Tuesday 16th of July 2024

preparing for armageddon.....

After a year of war and carnage in Ukraine, the fighting continues, and there are no signs of it slowing down. In fact, military budgets have increased, the weapons shipments have multiplied and the number of countries involved has reached world war levels. In a time of conflicting narratives, misinformation and rampant propaganda, history proves to be one of the few sources of wisdom left to predict and caution what the future holds.

In their primes, no one would have guessed Robert Scheer and Ray McGovernwould end up on the same side of this issue. Scheer, the Ramparts journalist working to expose the CIA, and Ray McGovern, the man in the CIA, spoke on this special episode of Scheer Intelligence. Despite both coming from the Bronx but with polar opposite upbringings in a radical commie Jewish side of town versus a conservative Irish end, their long, experienced lives bring them back together in a true tale of America. They rewind the clocks to their days examining the Soviet Union and the original Cold War to how the US and Russia have evolved to end up, yet again, head to head.

McGovern dives deep into U.S.-Russia relations and presents parallels between tensel moments in history such as the Cuban missile crisis and what’s happening in Ukraine now. John F. Kennedy imposes an illegal blockade on Cuba following the USSR’s missile placement just miles off Florida’s shores, a historically justified action. When looking at Putin’s similar acts, McGovern asks, “Did you know about the U.S. promise from 30th December 2021 not to put offensive strike missiles in Ukraine? I dare say very few know. Why? Because it wasn't in The New York Times.”

McGovern also remembers speaking to a key member of the Gorbachev staff and asking why the agreement to deter NATO expansion past East Germany was not written down. McGovern states that they trusted them but, “There ain't no trust now,” McGovern says.

As for a reason why we’re involved in so much conflict, McGovern puts it simply: “If we're a democracy, the American people need to know all this. They need to know that most of our Congress people are bought and sold. Most of the expenditures, $858 billion this year, not counting what we're giving to Ukraine, that's going into the pockets of these people [who] stood up and applauded Pope Francis for saying the main problem was the blood soaked arms trade. Nobody gets elected without filthy lucre. That's what our country has come to, and it's up to us.”





SEE ALSO: https://sputnikglobe.com/20240129/why-natos-military-schengen-evokes-memories-of-nazi-germanys-anti-russia-past-1116466127.html 

cuba again....

Russia should place its nuclear weapons in “friendly countries”near the US in response to Washington’s alleged plans to move its own tactical arms to Europe, lawmaker Aleksey Zhuravlev has suggested.


His comments came after The Telegraph reported on Saturday that the US is looking to deploy its nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years, in order to counter a supposedly increased threat from Russia.

In a post on Telegram, Zhuravlev, who is first deputy chairman of the Russian parliamentary defense committee and leader of the Rodina (Motherland) party, pointed out that Britain has its own nuclear weapons, and that the US has already deployed part of its atomic arsenal to several European countries close to Russia.

Zhuravlev admitted, however, that weapons systems have made a big leap in the years since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. “Russian hypersonic missiles launched from our territory would reach the US faster than subsonic ones launched from the American underbelly,” the MP wrote. 

He also pointed out that Russia has strategic aviation as well as a vast arsenal of submarines stationed in unknown locations around the world’s oceans.

“We have ways to respond to any encroachments by the US and NATO, which it controls,”Zhuravlev said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has previously warned that Moscow would be forced to enact “compensatory countermeasures” in the event that American nuclear warheads return to Britain. Russia has also repeatedly accused the West of fueling tensions in Europe, and has cited NATO’s continued eastward expansion as one of the root causes of the Ukraine conflict.

READ MORE: Talks on NATO’s ‘military Schengen’ underway – The Times

Meanwhile, a number of Western officials – including from the UK, Germany, Estonia, and even the chair of NATO’s Military Committee – have stoked fears of a supposed Russian attack on Europe in the next few years, and have called on Western governments and citizens to prepare for a major conflict with Moscow.

Russia, however, has vehemently denied any plans to invade neighboring European countries, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov calling such claims a “hoax.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has also stressed that Moscow “has no interest… geopolitically, economically or militarily... in waging war against NATO” and would instead prefer to improve ties with the US-led bloc.











A new book by scholar Glenn Diesen, The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order,  out in mid-February, asks the make-or-break question of the young 21st century: will the Hegemon accept a new geopolitical reality, or will it go Captain Ahab on Moby Dick and drag us all to the depths of a – nuclear – abyss?

An extra touch of poetic beauty is that the analysis is conducted by a Scandinavian. Diesen is a professor at the University of Southeast Norway (USN) and an associate editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. He had a stint at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, working closely with the inimitable Sergey Karaganov.

It goes without saying that European MSM won’t touch him; rabid yells – “Putinista!” – prevail, including in Norway, where he’s been a prime target of cancel culture.

That’s irrelevant, anyway. What matters is that Diesen, an affable, unfailingly polite man and an ultra-sharp scholar, is aligned with the rarified cream of the crop who is asking the questions that really matter; among them, whether we are heading towards a Eurasian-Westphalian world order.

Apart from a meticulous deconstruction of the proxy war in Ukraine that devastatingly debunks, with proven facts, the official NATOstan narrative, Diesen offers a concise, easily accessible mini-history of how we got here.

He starts to make the case harking back to the Silk Roads: “The Silk Road was an early model of globalization, although it did not result in a common world order as the civilizations of the world were primarily connected to nomadic intermediaries.”

The demise of the Heartland-based Silk Road, actually roads, was caused by the rise of the thalassocratic European powers reconnecting the world in a different way. Yet the hegemony of the collective West could only be fully achieved by applying Divide and Rule across Eurasia.

We did not in fact had “five centuries of western dominance”, according to Diesen: it was more like three, or even two (see, for instance, the work of Andre Gunder Frank). In a historical Long View that barely registers.

What is indeed The Big Picture now is that “the unique world order” produced by controlling “the vast Eurasian continent from the maritime periphery is coming to an end”.

Mackinder is hit by a train 

Diesen hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Russia-China strategic partnership – on which the overwhelmingly majority of European intellectuals is clueless (a crucial exception is French historian, demographer and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd, whose latest book I analyzed here.)

With a lovely on the road formulation, Diesen shows how “Russia can be considered the successor of the Mongolian nomads as the last custodian of the Eurasian land corridor”, while China revives the Ancient Silk Roads “with economic connectivity”. In consequence, “a powerful Eurasian gravitational pull is thus reorganizing the supercontinent and the wider world.”

Poviding context, Diesen needs to engage in an obligatory detour to the basics of the Great Game between the Russian and British empires. What stands out is how Moscow already was pivoting to Asia all the way to the late 19th century, when Russian Finance Minister Sergei Witte started to develop a groundbreaking road map for a Eurasia political economy, “borrowing from Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List.”

Witte “wanted to end Russia’s role as an exporter of natural resources to Europe as it resembled ‘the relations of colonial countries with their metropolises’”.

And that implies going back to Dostoyevsky, who argued that “Russians are as much Asiatics as European. The mistake of our policy for the past two centuries has been to make the people of Europe believe that we are true Europeans (…) It will be better for us to seek alliances with the Asiatics.” Dostoyevsky meets Putin-Xi.

Diesen also needs to go through the obligatory references to Mackinder’s “heartland” obsession – which is the basis of all Anglo-American geopolitics for the past hundred and twenty years.

Mackinder was spooked by railway development – especially the Trans-Siberian by the Russians – as it enabled Moscow to “emulate the nomadic skills of the Scythians, Huns and Mongols” that were essential to control most of Eurasia.

Mackinder was particularly focused on railways acting “chiefly as feeders to ocean-going commerce”. Ergo, being a thalassocratic power was not enough: “The heartland is the region to which under modern conditions, sea power can be refused access.”

And that’s what leads to the Rosetta Stone of Anglo-American geopolitics: to “prevent the emergence of a hegemon or a group of states capable of dominating Europe and Eurasia that could threaten the dominant maritime power.”

That explains everything from WWI and WWII to the permanent NATO obsession in preventing a solid rapprochement between Germany and Russia, by any means necessary.

The Little Multipolar Helmsman

Diesen offers a succinct perspective of Russian Eurasianists of the 1920s such as Trubetskoi and Savitsky, who were promoting an alternative path to the USSR.

They conceptualized that with Anglo-American thalassocracy applying Divide and Rule in Russia, what was needed was a Eurasian political economy based on mutual cooperation: a stark prefiguration of the Russia-China drive to multipolarity.

Savitsky in fact could have been writing today: “Eurasia has previously played a unifying role in the Old World. Contemporary Russia, absorbing this tradition”, must abandon war as a method of unification.

Cue to post-Maidan in 2014. Moscow finally got the message that trying to build a Greater Europe “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” was a non-starter. Thus the new concept of Greater Eurasian Partnership was born. Sergey Karaganov, with whom Diesen worked at the Higher School of Economics, was the father of the concept.

Greater Eurasia Partnership repositions Russia “from the periphery of Europe and Asia to the center of a large super-region.” In short, a pivot to the East – and the consolidation of the Russia-China partnership.

Diesen dug up an extraordinary passage in the Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, proving how the Little Helmsman in 1990 was a visionary prefiguring multipolar China:

“In the future when the world becomes three-polar, four-polar or five-polar, the Soviet Union, no matter how weakened it may be and even if some of its republics withdraw from it, will still be one pole. In the so-called multipolar world, China too will be a pole (…) Our foreign policies remain the same: first, opposing hegemonism and power politics and safeguarding world peace; and second, working to establish a new international political order and a new international economic order.”

Diesen breaks it down, noting how China has to a certain extent “replicated the three-pillared American System of the early 19th century, in which the U.S. developed a manufacturing base, physical transportation infrastructure, and a national bank to counter British economic hegemony.”

Enter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); the AIIB; the de-dollarization drive; the China International Payment System (CIPS); increased use of yuan in international trade; the use of national currencies; Made in China 2025; The Digital Silk Road; and last but not least, BRICS 10 and the NDB, the BRICS development bank.

Russia matched some of it – as in the Eurasia Development Bank (EDB) of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and in advancing the harmonization of financial arrangements of BRI and EAEU projects via the SCO.

Diesen is one of the very few Western analysts who actually understands the drive to multipolarity: “BRICS+ is anti-hegemony and not anti-Western, as the objective is to create a multipolar system and not assert collective dominance over the West.”

Diesen also contends that the emerging Eurasian World Order is “seemingly based on conservative principles.” That’s correct, as the Chinese system is drenched in Confucianism (social integration, stability, harmonious relationships, respect for tradition and hierarchy), part of the keen sense of belonging to a distinct, sophisticated civilization: that’s the foundation of Chinese nation-building.

Can’t bring Russia-China down

Diesen’s detailed analysis of the Ukraine proxy war, “a predictable consequence of an unsustainable world order”, is extrapolated to the battleground where the future, new world order is being decided; it is “either global hegemony or Westphalian multipolarity.”

Everyone with a brain by now knows how Russia absorbed and re-transformed everything thrown by the collective West after the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO). The problem is the rarified plutocracy that really runs the show will always refuse to acknowledge reality, as Diesen frames it: “Irrespective of the outcome of the war, the war has already become the graveyard of liberal hegemony.”

The overwhelming majority of the Global South clearly sees that even as what Ray McGovern indelibly defined as MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) cast the Russia-China partnership as the main “threats” – in reality those that created the “gravitational pull to reorganize the world order towards multipolarity” – they can’t bring Russia-China down geoeconomically.

So there’s no question “the conflicts of the future world order will continue to be militarized.” That’s where we are at the crossroads. There will be no peaceful road towards to Westphalian world order. Fasten your seat belts – it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.







GUSNOTE: the next comment or posting will be the 500,000 item written about this planet of apes....




long-range chickens......

The US will station long-range missiles in Germany from 2026 onwards, the governments of both countries have announced. These weapons, including the SM-6 and Tomahawk systems, were banned on the continent until Washington tore up a landmark Cold War-era treaty in 2019.

According to a joint statement published by the White House, the US will “begin episodic deployments of the long-range fires capabilities of its Multi-Domain Task Force in Germany in 2026, as part of planning for enduring stationing of these capabilities in the future.”

The statement was released following talks between American and German officials at NATO’s annual summit in Washington on Wednesday.

The weapons systems deployed to Germany will include the SM-6 anti-air missile, which has a range of up to 460km (290 miles), and the Tomahawk cruise missile, which can reportedly strike targets more than 2,500km away. 

The White House said that “developmental hypersonic weapons” will also be stationed in Germany, and will have a “significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.” 

The US has yet to successfully field a hypersonic weapon, and has canceled every hypersonic project since its first successful test in 2017. 

Land-launched missiles with a range between 500km and 5,500km were banned on European soil under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. Along with the START-I and START-II agreements, the INF treaty helped defuse nuclear tensions in Europe after the West and the USSR came perilously close to nuclear war during NATO’s Able Archer military exercise in 1983.

The US pulled out of the INF treaty in 2019, with the State Department claiming that some of Russia’s cruise missiles had breached the agreement. Moscow denied this, and Russian President Vladimir Putin warned then-US President Donald Trump that the demise of the treaty would “have the gravest consequences.”

Russia continued to abide by the treaty and imposed a moratorium on the development of missiles that it prohibited. However, Putin announced earlier this month that the Russian defense industry would resume development of such armaments, citing the “hostile actions” of the US.

“We now know that the US is not only producing these missile systems, but has also brought them to Europe, Denmark, to use in exercises. Not long ago, it was reported that they were in the Philippines,” Putin explained at the time.

US and Danish forces trained with SM-6 missiles last September, while the Pentagon deployed its Typhon Weapon System – which can fire both SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles – to the Philippines in April.