America’s Secret Planned Conquest of Russia

Eric Zuesse

The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.

This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.)

This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources). 

Neither version of this article mentioned the key reason why nuclear victory is exceedingly dangerous even under the most favorable conditions, which reason is the concept (and the likely reality in the event of nuclear war between the two superpowers) “nuclear winter” — the scientific studies showing that a resulting sudden sharp cooling of the atmosphere after all those enormous explosions would produce a global die-off. America’s aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies controlling the U.S.-allied nations (billionaires, centi-millionaires, and their top agents in both the public and private sectors) are buying and building deep-underground nuclear shelters for themselves, but they wouldn’t be able to stay underground and survive on stored feedstuffs forever. (As for everybody else, those other people are not involved in geostrategic decisionmaking, and so are being ignored.) However, many of America’s (and associated) elite are paying those bomb-shelter expenses, but none of the West’s elite are condemning the path toward nuclear war that their governments are on. So: buying or building nuclear-war shelters is more acceptable to them than is stopping America’s planned conquest of Russia. The higher priority is to conquer Russia.

A far less influential scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article arguing against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no impact upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it argued that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It presented a moral argument: “U.S. leaders might try to exploit its nuclear superiority … by actually launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack against its nuclear rival in the midst of an intense crisis. The professors discount significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to restrain U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow dire enough, the temptation to try to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike may be too strong to resist, they argue.” The concept of “nuclear winter” wasn’t even so much as just mentioned (much less dealt with) in this article, just as it was ignored in the two that it was arguing against. 

The co-authors of (both versions of) the article that had proposed and endorsed nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a response to that critical article. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more impact than did the obscure article it was arguing against.

Thus, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it remains Russian policy). The U.S. government is planning to take over Russia (basically, to install a puppet-regime there). That’s the reality.

Central to the nuclear-primacy concept is that of what’s variously called a “Ballistic Missile Defense” (BMD) or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (ABM) system: a system to disable or knock out Russia’s retaliatory nuclear weapons so that a U.S. blitz nuclear attack won’t be able to be met by any nuclear counter-attack.

As “The End of MAD?” put it: “Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived.” 

In other words: America’s aristocracy aren’t necessarily hoping to protect all of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are willing to sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, in order to achieve the intended result: conquest of Russia.

That article then says that a BMD-ABM system wouldn’t necessarily indicate America’s determination to pursue nuclear primacy against Russia, because it could instead be intended purely and authentically defensively, to protect against nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea or some other country. However: “Other U.S. nuclear programs are hard to explain with any mission other than a nuclear first strike on a major power adversary. For example, the decision to upgrade the fuse of many SLBM warheads (the W76s) to permit ground bursts makes sense only if the mission is destroying hundreds of hardened silos. One might argue that ground bursts could be useful for a variety of other missions, such as destroying North Korean WMD bunkers or remote cave complexes housing terrorist leaders. The United States, however, already has a large number of highly accurate, similar-yield warheads that would be ideal for these purposes.” The article even notes that: “Other analysts have noted that the current U.S. nuclear force looks surprisingly like an arsenal designed for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China.” And, “A group of RAND analysts agrees: ‘What the planned force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.’” So: the co-authors here are claiming to be merely giving a name, “nuclear primacy,” to America’s existing strategic military policy — not to be inventing or creating it. They are, above all, saying that this is the reality now in U.S. policy-making circles; that MAD no longer is.

And their article has, indeed, described the guiding strategic-planning objective not only of the George W. Bush Administration, but also of Barack Obama’s — as will now be documented.

U.S. President Obama has always been saying that the reason why America is installing anti-ballistic missiles (“ABM”s, otherwise known as ballistic-missile defense or “BMD”) in Romania, Poland, and other nations that border (or are near to) Russia, is in order to protect Europe against Iranian missiles that might be aimed against Europe. He says that this is purely defensive, not aggressive, and that what it’s defending from is Iran, not Russia — so, Russia has no reason for complaint about it.

But then, Obama reached his nuclear deal with Iran; and this deal ended, for at least ten years, any realistic possibility that Iran would develop any nuclear-weapons capability — Obama himself emphasized that this was the case; he wasn’t denying it.

So: Obama’s claimed reason for installing ABMs in Europe was now, quite simply, gone. (Not that it had been credible anyway, since Iran didn’t have any nuclear weapons. It was merely a pretext, not honestly a reason.)

Here is how Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, stated the matter, at that time, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, on 22 October 2015:

The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. [But] What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.

Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.

The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one

He called Obama there a “liar,” and that’s a blatantly truthful characterization of the situation. But Putin missed there saying what’s even more basic for an understanding of what Obama was doing in this matter — and which makes that “lie” from Obama particularly heinous: Putin missed saying that an anti-missile system can be at least as important as an aggressive weapon as it is as a defensive one, because if a first-strike attacker wants to eliminate the defender’s ability to strike back from the attacker’s first-strike attack, then an anti-missile system is the weapon to do that, by eliminating the defender’s missiles before those strike-back missiles can reach their targets. It nullifies the other side’s defense — and to do this is enormously aggressive; it strips the victim’s retaliation. The whole distinction between offensive and defensive can thus be pure propaganda, nothing having to do actually with aggressive and defensive. Whether the use will be defensive, or instead offensive, won’t be known until the system is in actual battlefield use. Only the propaganda is clear; the weapon’s use is not.

So, Putin understated the heinousness, and the danger to Russians, that was actually involved in Obama’s tricks. All that Putin did was to vaguely suggest an aggressive possibility: “It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.” Most people don’t relate to such abstractions as “strategic balance.”

Obama and other agents of the U.S. aristocracy know that their public have been trained for decades, to hate, fear, and despise, Russians, and especially the Russian government, as if it were the Soviet Union, and as if its Warsaw Pact and communism still existed and Russia hadn’t ended its hostility to the U.S. in 1991 (though the U.S. continued its hostility to Russia — that rump remaining country from the former communist empire — and during Obama’s second term the hostility soared). So, for example, at the conservative website Breitbart, when that statement quoted here from Putin was posted as part of an honestly written and presented article titled “Vladimir Putin: U.S. Missile Defense System Threatens Russia”, almost none of the reader-comments indicated any ability or inclination of the readers to sympathize with the plight for Russians that Putin had just expressed. Instead, to the extent that the comments there were relevant, they were generally hostile, such as:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he has concerns that the

U.S. ballistic missile defense system threatens Russia’s nuclear

capability.”

Vlad, its supposed to, its called defense. The only way it could harm your nukes is if they were shot down…………….after you launched them!

and

How can a defense system threaten anything? Like Obama would attack Russia. That is laughable.

Most people’s minds are straightjacketed in bigotries of various sorts, preconceptions such as that a “missile defense” system, and a “Defense” Department, can’t be aggressive — even extremely aggressive and war-mongering. The first thought that comes to mind about anything that’s ‘defensive’ is that something else must be ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’, and that whatever is ‘defensive’ (such as an ABM) is therefore good and even necessary. That’s thinking, and receiving the term “defense,” like thinking just one move ahead in a chess-game, but this is the mental limit for most people, and every propagandist (such as the people who professionally design propaganda or PR slogans and campaigns) do precisely what Obama and the rest of the aristocracy and their agents do in order to deceive their gulls: they phrase things for one-move-ahead-limit thinkers, like that. The cardinal rule in the deception-professions is therefore, first, to find people with the desired prejudices, and then to play them as that, with one-move-ahead-limit sales-pitches, which are directed to precisely those prejudices. This report at the Breitbart site was instead presenting a high-quality news-report, to a low-quality audience, and so the reader-comments it generated were few, and generally hostile.

Obama is a master at deception. Another good example of this was 26 March 2012, during Obama’s campaign for re-election, when he confidentially told Dmitry Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Obama was privately communicating to Putin (through Medvedev) that Obama was pushing the ABM installations only so as not to be politically vulnerable to charges from the knee-jerk Russia-haters, Republicans, and that Obama’s fakery regarding the supposed ABM-target’s being Iran was only in order to appeal to yet another Republican bigotry (against Iran), and so Obama was intending to back away from supporting the ABM system during his second term.

But actually, Obama had had Russia in his gunsights even prior to his coming into office. Two specific objects in focus were Moscow-friendly leaders of nations: Assad of Syria, and Yanukovych of Ukraine. America’s strategy, ever since 24 February 1990, has been to strip Russia of allies and friends — to leave Russia increasingly isolated and surrounded by enemies. When Obama entered the White House on 20 January 2009, there already was a plea in the pipeline from the Syrian government for urgently needed food-aid to address the all-time-record drought there, which had decimated Syrian agriculture. Obama’s Administration never even answered it. Well before the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011, Obama was hoping for turmoil in Syria and the overthrow of Assad — lots of starving Syrians would be just the thing.

Moreover, the planning for the February 2014 coup to overthrow the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, started in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011.

So: when Obama told Medvedev and Putin, on 26 March 2012, not to worry about Obama’s intentions toward Russia, he was lying. He wanted his intended victim to be off-guard, unprepared for what was soon to come.

On Obama’s way out the door, he did two things that significantly advanced America’s ABM-BMD threat against Russia.

On 10 December 2016, ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter stated, burying it in a speech he gave in Bahrain — site of a major U.S. military base — “just this week, we reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses,” and he said nothing more about it, as if this announcement weren’t the bombshell it actually was. Alex Gorka headlined about that at Strategic Culture, “US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines” and he explained that this system “is designed to be used as an early warning system against strategic offensive assets – something Iran does not possess.” Near the start of Carter’s speech, Carter had said that he would be talking about “checking Iranian aggression and malign influence, and helping defend our friends and allies,” including Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Gorka noted, “The announced range of 5,000km (3,100mi) by far exceeds the requirement to counter a missile threat coming from Iran,” and, “There is no other reasonable explanation for the choice, except the fact that the AN/FPS-132 can monitor large chunks of Russian territory,” the objective being “to surround the Russian Federation with BMD sites and neutralize its capability to deliver a retaliatory strike if attacked.”

One of Obama’s last actions as the U.S. President was to sign into law a bill that had been quietly passed in Congress, which included a key change in U.S. law that would enable the government to spend unlimited funds on realizing former President Ronald Reagan’s dream of a space-based ABM system, “Star Wars.” On December 22nd, David Willman of the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race”, and he reported that the eliminated word was “limited.” Willman explained that, “The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or ‘limited,’ attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.” He noted: “The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.” Willman also noted that on an earlier occasion, “the Obama administration criticized the changes in the Senate bill, saying it ‘strongly objects’ to removing ‘limited’ and to placing anti-missile weaponry in space. The statement stopped short of threatening a veto.” But then, the next day, on December 23rd, Willman bannered, “President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race”. Whereas Obama’s public rhetoric portrayed himself as being the type of person who had deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, almost all of his actual decisions in office were the exact opposite — and here was a superb example of that. 

Whether Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will continue with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) plan to conquer Russia, or instead finally end the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had ended in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), isn’t yet clear.

This is what happens when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and everything (including the ‘news’ media) serves it, rather than the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.

It fits in with the massive data which indicates that the U.S. government is run by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, instead of run by people who represent the public — a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.

Additional details “Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears” were provided by a superb article from Jonathan Marshall, on December 28th.

—————

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • iseeitfx

    Only the truth produces this harmony of the mind, body, and spirit.
    Beautiful music this is.

  • Nexusfast123

    Just confirms the insanity. They should take the places in the bunkers away from the people formulating these policies. The world will be a radioactive wasteland (assuming nukes work) and if the grid and Internet goes down in the US the numbers dying won’t be a few million.

    • cettel

      That’s a brilliant proposal, and it should be sent to all our Senators and Representatives for them to draft into a bill and try to get made into U.S. law pertaining to everyone in the U.S. except U.S. government officials in the official nuclear chain of command — and excluding even the family-members of those who are in the nuclear chain of command — so that everyone including the top executives and stockholders of Lockheed Martin and other weapons-firms will be prohibited from having access to such bunkers.

      • Eric Zuesse

        The more that I think about it, the more brilliant I think it is — that it would transform international relations.

  • kgbgb

    For what it’s worth, I’ve commented at the Breitbart article, pointing people towards to this article, which I think is really excellent.

  • awb22

    BMD upset the balance of power under Reagan, no new news there, only continuation of existing policy applied to current events. Trump answered the concluding question, that we should pursue nuclear primacy.

    However, Zuesse stops short of offering any useful suggestions to countering the US oligarchy, and I question his faith, given his bibliography, upon which he claims credibility. It remains to be seen whether he is able to offer any solutions, thereby dampening any effect of his reporting.

    • artguerrilla

      at awb22 : i am genuinely curious: by WHAT principle do you expect a reporter or op/ed writer to offer some exact solution to the issue/problem they are commenting/reporting on ? ? ?
      THE FIRST step in TRYING to ameliorate any problem is to RECOGNIZE it and publicize it in order for people to be aware and mobilize… that is what mssr zuesse (et al) is (are) doing…
      wtf do you think the end game of all this bullshit ‘fake news’ scare is about ? ? ? it is to purge and de-legitimize alternative news sources which make life too uncomfortable for the powers that be in getting their propaganda to be taken seriously…
      besides, 90%+ of the time, the ‘solution’ of one sort or another isn’t something that is -like- weally, weally calculus-hard! ! ! it is something that is knowable and doable, it is the POLITICAL WILL that is missing among ANY of the ‘leadership’ (sic) klass…
      none of this shit is unknown, none of this shit is unsolvable, it is just that the solutions would effectively imply the overturning of Empire…
      now, no one wants that, now do they ? ? ?

      • awb22

        Problem statements are useful only to the extent they include practical actions to resolve the issue, otherwise it’s useless information. Zeusse is successful at exposing controversial topics to increase his readership, without providing any real context for action. What purpose does that serve?

        • Eric Zuesse

          truth

    • cettel

      If you want to see “any useful suggestions to countering the US oligarchy” on this matter, I have one, in my response, below, to “Nexusfast123” amplifying upon his or her “brilliant proposal.”

      • awb22

        That’s an unrealistic proposal. It get’s harder when workable solutions are required from those who out of cowardice or laziness, fail to offer solutions.

        • Eric Zuesse

          Why do you attribute to me “cowardice or laziness”? Your hostility seems to me to be entirely irrational. (Furthermore, my article is a historical account. Including policy-proposals in it would be entirely inappropriate.)

          • awb22

            You’ve brought forward US imperialism doctrine conceived under Nixon and implemented beginning with Reagan, both cold war administrations, and continuing to the present. So much for the peace dividend.

            You end by questioning what will Trump do. Unfortunately, he answered before you published. What else could he do? Roosevelt coined the term, carry a big stick. Are you advocating a different approach? No, because you’ve advocated precisely, nothing.

            But that isn’t the reason for my perceived animosity. My question is, what do you believe regarding scripture? I’m sure your answer will be, read my book. Sure. But that doesn’t answer the question, does it? What then, do you advocate, based on what? Or is your reply, simply, we must learn from history? Is so, then I must sincerely and respectfully question the value of what you write.

            I don’t like guessing what people believe. At least Carl Sagan was forth right about what he believes, or doesn’t. If you don’t believe God, then just say so. That then, will be the basis by which to asses whatever else it is you decide to write about. If it’s truly only for the historical context, so be it. It would be better that way, perhaps, than for someone who denies God exists to try to advocate for anything else, for all will be tried by fire. (1 Cor 3:10 – 15)

          • Eric Zuesse

            When you say “Roosevelt coined the term, carry a big stick,” the first individual who comes to most people’s minds is the U.S. President whom historians rate (along with Lincoln) as having been one of the two greatest, the man who did more than anyone else to create the United Nations and the non-Third-Reich post-WWII world that we’ve been blessed by him to have lived our lives in: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But no, you meant the Republican “Roosevelt” — Theodore Roosevelt. As regards your calling me “someone who denies God exists,” that’s yet more of your falsehood. Do you intend to go even further into exposing your false assumptions, which you state as if they were established facts? People who miscomprehend should keep their silence, at least until (if ever) they’ve started to understand reality — and the first step toward that is to be far more careful in the making of their assumptions than they have been until now.

          • awb22

            Frankly, sir, your statement of support for Lincoln and FDR say more than enough about you as a person to know that we would be hard pressed to find any common ground.

            Given your progressive leaning, what are your thoughts about muslims? The reason I ask is that only a progressive could reconcile the acts committed in the name of allah through out it’s 1400 year history continuing to the present, with the progressive claim of tolerance.

            The only logical conclusion as to how progressives can be muslim sympathizers, is that they hate God. So, tell me, Eric, what are your thoughts about muslims?

            Your answer will tell me if I’m wrong about you, or if I was correct all along. Refusal to answer will be taken as validation of my original premise, that you hate God. Then we’ll see whose comprehension is misdirected.

          • awb22

            **crickets**

          • EmilyEnso

            Enjoyed your latest article on Zerohedge.
            Thank you.
            You are a great favourite of mine.

  • Ronald

    Hearing , that Hillary has stated she is favorable to a “preemptive first strike” , now confirms the background of her , ” Dr. Strange Love” logic. This first strike madness , forgets the balance of the submarine fleets , as China is unlikely to allow the US to take out Russia .

    • Vanessalhempel

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj532d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj532d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash532ShopLiveGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj532d:….,…..

  • Lillian Smith

    I do not know why guessing Trump’s intentions towards Russia are so hard to figure out. To me it is a change of strategy but not of intent.

  • yehway

    Why would Putin forget or overlook the implication [extremely offensive in nature] of the ABMs in Europe and elsewhere. I say this because of Orwell’s prescient prediction that the 3 super states were working in collaborative coordination. There is one “tribe” who controls them all–so the potential for coordination should certainly be a consideration–with 97% of the world population at risk–the other 3% ready to burrow back into the holes from whence they came. Do not fall for the abstractions and obfuscating propaganda–follow the money and the “hidden” creators of policy: Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.

  • fredcdobbs

    “In other words: America’s aristocracy aren’t necessarily hoping to protect all
    of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are willing to
    sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, in order to
    achieve the intended result: conquest of Russia.”

    Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I do
    say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the
    breaks.

  • Douglas Jack

    Thank you Eric for this review of US relentless 1st Strike policy expressed by Hillary Clinton’s public & revealed email statements along with her other war-against-every-targeted-enemy. Having grown up during the period of Nuclear-Detente, I’m continually shocked & saddened at the warring recklessness of Bush, Obama, Clintons & their minions. The logics & realities, which you point to about US chest beating concerning Iran & other US distractions clearly point to planned nuclear conquest of Russia.
    SELF-DELUSION
    Russia’s military research institutes have not fallen behind in missile, fighter-jet, nuclear & other technologies & the MIC to build. Russia is busy arming China against open US aggression & world-dominance tactics. China’s research capacity is phenomenal. China long experienced USA & its western allies as colonial economic parasites with deep dependence upon war. Here’s the US Army manual on Unconventional or Irregular warfare for those who may be confused about perpetual war. Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare. Field Manual No. 3-05.130 Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 30Sep’08 Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-130.pdf
    FOLLOW-THE-MONEY
    You are missing the economic analysis of China as world-trade leader with Russia as its major resource provider for high-tech, energy & raw-materials. The main threat which western trillionaire oligarchs fear is Euro-Asian-Chinese centred banking, currency, stock-market, trade & productivity, which threatens USD present monopoly-supremacy as the world’s defacto trade-currency. Windsor, Rothschild & Vatican aristocrat owned & operated stock-control of the Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements & US-Federal-Reserve along with their networks of 1000s of billionaires & in-turn multimillionaires form the deep state which hires so-called politicians, bureaucrats etc. The west has control to print the world’s currency for many 100s & 1000s of years. Supremacy expressed by oligarch control of news-media, is where parasites reveal themselves most clearly if one is to ignore what is being said & concentrate as you do here is how it is being said. Greater Israel’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East is the infamous “Oded-Yinon-Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
    UNAPOLOGETIC GENOCIDE
    A million dead in Iraq, another million in Afghanistan, 1/2 a million are now dead in Libya, another 1/2 million in Syria, 10s of 1000s in Ukraine with similar US, Israeli arming of typically foreign mercenary soldiers throughout Islamic nations of the Middle-east, Africa, Latin-American countries, former Soviet-bloc countries etc. are all precipitated by western trillionaire oligarchs raised institutionally in private boarding schools without regular family or neighbourhood cultural acceptance. Oligarch war-makers are part of an institutional psychosis which can only be solved culturally when we understand their 7000 year old colonial bully, fear-based, violent, hierarchal, exploitive, extractive destruction & scarcity. Oligarch driven colonialism command & control killed 100 million in each of Africa, Americas, Middle-east, Far-East, the past century etc totalling over 1/2 billion dead.
    BACK-TO-THE-FUTURE
    With life’s knowledge, humanity can still recreate its once worldwide abundant biosphere-based ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) participatory, relational economy & Polyculture Orchards to get back on a 100s of 1000s of years old peace-path. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy