How Close is Armageddon? By James Reed

Paul Craig Roberts gives his take on the fast approaching world catastrophe arising from the inevitable driver of the US neo cons to confront Russia in a kinetic war. As a former Washington DC insider, he documents how at one time it might have been possible to bring Russia back into the West, as it was before the 1917 Russian Revolution. In fact, this something that Trump might have been able to do. But, the neo cons, and Democrats, epitomised by Hillary Clinton, will have none of this. At any point we could see the dramatic endgame of this, as the chess pieces of weapons are now in place. I doubt very much if any of them have seriously considered that Russia does not hold to the dated Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine? Or, maybe they are all nihilists, wanting the world to die, them included?

https://www.unz.com/proberts/armageddon-is-closer-than-you-think/

 

“The world is facing catastrophe, and there is no awareness. For years I and Stephen Cohen, while he was still alive, advised that Washington’s provocations of Russia, including those of its NATO puppet states, were misguided and counter-productive. Even prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was open for the Soviet Union to become a cooperating member of the West. The Russian population had a favorable attitude toward the West and looked forward to Russia’s incorporation into the Western world.

The Reagan administration and Reagan’s successor, the George H. W. Bush administration were open to this idea. President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker affirmed that he promised there would be no movement of NATO east to Soviet borders if Gorbachev permitted the reunification of Germany, which set the stage for the freedom of the Soviet Union’s Eastern European empire.

The Clinton regime, under the influence of Neoconservatives, violated America’s word on the grounds that it was verbal and not in writing and therefore did not count. The Clinton regime not only overthrew Yugoslavia and broke it into pieces while turning a historic part of Serbia over to Muslims, but also moved NATO to Russia’s border. At the time with the Soviet collapse in 1991 Russia was too weak to do anything about it as the Yeltsin government was Washington’s puppet.

At the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin, Yeltsin’s successor, declared that Russia did not accept Washington’s unipolar world in which Washington ruled, and that Russia would follow its, not Washington’s interest. Putin’s declaration of independence was more or less ignored at the time, because Washington was involved in its wars in the Middle East for Israel’s benefit.

But as time passed Washington realized that Russia was off the reservation, and that something had to be done about it.

The Sochi Olympics provided an opportunity. The Kremlin thought that a successful Olympics held by Russia would boost Russia’s standing with the West. Instead, US, UK, and German officials boycotted the Sochi Olympics, during the proceedings of which while Putin was inattentive the US overthrew the Russian-friendly government of Ukraine, formerly a part of Russia for centuries.

The Nazi, anti-Russian government that Washington installed in Ukraine began physically abusing the Russian population of former Russian provinces that Soviet rulers had incorporated into the Soviet Ukrainian province. Crimea, a part of Russia since the 1700s, was attached to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956, and the Donbass was attached to Ukraine by earlier Soviet rulers. At the time Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country, the Soviet Union.

Ukraine’s independence was secured by Washington after the Soviet collapse in 1991 when President Gorbachev was arrested by hardline communist party members who thought, correctly in retrospect, that he was liberalizing too much too quickly and giving too much away to Washington without enforceable guarantees.

Crimea is the location of the Russian Black Sea Naval base under long-term Russian lease from Ukraine since Ukraine’s independence. Putin was sufficiently alert to comprehend that the new American puppet government in Ukraine would cancel the lease, thus depriving Russia access to the Black Sea and through the sea to the Mediterranean.

The population of Crimea voted by 97% to be reunited with Russia, and so did the Russians who populate the Donbass. Putin accepted Crimea’s request, but refused Donbass’ request.

What was the reason for this decision by Putin, a decision that has led to the ever-widening war in Ukraine eight years later?

The best explanation is that Putin let Western propaganda make his decision. If Putin took back Donbass in addition to Crimea, which he had to take or lose Russia’s warm water naval base, it would confirm Western propaganda’s claim that Putin intended to restore the Soviet Empire. Why Putin thought Western propaganda should limit Russia’s behavior in its own interest, instead of the West’s interests, suggests a Putin who has one foot in the West and one foot in Russian nationalism.

The Donbass Russians were suffering horribly at the hands of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis that Washington had installed in Kiev. Putin understood that he had to do something. The something he decided on assumed Western good will that did not exist. Putin came up with the “Minsk Agreement,” a scheme to keep Donbass in Ukraine, but protect the residents with some forms of autonomy, such as their own police force, that would protect the Russian population from neo-Nazi persecution.

Putin got Ukraine and the Donbass republics to sign the Minsk agreement, and he got Germany and France to guarantee the agreement. But Washington forbid Ukraine from complying with the agreement and France and Germany from enforcing it.

Putin wasted eight years trying to sell his agreement that obviously never had any prospect considering Washington’s obvious intentions to use Ukraine to cause maximum trouble for Russia. Why was Putin unable to see this?

The danger with Putin’s “limited military operation” and its go-slow policy is that it provides the West with time to gather its forces and to gain the initiative. Despite Putin’s “red line,” the US and Europe send weapons to Ukraine.

As there was no effective Russian response to provocations, despite declared “red lines,” next training for Ukrainian troops was provided. Then intelligence and targeting information. Then longer distance weapons that can reach strategic Russian targets. Then the attack on the Crimea bridge, the Nord Stream Pipelines, and now a plot for a dirty bomb, to be used as an excuse for US intervention with troops deployed in Romania and the destruction of a dam that would destroy the Russian city of Kherson and leave elite Russian special forces soldiers isolated and subject to Ukrainian capture, which would be a tremendous propaganda victory for the West.

 

As matters now stand, we have a situation where Putin’s method of warfare constrains his own forces and not his enemies. The latest indications are that Putin and the Russian high command are willing for t he initiative to remain in the hands of their Western enemies. The Kremlin reacts to the moves of its enemy. If Ukraine with US and UK help blow the Dniper Dam and flood Kherson, then, and only then, perhaps, maybe, Russia will blow the dam that will win them the war by cutting a large chunk of Ukraine off from Ukraine. Apparently, the Kremlin hasn’t addressed the question why Russia accepts casualties and the appearance of humiliating defeats when Russia can easily win the war in one day.

Washington’s provocations mount, and Putin’s response is not a show of force but a plea for negotiations and offers to supply Russia’s NATO enemies with energy. Little wonder Washington escalates the conflict.

The lack of decisive action by Russia has allowed Washington to put humanity on the road to Armageddon. Washington and its NATO puppets have lost their fear of Russia, and the provocations will continue. As Putin has not defended any Russian declared red lines, Washington believes he has none. Putin does not even defend Syria, a country he rescued from Washington’s conquest, from Israeli attacks.

Patience is a virtue in a leader, but Putin’s patience is seen by many in Washington as a lack of resolution. If this interpretation of Putin’s patience turns out to be a mistake, Washington will cross a red line that will bring us into the Armageddon period of human history.”

 

 

https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/25/the-dangers-of-peace-in-ukraine/

 

Ever since Elon Musk boldly suggested peace between Russia and Ukraine, calls for a cessation of hostilities became louder, primarily among some of the world’s richest people who are usually known for their sense of pragmatism and ability to read reality for what it is.

The general argument—advanced by the likes of Musk and Bill Ackman—is that given the immense power disparity between Russia and Ukraine, Ukrainian victory in the war is farfetched. The best-case scenario for Kyiv is to settle for peace now, at a time when it can leverage the important military gains it scored over the last month, particularly in Kharkiv.

This pragmatic solution to the conflict, while raising many eyebrows, piqued the interest of mainstream and social media, which devoted considerable attention to the debates and spats it produced. Pundits and journalists weighed in on the matter, while bots and Twitter warriors erupted with all sorts of malicious and violent responses, instantly transforming Musk from Ukraine’s hero to its most traitorous enemy.

In the midst of all this media frenzy, one stakeholder in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict remained conspicuously silent. Peace in Ukraine seemed like the one outcome the Biden Administration did not want to hear. Indeed, Biden is content with perpetuating the conflict, even though such an approach does not serve concrete American national interests abroad. Increased American involvement in the war, however, does provide Biden and his embattled Democrats with some leverage during the approaching elections.

Indeed, according to most respected polls, the economy looms large over the upcoming midterm elections. Unmitigated rising inflation has directly impacted voters, with costs of living skyrocketing and forcing many into making cuts to their everyday spending or simply further sliding into poverty. As a result, 44 percent of intended voters believe that the economy is the key problem presently facing the United States, with 42 percent believing that the Republican Party is more able to solve this problem, as opposed to 31 percent who still trust the Democrats. The same Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that key talking points Democrats are trying to push forward during these elections, like gun violence, abortion laws, and the climate, are immediate issues for only 21 percent of voters.

For a man whose administration has done nothing to remedy the situation and who went on public record stating that inflation is a “great asset” and anyone who thinks otherwise a “stupid son of a bitch,” these coming elections are clearly turning into a reckoning. There is no excuse for such ineptitude—except for the war in Ukraine.

Months after sanctions on Russia rattled global markets, which eventually recalibrated and rectified, the administration, its spokespeople, and sympathetic media still place the blame for rising costs squarely at Russia’s feet. On October 18, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated: “Putin’s war continues. His war on Ukraine—his unprovoked war, brutal war on Ukraine continues. And so it puts pressure on our global energy supplies because of this war.” The rationale is that global energy supplies directly affect logistics and shipping, which, in turn, negatively impact production and distribution, ending in higher costs that consumers are forced to endure.

A return to this line of argument follows two months of touting that the administration has effectively dealt with the energy crisis, with gas prices falling to a national average of almost $4 a gallon, still well above their pre-crisis levels. What is more embarrassing is that the now rising prices are the direct result of Biden’s failed diplomacy.

He was first unable to convince the Saudis to increase their oil production output during his visit to the Kingdom in July. And now, the Saudis, America’s most reliable Arab allies, have even led OPEC to cutting daily production by 2 million barrels, a 7 percent decrease. Still, the administration presents Russia’s war in Ukraine as the main culprit behind its woeful economic record. A peaceful resolution to the conflict would thus deprive the current administration of its much-needed scapegoat.

Aside from the economy, the Biden Administration also has to deal with a dismal foreign policy record. His previously mentioned failure in the Middle East pales in comparison to his catastrophic leadership during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Images of Afghans, who collaborated with American troops, trying to board planes, getting kicked out (sometimes literally), and being left behind to die at the hands of the victorious Taliban tarnished the status of the United States beyond repair.

In response, Democrats decided to up the ante against China, hoping to reconstruct a representation of U.S. strength after the Afghanistan debacle. They sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to Taiwan, hoping to show the world that America does not leave its allies hanging. It was another major faux pas, which gave China an excuse to increase its aggressive rhetoric, but was an even greater public relations fiasco. The Chinese media had a field day caricaturing the visit and its protagonist Pelosi, who was described as a “plastic woman” and a “moving mummy,” a “proper representation of America’s decaying power.”

As a result, Biden desperately needs a foreign policy victory, which requires a Russian military defeat. For this victory to be achieved, the objective must be Russia’s utter humiliation on the battlefield. Putin cannot be allowed to keep hold of any occupied territory, and his expansionist ambitions must be squashed. Any talk of peace would therefore mean another political defeat for Biden, who has been egging on the Ukrainian side, providing them with a never-ending supply of weapons.

In fact, the president, backed by Congress, is hoping to drown the Ukrainians with enough military support to bog down Russian forces in an attrition war and eventually push them into retreat. So far, he has managed to pledge almost $60 billion in military aid, of which $18 billion have already been delivered, according to the estimates of the Department of Defense. To put this in perspective, this sum is equivalent to Russia’s entire annual defense budget. The cost of peace is, therefore, too high to even consider. The war must go on until victory is assured.

Yet, once again, Biden’s gamble might prove to have disastrous effects. Backed into a corner, Putin might leave an even greater path of destruction in his wake, using both conventional and non-conventional means, like his nuclear arsenal. His own political survival depends on it. Such a scenario will force the United States and the rest of the West to halt their effective military involvement in the conflict for fear of escalating into an all-out war, where mutually assured destruction is guaranteed.

On the domestic front, the blank check Biden grants Ukraine’s Zelenskyy is beginning to test voters’ and observers’ commitment to the issue. This is not entirely Biden’s fault though. Zelenskyy’s own entitlement and attitude, making demands and issuing threats left and right, are wearing down support for Ukraine’s cause. Still, it is Biden who will feel the brunt of the backlash, with voices rising to challenge the unquestionable support Kyiv is receiving.

Tucker Carlson, for example, unleashed an unadulterated tirade against Zelenskyy: “We don’t owe this guy anything, not one thing. . . . And as our economy degrades and our border is gone, that guy is lecturing us with some Christmas list, like ‘I want this, that and I want a bicycle too! Send it, quick!’ Really? Up yours, buddy.”

Entrepreneur and investor David Sacks issued a similar statement the next day: “Ukraine has smeared peace advocates, outlawed peace talks, urged preemptive strikes by the West, and insists on retaking Crimea at risk of nuclear war. It does not deserve unqualified, unconditional, and unlimited US support.”

And while these sentiments are directed against Zelenskyy and his wartime leadership, they clearly hold the Biden Administration accountable for its “unqualified, unconditional, and unlimited [ . . . ] support.”

Given this rising opposition to the war, Biden will be forced to retort by digging in his heels. He cannot afford to have cost U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, reaping nothing in return. Peace at a time when Russia is not completely beaten is nothing short of another major setback for the administration.

The irony is that Biden was never forced down this belligerent path. And while the myriad of options he had at his disposal remain the subject of another examination, it suffices to point out that, facing disastrous failures in his handling of the economy and foreign policy, the current U.S. president sees opportunity in the perpetuation of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Peace, in this case, is hazardous to his administration and his party’s almost nonexistent chances of maintaining their majority in next month’s elections.

To avert such an outcome, Biden is willing to fight till the last Ukrainian.