As reported on Saturday March 7th by both German Economic News, and Spiegel magazine, the ongoing lies and arrogance from U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration regarding Ukraine and Russia have finally raised to the surface a long-mounting anger of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Government.
This is especially the case with Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who comes from Germany’s Social Democratic Party, which is far less conservative (and far less anti-Russian) than the Christian Democratic Union Party, Chancellor Merkel’s party. The CDU has traditionally been hostile toward Russia, but the SDP has instead favored an unprejudiced policy regarding Russia, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of communism there.
Steinmeier has always been skeptical of Obama’s intentions regarding Ukraine and Russia, but now it appears that even Merkel is veering away from the United States on these policies.
“Resistance to the US strategy toward Russia is growing in the EU,” reports GDN, which names especially U.S. General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Commander, as the major source of this turn-about, because Breedlove has “exaggerated the military role of Russia in Ukraine.”
Spiegel provides the details on Breedlove, but especially blames Victoria Nuland, the Obama official who actually ran the February 2014 coup in Ukraine and who selected the person who would steer the new, post-coup, Ukrainian Government in the ways that President Obama wants.
Spiegel’s headline is “Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine.” GDN’s is (as auto-translated by Google’s Chrome browser) “Ukraine Policy: First open conflict between Germany and NATO.”
Spiegel notes that, after the second — which was the Merkel-Hollande — Ukrainian ceasefire was reached at Minsk in late February, Breedlove announced that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” had just been sent to the conflict-region, Donbass, from Russia. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.” All of that was fictitious.
Spiegel continues: “German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency,” heard Breedlove lie and were shocked by it.
But Spiegel then goes on to subhead “The ‘Super Hawk’,” when describing Victoria Nuland’s role. Spiegel says there:
“She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats. Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine.”
Spiegel has always tried to portray U.S. President Obama as being trapped by conservatives, such as Breedlove and Nuland, who somehow became parts of his Administration and who are, supposedly, independent actors in the roles that they perform — as if they weren’t instead his employees. For Spiegel, Nuland’s (and they spell it out there, so I will here) “Fuck the EU” statement, was only speaking for herself, as if she weren’t Obama’s hire, though Spiegel does note there that, “Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.” Precisely why Mr. Obama selected Dick Cheney’s former chief foreign-policy advisor, Nuland, to become the person who would carry out his Administration’s polices regarding Ukraine and Russia, the ever-‘tactful’ Spiegel ignores. Instead, Spiegel goes on to say, “When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand.”
Throughout, Spiegel ignores that Obama has been driving his entire Administration to marginalize, weaken, and crush Russia, and that this overriding goal of his foreign policies does not originate with his hires but with himself: he chooses these “Super Hawks” regarding Russia, because this is who he secretly is. When he plays the good cop in the good-cop bad-cop routine on Russia, it’s an act, which is designed to fool the public. Obama bombed Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was friendly to Russia; he bombs Syria because Bashar al-Assad is friendly to Russia; he overthrew Ukraine’s Government because Viktor Yanukovych was friendly to Russia; and he has been and is squeezing Iran because Iran is friendly to Russia. Israel is no different than the U.S.: it’s rabidly anti-Russian (and most of the large political donations to there come from American billioinaires; Israel is America’s 51st state, which has lots more than one-fifty-first of the power over the American Government — it’s the most powerful of the 51 actual states, even though it has no fealty to the U.S. Constitution and no constitution of its own); and both the U.S. and Israel are allied with Saudi and other Arab royals because they’re all anti-Russian. America’s ally is Saudi Wahhabist jihadist Islam, not the EU. America created Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Everything else than the obsession to isolate and destroy Russia is just an act, for the American aristocracy (including the ones who own Israel) — and especially for all Republican politicians and for the top Democratic ones.
Maybe the EU will finally decide that they’ve had enough of it, and invite Russia to join with them, and will tell Ukraine that they’re a bit too American for European tastes, after all: Europe has had enough experience with fascism and nazism, so that they don’t want to invite it back in again.
But will Germany actually do this? Will France actually do this? Have they had enough of Sunni jihad, and of Christian nazism (both just aristocratic ploys), to decide that they want no part of either one? Maybe goodbye, U.S.; hello, Russia? What type of Europe would that be? Might it out-compete the U.S.? Would it be the best thing for Europeans?
That’s the big strategic question in our time. And it’s not America’s to answer. Either Europe will go with democracy and peace and abandon NATO (i.e., abandon the U.S. military), or else it will go with nazism and war and abandon democracy (like the U.S. itself has done, especially in Ukraine).
Which will it be? Europe will need to choose between Russia and the United States. If it goes with the U.S., Europeans will become servants to America’s aristocracy — to the people who are now actually running Ukraine. If it goes with Russia, then perhaps a United States of Europe will become possible so that no nation’s aristocracy will have either the inclination or the ability to dictate to the governments of Europe.
Stay tuned. These are exciting times: the stakes for future history have never been higher.
It’s not really Obama who is on the fence. It is Europe. And the decision will be for Europe’s leaders — not for America’s, nor for Russia’s — to make.
They are in the driver’s seat, for Europe’s future — and for the entire world’s.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.