
reach an accommodation with Europe and Washington’s desire to demonize
and isolate Russia.
The risk for Putin is that his desire for accommodation is being
exploited by Washington and explained to the EU as Putin’s weakness and
lack of courage. Washington is telling its European vassals that
Putin’s retreat under Europe’s pressure will undermine his status in
Russia, and at the right time Washington will unleash its many hundreds
of NGOs to bring Putin to ruin.
This was the Ukraine scenario. With Putin replaced with a compliant
Russian, richly rewarded by Washington, only China would remain as an
obstacle to American world hegemony.
Source: paulcraigroberts.org
|