Understanding the Aggressive US Stance towards Russia

While Russia is of course guilty of crimes, the US is guilty of the same and far worse crimes, and is fervently supporting many other criminal groups and states.  Thus, to understand why US extremists (not the US public) in control of the state are putting us all in serious potential danger by choosing to target nuclear Russia, we have to look back, and, of course, beyond the narrative peddled by the aggressors themselves.

In 1918, US oligarchs and religious extremist Woodrow Wilson sent about 13,000 young American men to join tens of thousands of others from a Western-dominated axis and illegally invade Russia with intent to commit premeditated mass murder.

“Two years and thousands of casualties [including ~400 US] later,” Blum notes, “the American troops left, having failed in their mission to ‘strangle at its birth’ the Bolshevik state, as Winston Churchill put it.”  Churchill further admitted that the Western axis forces were “invaders” who shot Russians on sight, blockaded their ports, sank their ships, and armed their enemies.

The British in Russia in 1918 committed what at the time was considered the ultimate conceivable atrocity: they killed people with chemical weapons – poison gas – as Churchill suggested the British Empire should also do against Iraqi civilians, in the hope of spreading what he called “a lively terror”.

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Chomsky, Gaddis (Professor of military and naval history, Yale), and other historians find, was the real beginning of the US “cold” war against Russia, which has continued essentially without break and is today being spiked by US strongman Barack Obama and his cadre.

Gaddis says the 1917 Western aggressive invasion of Russia was perpetrated to ensure the “survival of the capitalist order” in the face of what was called a “communist threat”.  Chomsky notes that by this logic, since the US threatens to – and does – globally enforce what is called “capitalism” (the “capitalist threat”), then anyone who wants to ensure the survival of a different order would likewise “be entirely justified in carrying out a defensive invasion of the US”, and using chemical weapons, or, “if they don’t have the power for that”, committing one-off attacks like “blowing up the World Trade Center” (Chomsky of course says this to expose the hypocritical aggressor’s logic).

By “capitalist order”, Gaddis refers to Western oligarchic top down dominance of society, the system that, while ~100 million deaths occurred worldwide under so-called “communism”, ~100 million deaths simultaneously occurred under so-called “capitalist” India alone.  As experts put it, while China was bringing some six hundred million people out of poverty (U.N. stat), an achievement unparalleled in history, “every eight years, India put as many skeletons in its closet” as China did during its years of famine.  When the number of people killed under what is called “capitalism” is extended beyond India to the rest of the world, Chomsky notes, “it would be colossal.”  In the West, he continues, only the “communist” death numbers can be mentioned.  As for the number of “capitalist” deaths, one “wouldn’t talk about them”.

The “colossal” death figures flowing from their system being of no concern and, perhaps, some satisfaction to oligarchs*, and their ever-increasing personal enrichment at the expense of others being of chief import, their “order” had to be preserved, their brutal march of expansion forced onward.  Hence, the insolent 1917 Russian notion of a modification to the oligarchic order in which Russians were on the bottom had to be, as Churchill noted, snuffed out immediately.  The threat of an internal change in Russia, Chomsky notes, referring to a 1955 US study, was that places like Russia and Eastern Europe generally, the components of the original “third world”, which had long been made to provide cheap labor and resources for the Western oligarchy, were reducing their “willingness” to “complement the industrial economies of the West, which is the job of the Third World.”  That, Chomsky says, agreeing with Gaddis and others, was the actual “threat of communism” that was immediately understood and acted on by Western oligarchs in 1917.

Indeed, as racial supremacist Woodrow Wilson, who spokes-headed the US in 1918 when it invaded Russia, secretly noted:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

Wilson’s imagery of using armed men to batter in closed doors and physically force the “unwilling” to submit to the desires of “manufacturers” and “financiers” sheds light on the words of Indian writer Arundhati Roy, who said “Those of us who belong to former colonies think of imperialism as rape.”

But the unwilling people of the Soviet Union, despite being raped “in [the] cradle” by Western oligarchs, had “managed to survive to adulthood.”  Thus, they had to be raped again by the West, “by the Nazi war machine with the blessings of the Western powers” (Blum).  This time, as many as 40 million Russians, amounting to perhaps a third of the Russian population, were exterminated.

In 1991, even when the Soviet Union, sufficiently battered and now the Russian Federation, finally “reopened” to Western-style oligarchic plunder, the West was still unsatisfied.  While maintaining in Latin America and elsewhere the terror regimes that Chomsky points out are overwhelmingly documented in scholarship to have been worse than the satellites maintained by the Soviets, insatiable US controllers now began penetrating east through Europe with their “NATO” military installations, which they had dishonestly claimed only existed to counterbalance the Soviet Union.  When Russian leaders pointed out that NATO expansion was in violation of specific US promises not to move NATO “one inch east”, US reps essentially replied that if anyone is stupid enough to expect them to honor their word, that is their problem – a point impossible to contest.

Currently, US oligarchs are using siege tactics to intentionally target all 143 million Russian civilians in attempt to expand their “order” of top-down control, exploitation, and mass death over Russian resources and labor.  In addition to this aim, perhaps these US extremists will succeed in bringing capital punishment back to Russia, will be able to vastly expand the Russian prison system to mirror the highly profitable one of the US, revoke paid maternity leave, revoke Russia’s ratification of the UN declaration on the rights of children, and make other changes US oligarchic media outlets insist are attributes of “freedom” and other keywords.

At the beginning of the “cold” war, a complete “good vs. evil” idea prevailed in America: the Jim Crow USA, just off killing perhaps a million Filipinos in a war of conquest and installing a vicious proxy dictatorship, was pure good and light, merely an innocent, by-standing angel reacting to inexplicable aggression from a clinically insane, horned Soviet devil.  This primitive biologic-religious perspective has complex origins that date back as far as history.

In the 1960s, the view was slightly revised to include a small amount of nuance, with some historians perceiving a complex situation wherein both sides exhibited various strengths and dire faults.

Indeed, in even the fifteenth century, the idea of nuance had sometimes been expressed in relation to “others”, as in the writing of jurist Sir John Fortescue, who said, “not… from man down to the meanest worm is there any creature which is not in some respect superior to one creature and inferior to another.” In this analysis, says GR Evans in First Light, Fortescue means to “include political and social order[s]”.

However, people grasping for a level of thinking achieved in the fifteenth century sent US oligarchs into a blind rage.  They called a meeting with their collaborators of the “Trilateral Commission”, and concluded that what was happening was a “crisis of democracy”, meaning features of democracy were beginning to be exhibited and needed, like the Bolshevik Revolution, to be “strangled at . birth”.  The idea that the cold war was not “pure light versus pure darkness” was heresy, and thus efforts aimed at “indoctrination of the young” (through schools, churches, media outlets, etc.) needed to be redoubled.

The idea of the good US versus evil Russia (and anyone else) was so successfully driven into the minds of the US public that almost everyone exhibits it up to today, as Robert Parry pointed out this week in his article “The Crazy US ‘Group Think’ on Russia“.  It is why so many people, as noted above, can tell you about the many crimes or faults of the Russians or Soviets (or Chinese, etc.), but if you use the words “US” and “genocide” in a sentence, the same people have one of three reactions: 1) they have no idea what you’re talking about, 2) they kind of know what you’re talking about but deny/dismiss it, or 3) they know what you’re talking about and think it is a good thing (as in the case of people like Christopher Hitchens).  What they never do is call for their “own” crimes to be punished as harshly as the very often lesser crimes of others.  This is the same unexceptional thinking that is dominant in Britain, Russia, Japan, and other countries whose internal narratives consist of ignorance, denial, or praise of their own crimes and the strictest criticism of the crimes of “enemies”.

Of course, the goal should not merely be to strive for the fifteenth century standard of adding some nuance to these analyses, but to fully discover reality.  From a nuanced view, it may be the case but does not automatically follow that both sides are equally at fault or equally to blame.  To use a well-known example, no matter how many details and nuances are included, the Nazi regime was purely at fault for attacking the Jews.  The Jews were the victims, plain and simple.  Anything in history they had ever done (about every group in history is guilty of something) or were falsely said to have done was irrelevant – they were blameless victims of a larger and more powerful aggressor.  However, the Nazis, as aggressors always do, turned reality on its head and portrayed themselves as the victims and defenders of freedom.  Thus the false narratives of dominant aggressors limiting the accuracy of one’s understanding of reality must be guarded against; if a profession is false, as in the former case, it must be recognized as such.  To uncover reality itself, as Chomsky put it in a personal exchange with me, “we disregard stated intentions … which are always good … and we try to determine what the real intentions were by studying documents and historical events”.

World War III is not coming, it is on.  All out nuclear war between the current nuclear powers may never happen – we can hope – because of the mutual destruction deterrent, which is why Washington is focusing on other means, specifically listed here, which include targeting all Russian non-combatants.  However, as Parry notes, if the US attempts another of its thus-far 60 or so illegal “regime change” operations in Russia and massively destabilizes it, which is nearly always the result of these US war crimes, extremists will likely take over and use the weapons of the Russian state.  This is exactly what extremists have done and are currently doing in post-US-regime-change Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and elsewhere – they looted the weapons of the state and are using them towards their own ends, such as overthrowing Syria.  Russia’s state arsenal, in addition to everything else, includes thousands of nuclear bombs.

But with public safety, as always, being of no concern to US oligarchs, the war is on.  The 1918 US/Western war of aggression against Russia and the Russian people has never ended.  The US oligarchy still seeks to re-subvert “willful” (Parry) Russia, snatch its wealth, and absorb its counter-balancing power, which has an unwanted democratizing influence on the international system.  The self-proclaimed king does not abide attempts to balance out a lopsided, top-down order in which he is numero uno.

One can be certain that some among the US controllers exhibit the same thinking as some perpetrators of virtually every act of mass violence in history, down to American colonists and members of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese.  They are certain that they are, as the Japanese said of their Rape of Nanking, turning the world into an Earthy paradise.  Thus even if they commit crimes, “make mistakes”, etc., they are thereby justified and should go unpunished because, in the age-old religious thinking that reverses reality, we are defined not by what we do, but by what we say or think.  Thus, as Charles Davis points out, we can commit genocide and, as long as we are doing it for what we say or think is a good reason, still make it to Heaven.

Some predators are fully aware of and relish their predation.  These people only pretend to the public to have “pure hearts”, “noble ideals”, and so on, because it helps their predation (and they probably get a kick out of how gullible and submissive to “authority” people allow themselves to be).  Some predators believe their “noble ideal” line halfheartedly.  Some, thanks to a psychological concept called “confabulation”, believe it to the core, fully oblivious to what is actually driving them.  As Chomsky said, “even the worst monsters very likely convince themselves that their intentions are good.”

But thanks to all of these people combined, the world, in fact, is constantly at war.  All that varies is the number of people at any given moment whose lives are being wrecked.  The state of war could be largely held in check by supporting and achieving a global balance of power (exactly what the US is trying to prevent), but can it be ended?  Thankfully, scholars of that topic, like David Swanson, and others, convincingly say yes.

Robert Barsocchini focuses on global force dynamics and writes professionally for the film industry.  He is a regular contributor to  Washington’s Blog, and is published in Counter Currents, Global Research, State of Globe, Blacklisted News, LewRockwell.com, DanSanchez.me, Information Clearing House, Press TV, and other outlets.  Also see: Hillary Clinton’s Record of Support for War and other Depravities.  Follow Robert and UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.

Non-linked references:

Paragraphs 4- 8, 15-16, 18, see Chomsky on Democracy and Education, p. 324-7

*For how mass death of exploited labor can be satisfying to oligarchs, see, for example, American Holocaust, by Professor David E. Stannard, Chapter 6

This entry was posted in General, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Sunny

    The US is behind the current drop in oil prices – Bolivia’s president

    • Party Like 1999 BC

      The US was also behind the genocidal increases as well.

  • Sunny

    Pentagon confirms military buildup along Russian borders for ‘peace and stability’!

  • Sunny

    Secret History Revealed – Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Perfect Foil To The
    Anglo-American Axis And Their New World ‘Order’ – Why They Hate Him!

  • unheilig

    I take exception to the term “US strongman Barack Obama.” It should read “US strawman Barack Obama, sock puppet of the global fascist oligarchy.”

    • fej

      exactly–wish i wasn’t so late responding.
      We’re gonna need a lot of rope.

      • We’re gonna need a lot of rope.

        Fortunately, there are plenty of lampposts in Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

        Can there be a more exemplary way of decorating ’em?

  • Me Who

    Please stick to the film industry where your lack of objective realism can be appreciated, and where insideous expression of bias does not result in the fomentation of real war and death. This is a disgusting display of misinformation and lack of ethical responsibility. It is extremely easy to guide a reader to your own conclusions when FACTS, statistics, and historical context is OMITTED by the writer whenever it’s convenient. Whether this author’s ignorance is willful or negligent, it is certainly poor “journalism” at best.

    • Hollywood

      let see you do a better job

    • Tmac

      Please tell us what was omitted?

  • Party Like 1999 BC

    Obama has his own destabilization agenda apart from ANY anti-Russia program that the oligarchs have underway… In fact, Obama has converted the federal entity into one big destabilization agent and tricked the hangers on and other assorted warfare queens that this is also part of their destabilization desires. Obama’s motivations are racial. Getting a bunch of white people in Europe or Asia to murder each other is a great victory for him.

  • Hollywood

    Russia understood that if WW3 break out that London, New York, Washington will be immediately nuked.

  • Hm? The way I’ve been reading it, Gazprom has been the big cash cow for Putin and his nomenklatura buddies, and the Europeans have been writhing under its savage “take-or-pay” conditions for decades.

    Now (especially with the widespread petrochemicals extraction processes subsumed under the term “fracking”), they don’t need Gazprom’s inefficiently-produced and extortionately-provided natural gas and liquid petroleum, so they’re getting out from under.

    The people of Ukraine, though no less burdened with corrupt government than either the Poles on their western flank or the Russians to the east, hate the hell out of Gazprom, too, and realized that if they couple their economy with that of the European Union and cut themselves loose from Putin’s Russia, they stand a better chance to prosper without being plundered to put petrodollars in the pockets of Putin’s kakistocracy.

    If you want to blame anything, blame Gazprom greed. From the top to the bottom of Russia’s western frontier, it’s been driving all of the former Soviet satrapies to seek political economic alternatives to life under Putin’s suzerainty.

    • revusky

      The price of hydrocarbons is determined on a world market. The Russians, up until recently, were giving Ukraine a discount. I assume that far wealthier countries were paying the world price. Are you suggesting that the Russians should sell oil at a subsidized price and that otherwise they are being greedy?

      • The price of hydrocarbons is determined on a world market. The Russians, up until recently, were giving Ukraine a discount.

        Gad. How much methane have you been inhaling? Not even Wik-friggin’-pedia offers the least wisp of support to your fantasy.

        Developments in these disputes – discounts? yeah, right… – up through 31 October 2014:

        In an attempt at energy independence, Naftogaz [Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas company] signed a pipeline access deal with Slovakia’s Eustream on April 28, 2014. Eustream and its Ukrainian counterpart Ukrtransgaz, owned by Naftogaz, agreed to allow Ukraine to use a never used (but aging, at 20 years old) pipeline on Slovakia’s eastern border with Uzhhorod in western Ukraine.

        The deal would provide Ukraine with 3 billion cubic meters of natural gas beginning in autumn of 2014 with the aim of increasing that amount to 10 billion cubic meters in 2015.[140]

        On 1 April 2014 Gazprom cancelled Ukraine’s natural gas discount as agreed in the 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan because its debt to the company had risen to $1.7 billion since 2013.[142][143]

        Later that month the price “automatically” jumped to $485 per 1,000 cubic meters because the Russian government annulled an export-duty exemption for Gazprom in place since the 2010 Kharkiv Pact (this agreement was denounced by Russia on 31 March 2014[144]).[145][146] On 16 June 2014 Gazprom stated that Ukraine’s debt to the company was $4.5 billion.[145] On 30 May 2014 Ukraine paid $786 million to Gazprom.[147]

        After intermediary (that had started in May 2014[145]) trilateral talks between EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, Ukraine and Russia failed on 15 June 2014 the latter halted (after a deadline of 10 a.m. Moscow time passed without it receiving payment[145]) its natural gas supplies to Ukraine the next day.[142] Unilaterally Gazprom decided that Ukraine had to pay upfront for its natural gas.[148] The company assured that its supplies to other European countries would continue.[148] Ukraine vowed to “provide reliable supply of gas to consumers in Ukraine and we will provide reliable transit to the European Union”.[145] At the time about 15 percent of European Union’s demand depended on Russian natural gas piped through Ukraine.[145]

        After trilateral months of talks between the European Union, Ukraine
        and Russia a deal was reached on 30 October 2014 in which Ukraine agreed
        to pay (in advance) $378 per 1,000 cubic metres to the end of 2014, and
        $365 in the first quarter (ending on 31 March) of 2015.[149] Of its debts to Gazprom Ukraine agreed to pay of $1.45bn immediately, and $1.65bn by the end of 2014.[149]

        It was agreed that the European Union will be acting as guarantor for
        Ukraine’s gas purchases from Russia and would help to meet outstanding
        debts (using funds from existing accords with the European Union and IMF).[149] The total package was worth $4.6bn.[149]

        According to European Union officials the deal secured that there would
        be no natural gas supply disruptions in other European countries.[149]

        I’m not inclined to take Wiki-bloody-pedia as a reliable primary or secondary source, but as an aggregating site it not uncommonly provides a cut-to-the-chase value in the form of overview, with boatloads of active links to supporting references.

        Admittedly, there’s been cork-screwing, thieving, and other dirty-dealing in Kiev as well as in Moscow, but Gazprom has been not only the principal source of enrichment among the politically-connected members of Putin’s political faction in the Rodina but also precisely what all of its customers had feared, “an arm of Russian foreign policy.”

        • revusky

          The information that you are bringing in here does not seem to support your notions. It seems to support what I was saying. Gazprom had been giving the Ukrainians a discount. Moreover, the Ukrainians had run up a 1.7 billion dollar tab, and did not seem to have any clear means of paying it! How unreasonable of the Russians to want to get paid!

          Regardless, what are we talking about here? We have prominent Ukrainian politicians caught on tape talking about “killing all the Moskals” (Moskals being a derogatory term for ethnic Russians) and referring to them as “subhumans”. Given this, how could anybody be surprised that the Russians start playing hardball with these people, demanding full payment at world prices for the gas. Oh, how unreasonable of them!

          • Moreover, the Ukrainians had run up a 1.7 billion dollar tab, and did not seem to have any clear means of paying it!

            And so the “tab” was knowingly allowed by Putin’s faction (which controls Gazprom) to run way to hellangone beyond Ukraine’s ability to pay precisely…why?

            A deal gets struck with Ukrainian government thugs who had been conniving with the Putin government to get Ukraine well and truly down the bear’s gullet (all the while, of course, feathering their own nests), and – surprise! – the population of Ukraine want out of this “deal,” and engage a change of government which pisses off Putin and his buddies.

            As for how some of those replacement Ukrainian politicians view the Moscow-suckers in their midst as “subhumans” and otherwise enemies of the people and the polity, isn’t there a very natural tendency to de-humanize one’s enemies?

            Look at how America’s “Liberal” fascisti speak about those of us participant in the T.E.A. Party movement, f’rinstance.

            The Gazprom extortion of Ukraine has always been much less a matter of “full payment at world prices” (how the hell much d’you think the whole friggin’ Crimean peninsula is worth, “at world prices.” eh?) than of Putin’s groping for political control over a neighboring – nominally? – sovereign nation.

          • revusky

            You seem to be confusing everything that can possibly be confused. First of all, you do not seem to understand the most basic fact of the situation. The pro-western coup in Ukraine was a classic CIA-sponsored color revolution. This is plainly obvious to everybody who understands these things minimally. You seem to think that this coup represented the will of the Ukrainian people. That is how the western media presents it. But hold on, just think a sec. If the coup faction had the support of the majority of the population, why did they need a coup? Yanukovich had agreed to early elections that would take place in May and he would not be running. They simply had to wait a few months for the elections. Why mount a coup if they had the support of the majority of the population?

            Secondly, the annexation of Crimea has absolutely nothing to do with any outstanding gas bill owed by Ukraine. It happened because the local authorities in Crimea wanted nothing to do with the illegal coup regime in Kiev and voted to secede and join the Russian federation. Again, it is not surprising that people do not want to continue being part of a country run by a bunch of neo-nazi thugs who refer to them as “subhuman. Would you? Crimea was always part of Russia culturally and historically. It became part of an independent Ukraine by historical accident because it was put in the Ukrainian SSR under the Soviet Union.

            The vast majority of people in Crimea wanted to rejoin Russia. No honest observer doubts this. So why do you think people should be forced to be part of a country they don’t want to belong to?

          • PubliusDemocritus

            Wow, Revusky, you made mincemeat out of Tuci78’s strange mishmash of erroneous “facts” (obviously fed to him from the US or EU MSM), anti-Russian prejudices and insults, and non-logical presentation of “facts”, prejudices and insults. Somehow, he seemed to think that placing sentences near each other on page is a form of thinking, and that picking MSM themes that suit one’s prejudices is a form of data-gathering that enables one to perceive reality.

          • Optin

            “And so the “tab” was knowingly allowed by Putin’s faction (which controls Gazprom) to run way to hellangone beyond Ukraine’s ability to pay precisely…why?”

            For the same reason that your credit card company keeps upping your limit. For one. Two, this is a business partner who is dependent on your product, so you don’t cut them off. Rather you try to work with them. Had Maidan and the coup not happened the current financial disaster would never have happened.

            The price negotiated in 2013 had conditions attached, which were not met. Putin did not change anything, the agreement simply stated that if conditions are not met, then price x will be implemented. Conditions were not met and the appropriate portion of the agreement took over. Russia and Ukraine are in courts over this right now.

            Russia currently has approx $35 Billion invested in Ukraine. These investment have all breached their terms and Russia could call the loans, but is not. Because that would destroy the Ukraine and Putin has clearly stated that this is NOT what he wants.

            In addition, the EU association under the terms stipulated meant a $160 Billion loss for Ukraine, which was the reason why it was paused. It was never declined. It required more thorough investigation. The EU was not willing to cover any portion of the $160 Billion losses. But no one is talking much about that… And the people of Ukraine are in the dark about it. When they wake up to the facts one day, it will be a very rude awakening. Ukraine is being plundered left, right and center. The supposed increase in exports is due to selling its final grain stores. Wait til spring when food becomes scarce. It has already ditched its gold reserves. Companies are being sold for pennies on the dollar. Poroschenko put his assets up for sale via Rothschild in the summer. Ukraine is a free-for-all right now and when nothing much is left of it, it will just be discarded and left hanging. Because really, no one cares about the peope there.

  • revusky

    This article is really very weak stuff. I mean, the author goes through a century of history telling us how the capitalist powers wanted to destroy Soviet Russia, but it’s totally cherry picked. He kinda leaves out a key episode, like THE key episode…

    How does Mr. Barsocchini explain that, when the USSR was very near collapse in late 1941, the western powers, rather than sitting back and letting Hitler finish off the Soviets or even joining in on the German side, mobilized all kinds of resources (lend lease etcetera) to save the Soviets from collapse? I mean, this is astounding, is it not? The eastern front of WW 2 is one of the key events of the history of the twentieth century and he just glosses over it like it didn’t happen! Why does he not mention this?

    Hmm….. well, okay, it is hardly surprising that a bunch of leftwing Jewish (usually Jewish, anyway) intellectual gatekeepers of Chomsky’s ilk want to explain the history of the twentieth century without mentioning the power of organized world Jewry. As they are wont to tell us, only crazy, antisemitic conspiracy theorists think that there is organized Jewish power in the world. Well, fine, except now let them explain this teensy little detail of 20th century history, that the U.S. and Britain allied themselves with Stalin rather than allowing Hitler to finish him off. I mean, explain this within your capitalist/communist paradigm without any reference to the power of world jewry.

    And while they’re at it, since the same left gatekeepers claim that false flag terrorism doesn’t exist (only conspiracy theorists believe in that) let them explain building 7 collapsing at free fall speed into its own footprint without being hit by a plane.

    I’m all ears. Really. And I surely am not the only person who would love an explanation of these things.

    • Tmac

      “Why does he not mention this?”

      That’s a red herring. America’s temporary 4 year love affair with the USSR is easy to explain.

      Germany was the immediate threat. Once Germany was defeated and safely incorporated into the US sphere of influence (with many key Nazis running the show) she returned to her attacks against the USSR.

      It’s a cycle that gets repeated again and again.

      Sadam Hussain in Iraq was our best friend until he became our enemy

      Colonel Gaddafi in Libya was an enemy until he beacme a friend until he became an enemy again

      Iran was a friend until it became an enemy

      General Manuel Noriega in Panama was a friend until he became an enemy

      Cuba was a friend under Batista until it became an enemy under Castro but is now a friend again for some strange reason

      George Orwell wrote about this in 1984.

      The government, with the help of corporate media, determines reality for the people. The vast majority are happy to go along with it

      As for 9/11, I believe the facts show America was attacked by her close friend and ally Saudi Arabia.

      As for WTC 7, the fact that one of the largest buildings on the planet, the North Tower, basically collapsed on top of it might have had something to do with its eventual free fall

      But 9/11 is basically a red herring as well. There are real crimes committed by the US government that we can prove. Why focus on hypothetical or difficult to prove crimes? Plus, if the US government was involved, why use Saudis and not Iraqis, the real goal of post 9/11 actions?

      • revusky

        “That’s a red herring. America’s temporary 4 year love affair with the USSR is easy to explain.”

        Well, first of all, I never said it was actually hard to explain. I just said it couldn’t be explained in terms of the communist/capitalist paradigm of the article. As for it being a “red herring”, I don’t see how it is. If you’re going to write some long, rambling article about how the capitalist powers were out to destroy the USSR, I think you should at least address the question of why they pulled out all the stops to save the USSR when it was on the brink of collapse. Since this key event contradicts the whole premise of your article, you know…

        Moreover, your comment just begs the question basically. Basically, you are saying that they did everything they could to save the USSR because their goal was to destroy Germany, and saving the USSR was instrumental in destroying Germany. Yes, I agree. IOW, destroying Germany was deemed more important, overrode their longstanding goal of destroying the USSR, right?

        Okay, no argument on that point. But WHY?

        “Germany was the immediate threat….”

        To whom? Certainly, Germany was no threat to the U.S. Not only did Germany have no capability to mount a transatlantic attack on the U.S. homeland, but this was never one of Germany’s war aims in any case. In particular, you are saying that Germany was not only a threat, but an *immediate* threat. This makes no sense all. How could either Germany, or Russia for that matter, have been be an *immediate* threat to the U.S., a country on the other side of the world, when they were locked in a desperate life and death struggle with one another?

        A German victory over the Soviet Union would have resulted in Nazi Germany dominating eastern Europe. A Soviet victory over Germany, which is what actually happened, resulted in Soviet Russia dominating eastern Europe. Why would this result be considered preferable by the capitalist political elite in the West? I say that the article above should address this question, at least give the question some passing mention, no?

      • revusky

        “Saddam Hussain in Iraq was our best friend until he became our enemy. Colonel Gaddafi in Libya was an enemy until he became a friend until he became an enemy again.”

        Yes, the above points are true, but I don’t fault the author of the article for not addressing them, because the article did not set out to explain this. The article is about the U.S. stance towards Russia, so I criticize the author for not explaining why the U.S. stepped in to help Soviet Russia in its hour of need.

        As for explaining why Saddam is our friend and then our enemy and so on, that was not within the purview of the article, so I don’t criticize the author for not addressing it.

        That said, I would say that the above situations — Saddam, Ghaddafi in Libya, Iran — also cannot be explained in terms of any left/right, communist/capitalist dialectic either. You need to consider other factors. Specifically, if you can explain these things without reference to the Jewish/Zionist lobby in the U.S. that would also fascinate me, but again, that does not directly bear on the original article here being discussed, which is about the Russia situation.

      • revusky

        “As for 9/11, I believe the facts show America was attacked by her close friend and ally Saudi Arabia.”

        No, that really is a red herring. The facts do not show that. The facts show that the patsies framed for the attacks were largely using stolen Saudi identities. And nothing more. Like the passports that magically survived the fire and were found near ground zero intact. Saudi passports. Just a clumsy frame-up job.

        “As for WTC 7, the fact that one of the largest buildings on the planet, the North Tower, basically collapsed on top of it might have had something to do with its eventual free fall”

        No, the North Tower did not “collapse on top of building 7”. That is just false. Moreover, even if that were true, which it’s not, it would not cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse of building 7. The only way to achieve that is for all the structural support columns to be taken out virtually simultaneously. That’s a controlled demolition. It does not take any advanced technical knowledge to understand this. If you want to get educated on this specific issue, go visit ae911truth.org. The material there can be understood by anybody with a high school education.

      • revusky

        “But 9/11 is basically a red herring as well. There are real crimes committed by the US government that we can prove.”

        This is true as far as that goes, but the problem is that pretty much all the U.S. crimes after 9/11 used 9/11 as their rationale. Thus, exposing the initial crime automatically lays bare all the other subsequent crimes.

        I know you’re channeling Chomsky in saying that 9/11 is not important blah blah, but maybe you should think about this a bit more. The whole premise of U.S. political discourse for 13+ years has been that there are all these terrorists running around, who if we do not take proper measures (proper measures being aggressive wars abroad and a torture/police state at home) will do it again.

        So it is, on the contrary, a key issue to demonstrate that the official 9/11 story is false, that the people they claim were behind 9/11 could not possibly have done it. It shows that the entire basis on which all of the aggressions abroad and the police state measures at home were established is a HOAX.

        To accept the 9/11 myth as presented is basically to give up the battle in advance. If the public believes that there really are these islamic terrorists who did that and may do it again, they will, as has been demonstrated, support all of these subsequent crimes, such as the wars of aggression and the torture, etcetera.

        The 9/11 myth is, properly understood, a constructed blood libel against the Moslem world created to justify endless neocolonial military adventures in Moslem countries. It is absolutely essential to reject the blood libel, this racist fairy tale of Mohammed Atta screaming “Allahu Akhbar” as he piloted the jet into the skyscraper…

        It also allows us to identify all the people pushing all this vicious, racist nonsense, as our enemies, as traitors. All of this is very very useful and is a direct result of increasing public consciousness about 9/11 truth and false flag terrorism generally.

    • leah

      I gave you a thumbs up, however, keep in mind that the global cabal funded both sides, until Hitler started printing is money (and not their Res Bank), thus they gave Russia more funds, because Hitler had to be brought down. The Allies were brought in to make it look good as though USSR, UK, USA etc had effected Germany’s defeat. WW2 was more about consolidating the ‘power’ of the cabal than anything else. Millions are lives were sacrificed for this.

    • may non
  • ObamaNazi

    I liked this article, it was correct.

  • Aleks mici

    Dear Revusky

    I’ve intended to make some critisism about the article, but you in one of the most posible elegant and true maner you’ve said before me.
    Thatk you that you gave a relief to don’t get involvend and fight with HM Ignorancy of the others.
    All your point are 100% OK !
    Anyhow you write beter than that professor whgo wrote this article !
    Congratulation ! That makes two of us !

    • revusky

      Hi, thanks for the encouragement. I wonder if the author of the article will attempt to respond to my points. I would be very surprised. We’ll see. It is very strange, what he is trying to say, no? The West tried to destroy the USSR in 1918 because it was communist. However, the USSR was still communist in 1941 and the West came to their aid. Now, here we are in 2014, the West is still trying to destroy Russia, but Russia is no longer communist! Just from these basic facts, surely one can see that holding up this capitalist/communist dialectic as the overarching explanation of everything just doesn’t work, right?

      Also, you look at the forces behind this current attack on Russia, and you see it is a multiprong attack. You have all these neocons in Washington, you have a financial attack on the ruble orchestrated by Wall Street people, and you have this demonization of Putin in the western mainstream media. Hmm, what do all these groups or forces have in common?

      It is not a question of antisemitism even. It’s just a question of recognizing that something exists! It’s as if you try to explain a bicycle and refuse to admit that there is such a thing as the centrifugal force. Obviously your explanation of how a bicycle works, in that case, will not be correct. It is not a question of being anti-centrifugal force or pro. It’s a question of recognizing that it exists!

      Anyway, if you want to exchange any ideas in private, feel free to send me email. My address is my username here at gmail dot com. I’m always interested in making contact with people who have some basic understanding of what is going on, that you can talk to.

  • Shartnado2, the Sloppy One

    DIdnt Woodrow Wilson on his death bed, express his regret for his entire presidency