Jeane-Claude Juncker Damns Obama’s Plan for Ukraine

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

Jean-Claude Juncker, the most powerful person in Europe, the chief of the European Commission and therefore Europe’s closest equivalent to America’s President, said, in a little-noticed comment on March 3rd, “Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20-25 years, and not of NATO either.” The article reporting this, at europeonline.magazine, also observed that, “The commission, the EU‘s executive, plays a leading role in accession negotiations between the bloc and aspiring members.”

The main reason why U.S. President Barack Obama had perpetrated his coup in Ukraine in February 2014, and why his CIA hired racist anti-Russian paramilitaries to carry it out as they did behind the cover of the popular anti-corruption “Maidan” demonstrations in Kiev, was in order to get Ukraine into NATO, so that U.S. missiles will be able to be placed near-enough to Moscow for a blitz-attack so as to conquer Russia. That would be America’s ultimate “regime-change” operation (toward which the regime-change in Ukraine is merely one of the most important steps); but the European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker has here said it’s not going to happen.

This isn’t only a reversal of what the EU had been promising to Ukraine’s government (especially promising to the post-coup government), but it’s also a drastic separation of Europe from America’s empire: a severe limitation of the control by the U.S. aristocracy, which has, ever since the time of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, been executing his plan to strangulate Russia by surrounding it with NATO member-nations on Russia’s western borders, and so cutting off Russia’s major trading-partner (Europe), thus squeezing Russia’s economy until a regime-change can be carried out there like was done in Ukraine, ‘democratically’ instead of by an outright invasion of Russia. This way, the threat of a NATO blitz-attack won’t even need to be acted upon, and the world’s most resource-rich nation, Russia, can thus be added to the U.S. international-corporate fold without NATO needing first to attack Russia by any such super “Prompt Global Strike” — a PGS that can destroy Russia’s command-and-control within just a few minutes, instead of within an hour or even more.

Juncker is thus challenging the U.S. aristocracy here; he’s saying that GHW Bush’s plan isn’t going to go all the way. The U.S. aristocracy can benefit by surging U.S. arms-sales that are generated from NATO’s expansions, but not into Ukraine.

As the representative of Europe’s aristocracies, Juncker is finally saying, to the U.S. aristocracy: You’re not going to control us entirely. We want to work with you on things such as TTIP, which will benefit the aristocracies of every participating nation; but, we’re not going to follow your lead regarding the conquest of Russia; we European aristocrats (the billionaires whom these government-officials represent) will instead pursue our own independent policies regarding Russia. We’re not going all the way with you on that.


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.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jim G

    Actually, I saw that and realized that Russia had won that war. The EU and the US are split on the Ukraine, and who will pay for the disaster. I also see Russia holding the line in Syria, and now running negotiations, and realize they won there too, so far – against the Turks, the Saudis, Israel, and the US. I understand this is because they have a new technology that makes electronic weapons obsolete. Electronic weapons obsolete? Could this be the end of warfare? I’d like to know more about this, Eric. Is it true? I have a confirm.

    • cettel

      Jim G, it can’t be “the end of warfare,” because there are two types of war: internal (civil) and external (for foreign conquest); and every war is one or the other or both, and a standard strategy of aspiring conquerors (such as Bush-Obama) is to encourage or even create civil war in target countries (such as Syria, and Ukraine, and the U.S. aristocracy hopes ultimately in Russia), so that separatist movements will always have some foreign support. The existence of war is dependent upon social, cultural, and religious loyalties, not upon technology. Technology can affect the outcome, but not the existence, of war.

      • Jim G

        Yes, perhaps one can always kill a neighbor with a knife, but I’m sure glad I don’t necessarily have to fear WWIII or waking up with the grid down. Think of a world where aircraft carriers are huge floating scrap yards, and jet planes can’t fly. Fly a drone in – it’s gone. You want to shoot a nuke into there and see if it goes off knowing they will shoot back and you can’t make their drones disappear? The defense budget -You want to spend billions more on worthless high tech electronic weapons?
        Everything has changed.

  • Daniel Bruno

    slava rasee. now we need to get the Nazis out of power in Ukraine, the country is miserable, I talk to people who live there