Cтраница новостей USA

USA

The idiot West is a basket case

Serge Duhanov: At the beginning of our conversation, I would like to talk about the sanctions war, which has been going on between Russia and the West for more than six months now. How do you assess its, let's say, intermediate results? Paul Craig Roberts: I would not say that there is a "sanctions war."  The Kremlin has been reactive, not proactive and merely responds to the initiatives of the West.  If the Kremlin saw itself in a sanctions war, the Kremlin would long ago have turned off all energy and strategic minerals to the West, would have confiscated Western companies to compensate Russia for its stolen foreign exchange reserves, and would have cut off all accommodation of the West, such as ferrying US astronauts up to the space station, a feat the US government is too incompetent to accomplish. The US sanctions against Russia are the best thing that has happened to Russia in decades.  The sanctions forced the Kremlin to do what the leadership should have done on its own long ago: divorce itself from trying to build economic and political relations with a West whose ruling military and foreign affairs doctrines declare Russia to be "the principal enemy who must be prevented from attaining sufficient power to serve as a constraint on US unilateralism."  That the Kremlin did not read the Wolfowitz Report and comprehend its meaning is extraordinary. The Russian desire to be part of the West made the leadership blind to the reality on the ground. Washington's sanctions liberated the Kremlin from its delusions of "our Western partners" and forced the Russian leadership to turn toward China, India, Iran, Africa and Latin America, those parts of the world that have long suffered from Western abuse.  The entire Western world is in serious and irreversible decline economically, politically, culturally, and morally.  Overrun as they are by immigrant-invaders, Western countries no longer have sufficient unity to qualify as nations. They have become Towers of Babel and are mere geographical locations.  It is extraordinary that Russia ever wanted to be a part of a hopeless mess. Serge Duhanov: What do you see as the mistake of the West – if there is any - in the formation of sanctions policy? After all, judging by the promptness with which the first packages were accepted, they were developed in advance, that is, there was time to think calmly and calculate all possible risks. Paul Craig Roberts:  Washington drowning in its renowned hubris and arrogance assumed it could order Russia's collapse.  And, if not, the Western and CIA-funded NGOs that were permitted by the Kremlin to operate unmolested throughout Russia would, as in Ukraine, overthrow the Russian government and install a Washington-compliant member of the pro-Western Atlanticist Integrationist as Washington's puppet ruler of Russia.  The neoconservatives in Washington actually believed this.  It worked for them in Ukraine, while the Kremlin turned a blind eye, and they assumed it would work in Russia also with an equally blind Kremlin eye. Serge Duhanov: And now about the actions of the Russian government. Where do you think it has succeeded in protecting the national economy, and what would you fix if you were a consultant of the Russian Government? Paul Craig Roberts: I don't think the Russian Government has done much.  The West did it for them. Washington's sanctions punish Washington's European Empire, not Russia. Unless the Kremlin rescues Europe by providing energy and other needed resources, NATO is likely to break up as the consequence of the energy-free winter Washington has imposed on all of Europe. Only the Kremlin can save NATO. Nevertheless, I would fire the central bank head who set up for the West the theft of Russia's foreign exchange reserves and who has held back Russia's economic progress by refusing to understand that the Russian central bank is capable all by itself without Western loans or investments to finance Russian economic development.  Like many members of Russian ruling circles, the central bank chief is a victim of brainwashing by Washington's neoliberal economists. A Western brainwashed central bank chief is the last thing Russia needs. Serge Duhanov:  How promising do you think the reversal of Russia's trade and economic policy to the East and South (China, India, Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, Africa) is? The more so that the trade with these countries is increasingly conducted in national currencies. Paul Craig Roberts: Unless the Kremlin loses its nerve and abandons its Chinese, Iranian, and Indian allies, Globalism-the mechanism through which the West exploited the world-is finished. With no one to exploit except its own people, as was done in Greece where Greek women were forced into prostitution by IMF austerity policies, the idiot West, which has relocated its manufacturing to Asia and relies on other parts of the world for its food, is a basket case. The West's own policies, together with the massive inflows of third world immigrant-invaders, most of whom do not assimilate and all of whom have privileged status, have destroyed the Western world.   Perhaps this is why Russia and China are so tolerant of the West's insults and provocations. Both know that the Western World has committed suicide.  Why go to war with a dying enemy. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Paul Craig Roberts: The US is a geographical location, not a nation

Against the background of news from the United States that the domestic political situation in the country continues to get worse, GEOFOR turned to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, to describe the real situation. Serge Duhanov: Greetings, sir! Thank you for taking the time and energy to answer our questions. Especially in such a difficult time… According to the media, today is not the best time for the United States: inflation, high prices at gas stations, the society is split, and so on. How much do you think this corresponds to reality? How are things really going in the American economy? Paul Craig Roberts: The US is a geographical location, not a nation. The Democrat Party's Identity Politics has split the population. White heterosexuals are demonized as oppressors and are being marginalized. Employment and promotion of white males are limited by preferences for peoples of color, women, and what was formerly regarded as sexual perverts.  White males in corporate employment, government, and the military are required to take "sensitivity training" which conditions them to atone for alleged white male mistreatment of women and peoples of color.  In the schools and universities, white children are taught critical race theory which gives them a negative attitude of themselves, their parents, and white people in general and infuses them with guilt.  When all is said and done, Identity Politics precludes unity, and without unity there is no nation.  Law has been politicized, and science is retreating. Gender is no longer a biological matter.  It is self-proclaimed.   Money rules everything. The government regulatory agencies have been captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate.  The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control have become marketing agents for the pharmaceutical industry.  Most university research is financed by outside interests, such as corporations, and the researchers produce results that further the funders' interests. The consequence is that truth is subordinated to material interests. The US economy has been offshored and financialized.  High productivity, high value-added American jobs were lost when US manufacturers moved their production for US markets to Asia where labor costs were lower. The increased corporate profits flow mainly into the hands of the one percent who own most of the financial instruments, thus worsening the distribution of income and wealth. Having lost so many higher paying jobs, most of the working population's income is used up in debt service-mortgage interest, car payments, credit card payments, student loan debt-leaving them little discretionary income, thus curtailing aggregate demand in the economy.  The current inflation is not a sign of a booming economy, but of supply limitations caused by Covid lockdowns and Washington's economic sanctions. Serge Duhanov: The midterm elections are due to take place in November. Are those analysts right who predict a Republican victory? How do you assess the possible election results, and how will they affect American domestic politics? Paul Craig Roberts: According to current polls, only 29% of voters approve of President Biden. As the Democrat leadership is in the hands of left-wing ideologues who are also warmongers, not even a majority of Democrats identify with the party's policies. Parents are tired of being told by Democrat school boards that they have no input into the schooling of their children.  Risking wider war over Ukraine makes no sense to voters when there are so many unattended problems at home.  It is beginning to dawn on Americans that government represents interests other than their own.  All considered, the Democrats are likely to lose control of Congress. This doesn't mean that things will improve. The president and the members of Congress are indebted to the interest groups that finance their election campaigns. It is their donors' interests that they represent.  These interests seldom align with national interest. Both the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the interest groups that finance their elections.  Consequently, it is very difficult for policy to change meaningfully.  The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans are not anti-white. Serge Duhanov: Donald Trump, apparently, intends to compete for the White House again in 2024. How do you assess his chances, who can become his competitor in the election race? Joe Biden? Or will someone else join the fight from the Democrats? Paul Craig Roberts: Biden's 29% approval rating eliminates him as a candidate.  As of this time the Democrats do not have a candidate that generates enthusiasm.  Perhaps a wild card will appear, as Trump did for the Republicans. Serge Duhanov: And the last question, the American press is increasingly naming Trump's follower, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as a possible GOP candidate. Do you admit the possibility of a scenario in which the teacher will help his student to take the highest post in the country? Or will we be waiting for a fight between two bright politicians during the primaries? Paul Craig Roberts: I would describe DeSantis as an ally rather than as a follower.  Florida is one of the most heavily populated states, and this makes DeSantis a credible candidate.  DeSantis is also credible, because he protected Floridians from Covid mandates and lockdowns, standing up instead for civil liberty, and he has punished corporations, such as Disney, which tried to weaponize education against white people and normality.  Florida stands out as a free state, and many of the residents would like independence from Washington.  This, of course, will make DeSantis a target, as Trump's independence made him.  The interest groups, the media, and the crazed American left will try to destroy him.   Trump woke up many Americans and showed them it was possible to have a leader who was not part of the ruling system. Perhaps his job has been done, and a second opportunity to elect a man of the people instead of a man of the interest groups, might be in the cards. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Collective East versus collective West?

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text Supporters of real politics in the United States heralded the beginning of the Cold War-2, which will go without rules and from a position of strength. Recently, the voices of American supporters of the so-called "real politics" have been breaking into the media space (largely due to the attention to such opinions in Russia). This does not mean that they somehow influence the real policy of the current American administrations, which proceed from one message - ensuring the imperial ambitions of the United States at any cost. These people only point out new circumstances in the world from time to time, which official Washington diligently ignores. One of the mastodons of this trend – former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – in his interview with Spectator magazine had to justify himself for the fact that in his speech before the Davos Forum he inadvertently called on Kiev (and the whole West) to reckon with reality in Ukraine and around it. The main message of Kissinger is that ignoring the obvious things can lead to the involvement of the West in the war and the beginning of a global conflict. "The purpose of the Davos statement was to indicate that the issue of military objectives should be resolved before the momentum of war makes it politically unmanageable," explains old man Henry. But then Kissinger's sense of reality changes: "If the allies manage to help the Ukrainians expel the Russians from the territory they conquered in this war, they will have to decide how long the war should last." And this suggests that even such "realists" in the United States do not feel the ground under their feet, being corrupted by the long-term dominance of the United States and the collective West. "I am an instinctive supporter of the belief that America – with all its flaws – was a force for good in the world and indispensable for the stability of the world," says Kissinger. That's all the realism of these people who forget that the United States has been conducting special operations around the world for decades, destabilizing and plunging entire regions into chaos – from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Ukraine. And all in the name of ensuring the interests of the United States, and not to protect mythical human rights. Apparently, the interest in "old Henry" in the United States is explained, among other things, by the fact that he, along with President Nixon, managed to drive a wedge between the USSR and China. The famous "secret" visit of this couple to Beijing and the 1972 communique just turned 50 years old. This led to the fact that the USSR had to confront both the West and China at the same time and, as a result, to the collapse of the country. Now this experience would be very useful to Washington in order to destroy the alliance of Russia and China, which is increasingly scaring the United States, but thoughts about which they drive like a nightmare. Kissinger does not give practical advice on this part. Instead, it is done by another supporter of "real politics" – Charles Kupchan, a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations of the United States, in an article published on July 3 in The National Interest magazine. His message: The United States and its partners must temper their idealistic ambitions and prepare for a new and challenging era of great Power rivalry. And their efforts to counter the "authoritarian bloc" should be supplemented with strategic pragmatism, necessary in order to navigate in a world that, even if more unmanageable, is also irreversibly interdependent. "Russia's special military operation in Ukraine contributes to the arrival of a more dangerous multipolar world that will live according to the traditional rules of power politics. Throughout the post-Cold War era, there was no open confrontation between the great powers: because of the indisputable primacy of the United States, it was out of the question. Gradually, the unipolar international system began to transform into a world with a wider distribution of power, but this change occurred gradually – in parallel with the strengthening of China and other Eastern countries," Kupchan writes. Based on the postulates of real politics, the author of National Interest recommends abandoning the "globalization of liberalism" around the world, from ruinous wars to promote democracy and switch to circular defense: "The Russian special operation has rekindled the militarized confrontation between Russia and the West. And Moscow's strategic partnership with Beijing means that within the framework of the second Cold War, the West will have to face a Sino-Russian bloc stretching from the western part of the Asia-Pacific region to Eastern Europe. As during the first Cold War, the strategy of patient deterrence should be aimed at preserving geopolitical stability and protecting the liberal international order, not at expanding it." "Now the West needs to moderate its idealistic ambitions, realize that it lives in a world of confrontation of all against all, and once again adopt a strategy based on real politics," Kupchan recommends. It is already good that the author saw that only 40 countries of the world supported sanctions against Russia and opposed its actions in Ukraine: "Many states, especially the states of the global South, will be on the sidelines, and not support any of the blocs. Since about two-thirds of the world's countries trade more with China than with the United States, most countries may consider it right to follow, in fact, the path of non-alignment, as a result of which the developing world will become more multipolar than bipolar in nature and practice." But the political scientist does not go beyond this realism. No consideration of new realities is visible, as well as consideration of security interests and the balance of power. The means of protecting "stability" (read – American interests) are still the same: an increase in military presence primarily in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region. Along with the rejection of the promotion of "human rights", it is proposed to move away from the division of the world into democracies and autocracies, to be friends, regardless of regimes and ideology. Just to annoy the main enemy – Russia and China more. As for China, there are Kissinger's patterns of driving a wedge without taking into account new realities: "The West should seek to weaken the emerging Sino-Russian bloc, looking for ways to increase the distance between Moscow and Beijing. Because of the special operation in Ukraine, Russia has just become economically and strategically dependent on China; Russian leader Vladimir Putin will hardly like being an assistant to his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Atlantic democracies should take advantage of the Kremlin's discomfort that it is becoming a junior partner of China, signaling that Russia may choose the West. Russia needs China more than China needs Russia, so the West should also seek to distance Beijing from Moscow." There are more illusions than reality. How it is possible to offer Russia a Western choice after unleashing a hybrid war against it, after the confiscation of assets, massive arms supplies to Ukraine is not clear. So, from the main point: The Cold War – 2 will be much tougher than the first version and will take place in a world dominated by force, not international law and agreements. American realists do not see any other options, including abandoning hegemonism and returning to detente. Not to mention those who rule the White House. The Chinese newspaper Hongqiu Shibao, part of the People's Daily Holding, the main party publication of the CPC, recently joined this discussion about real politics: "The West is only part of the international community, and the international community is not only Western countries. In fact, it represents the totality of all the states of the world whose sovereignty is recognized and who can participate on an equal basis in the discussion and management of global affairs, therefore, the United States and Western countries have no right to represent the international community. The narrative of the USA and the West is not world public opinion." And more: "The position of the United States and the West does not coincide with the position of the world. Instead of reconsidering its own mistakes and taking responsibility for NATO's expansion to the East and the deterioration of European security, the United States is dragging its allies into a "group battle", sticking its political labels on everything around it and mixing truth and lies." The main reality here is that China is not the same as it was 50 years ago, when Kissinger inclined it towards "freedom and democracy". This reality is that ideologically and geopolitically, China and Russia "stand back to back" in the words of Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Serbian political scientist Ivan Payovich wrote about the new reality not so long ago: "The concept of the collective East is gradually entering the lexicon of geopolitics as an antipode to the concept of the collective West, which has been used for a long time. It is now that this collective East is beginning to inflict more and more tangible blows on the weak points of the Western economy. At the same time, the collective West is sinking deeper and deeper into internal contradictions between the countries that form it. The United States wants to deceive Europe by selling its energy resources at exorbitant prices. Turkey opposes the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO. Hungary cooperates with Russia, despite sanctions, and Germany tries in every way not to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine and pays billions of dollars for gas and oil to Russia. New packages of sanctions are becoming increasingly difficult to accept, as their consequences very quickly return like a boomerang." Does the collective East enter into a struggle with the collective West?

Americans don't want to join the army

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The US Armed Forces are experiencing the most serious personnel crisis since the complete abolition of conscription in 1973. Interest in contract service is shown by only 9% of residents of the States aged 17 to 24 years. This, based on the latest Pentagon data, was reported in an article for the conservative online magazine The Federalist by Chuck Devore, a retired lieutenant colonel and vice president for national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. At the beginning of June, the recruitment of contract workers was only 40% of the planned. And this is less than three months before the end of the fiscal year (in the US, it ends on September 30. – Ed.), when the results of the recruitment campaign are summed up. Back in March, the Defense Department made a statement that it would reduce the active-duty personnel by 0.2% to just over 2.1 million "bayonets" (including reservists and the National Guard). The Pentagon officials confirmed that they intend to make the troops more combat-ready, but not by increasing the number, but by increasing the level of training of personnel. However, now they are sounding the alarm: each branch of the armed forces has faced difficulties in recruiting personnel who are able to control modern military equipment. The experts referred to by the author of the article believe that interest in military service has significantly decreased due to the Ukrainian crisis and the strengthening of China's military power. Young people understand that the political leadership is dragging the military into large-scale and very real armed conflicts with Moscow and Beijing. And no one wants to die. In order to eliminate the personnel shortage, the defense department took drastic steps. Firstly, now, in order to get into contract service, you do not need to have a secondary education. Indeed, why does "cannon fodder" need a certificate? Secondly, the ban on the recruitment of persons with tattoos on their arms and neck has been lifted. Previously, such people were not taken, believing that "painted" would reduce "combat capability and lead to unpleasant problems with discipline." Thirdly, they began to offer contracts for military service mainly for two years (previously - up to a maximum of six years. – Auth.). This period, according to Devore, is barely enough to learn the basics of modern warfare. And finally, the Ministry of Defense has taken up the revision of the criteria for unfitness for service: at the moment there are 250 positions of refusal in the United States for health reasons, including asthma and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Now only 23% of US residents aged 17 to 24 are considered, according to statistics, fit without restrictions. In addition to personnel starvation, the author of the article believes, which, by the way, is entitled "Due to the corruption of the left, recruitment into the US army went into a tailspin" (the left are Democrats. – Ed.), the Pentagon has many other problems. For example, the United States is now able to launch no more than four warships a year. Previously, 13 shipyards worked for the naval forces - now there are only five of them left. In April of this year, the Navy numbered 298 warships (including the US Constitution, built back in 1797) and about 190 more support and reserve vessels. China has 350 warships and their number is growing rapidly. Another sore point on which the author has focused attention is that military supply chains are increasingly dependent on imports of key goods, including computer chips. The United States produces 10% of the world's computer chips, but 75% is in East Asia, and up to 90% of the most advanced chips are made in Taiwan. Each missile of the notorious Javelin portable anti-tank missile system launched in Ukraine by Russian troops has a command launcher with about 250 chips. Nezalezhnaya received about six thousand such systems, including launchers and missiles for them. And this is about a third of all American reserves. It turns out that the factory orders for Javelin are scheduled for two years and eight months in advance. Recently, the Pentagon has been buying 1,000 systems per year with a maximum performance of 6,480 units per year. But the ready supply of chips in enterprises rarely exceeds the amount sufficient for five days, so it will probably take a year or more to reach maximum performance – and this is assuming that the chips will still be available. That is, Taiwan will remain independent, not Chinese... Modern youth of the correct traditional orientation shuns the American army also because it is increasingly acquiring the rainbow color of the LGBT community (or LGBT+, as they write now, in order to cover the entire spectrum of this orientation, - Auth.). Seven years ago, the Pentagon officially granted permission for the first time for the brave Yankees to participate in the traditional gay march in San Diego in full parade. Then about 300 servicemen dared to take such a step. Previously, this happened only in Canada and the UK. But representatives of the American army had previously appeared at such events only in T-shirts with the names of their units. In 2011, the ban on openly gay and lesbian military service was finally lifted in the United States. Before that, the "don't ask – don't tell" rule was in effect. That is, homosexuals could serve in the ranks of the armed forces, but did not have the right to come out, that is, openly talk about their orientation. The violation was followed by dismissal. And their commanders were not allowed to ask subordinates questions about their sexual preferences. "Our troops will no longer be deprived of the talents and abilities of patriotic Americans simply because they turned out to be homosexuals or lesbians," said then–American President Barack Obama. Removing the last barriers to a military career for gays was one of the main promises that made him president. At that time, gays, lesbians and bisexuals among the military were about 66 thousand people – 2% of the army personnel. At the same time, the share of combat units of the land forces, aviation, navy and Marine Corps accounted for 13 thousand homosexuals, and 53 thousand people served in the National Guard or were listed in the reserve. It's interesting to look into history here. Since the War of Independence, non-traditional sexual orientation has been a reason in the American army for immediate dismissal without a uniform and pension. The first under such punishment was a certain Lieutenant Frederick Enslin, who was expelled in February 1778 by personal order of George Washington. But in the second half of the twentieth century, this norm was shaken. During the Vietnam War, young Americans declared themselves homosexuals in order to get out of the service. In parallel, dismissals from the army of soldiers and officers convicted of homosexuality continued. Well, how to fight here? In general, in 1993, the compromise formula "don't ask – don't tell" was adopted. However, this was not enough. And now America and the world are already being protected by hundreds of thousands of Rainbow flag fighters. So what awaits American guys in the army? "Blue coats"? Jocks with one gyrus and no secondary education? Willingness to become "cannon fodder"? All this clearly does not look attractive. Recruiters will have to work hard to get them into contract service.

Peter Koenig: West and proxy war against Russia

GEOFOR: Greetings! Since our last conversation, truly historic, epochal changes have taken place in the world. The struggle between Russia and the West is only gaining momentum. How do you see the prospects for this process? How far can this confrontation go? Peter Koenig: Predicting an outcome at this point is close to impossible. We are talking about a proxy-war, the west / NATO against Russia, played out in Ukraine and eventually - potentially – I trust not – in the European theatre. This would be the third WW on European territory in a little over a century. At least today - 6 May – the UN Security Council for the first time has encouraged both parties to seek negotiations for peace, or at least a cease fire. Of course, that doesn’t mean much, since President Zelensky is totally controlled by the west, predominantly Washington and Brussels, meaning NATO. If this call for negotiations does not amount in anything tangible, in terms of at least an armistice agreement, with the strong expectations that it may eventually be leading to Peace, the conflict could go on for a long time – and escalate further, indeed risking a WWIII scenario; emerging, God forbid, in a nuclear war. Let’s not even think about it. On the other hand, let’s not forget, that in her entire 246 years of history, the US have known only 15 years without a conflict. The US economy is to almost 60% based on war, direct war-industry and war-related services and industries. Therefore, a new war for the US is necessary, now, with the hegemon USA faltering, more than ever. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Al Arabiya, President Zelenskyy is totally in the hands and under control of the west. While Zelenskyy accepted several of Russia’s conditions, he backed out of his commitment after he got instructions from US / NATO to the contrary.  See this 59-min. video interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DwOZOaJfY4 . GEOFOR: Today, a number of states are increasing arms supplies to Kiev. How many more weapons can Western countries supply to Ukraine, as their stockpiles are not unlimited after all? Peter Koenig: Supplying Kiev with arms is a western war-industry bonanza. As mentioned before – the US, for one, depends with her economy to mor than 50% on wars and armed conflicts, carried out either directly or by proxy. The Ukraine-Russia war is a proxy war for the US / NATO – and by NATO-association also for Europe. Therefore, rather than depleting western weapon stockpiles, their war industry is running on overdrive. “War is good for business” – has become a common, almost “household- phrase”; it indicates the type of dystopian world we are living in. GEOFOR: Returning to the previous question: don't you think that Russia should have blocked the western borders of Ukraine in response? And at the same time, maybe it's time for the Kremlin to stop supplying oil, natural gas as well as other resources and goods to Europe and the United States? Peter Koenig: It’s difficult to block borders. Russia never had the intention – and still doesn’t to “take-over”, as in absorbing – Ukraine. Russia had and still does have four objectives: No NATO – ever – in Ukraine; making Ukraine an independent and neutral country; denazifying Ukraine; and, last but not least, protecting the two overwhelming Russian and Russian-speaking Donbass Provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk. The Donbas area, you may recall, is constantly being attacked by the Nazi-Azon battalion, having caused about 14,000 civilian deaths since the western engineered February 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev. These are simple objectives, offered by Russia. Zelenskyy originally accepted them against Russian security measures, but then backtracked, when Washington / NATO said niet. See above Lavrov-interview. GEOFOR: How long can the unity of the West last on the issue of sanctions against Russia against the backdrop of their own internal problems, rising prices, protests, etc.? Peter Koenig: This is another good question. In fact, already now, and since the very beginning of the this insane “sanctions game”, the west is the primary loser. Not Russia, but the west, predominantly Europe, is suffering from their own sanctions. These are sanctions imposed by the US and Europe, the spineless European Union let herself being coerced in repeating them. It is clear that Europe depends much more on Russian vital supply lines – like energy – especially gas – than vice-versa. Germany, for example, depends to at least 50% on Russian gas; and this is a conservative estimate. The rest of Europe also needs Russian gas as a vital energy supply source. The reason for Europe to go along with the “sanctions”, may be a bit more complex than meets the eye. There is a little-known fact, known only to few people: Germany, the lead country in the EU, is by no means free and independent. Germany still lives under an armistice agreement since WWII – no Peace Agreement has ever been granted by the winners of the war, especially the United States. Several attempts by German Chancellors, to break loose from this – we might as well call it slavehood – failed. Washington reacted “no way”, or else….. A case in point is Nord Strom 2. It was killed not by Germany, but by Washington. To the detriment of all of Europe. So far, the EU has followed the shots of her major economic partner. How long they will adhere to this unspoken rule – is anyone’s guess. From my point of view, the breaking point is near. The moment, when Europe has to make her own decisions, independent of the coercion Germany is under. In the meantime, President Putin and his brilliant economic adviser, Sergey Glazyev, have come up with an ingenious solution. Russia will honor her contractual obligations supplying the west with gas – and other hydrocarbons, provided that Russian energy is paid in rubles. Not in US-dollars, not in Euros, but in Russian Rubles. This rule applies to all countries which acquiesced to Washington’s request to dish-out sanctions on Russia, concerning more than 40 countries. See this https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/SANCTIONS/byvrjenzmve/ . The Ruble-rule has originally created quite some protests and upheavals in Europe, to the point where Mme. Ursula van der Leyen, President of the European Commission (EC), naively called out, this is unacceptable…. Well, its simple. It’s either rubles or no gas. Eventually most countries have accepted the Russian conditions, quietly, no fuss, and especially no western mainstream media coverage. This could become a bonanza for Russia: The Petro-Ruble replacing the faltering Petro-Dollar. It’s very befitting for the west and for the western “sanction-prone” monetary system. More and more countries dare defecting the fiat-money system, for mor stable currencies, like the gold and national economy-backed ruble and Chinese Yuan. Most frauds eventually come to an end. The fiat US-dollar scam has lasted long enough – more than a century, since the fraudulently passed 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Its time that the dollar is being replaced – ringing the world into a more honest, more equitable socioeconomic system. GEOFOR: The United States is increasing its activity in the Pacific region: the AUKUS block, nuclear submarines for Australia, cooperation on hypersonic weapons with the Australians and the British, etc. Does this mean that, on the one hand, Washington is working to weaken Europe and NATO, and on the other hand, it is preparing a new strategic project directed against China and Russia? Peter Koenig: The AUKUS block is an expansion of NATO into the Pacific. Its not a weakening of NATO per se, quite to the contrary. It is meant to further encircle China, via the South China Sea and indirectly Russia. Under this deal Australia would receive from the British war industry nuclear sub-marines – replacing and cancelling a 2016 contract for French submarines. As a byline, according to ABC-Australia new (see this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-01/cancelled-french-submarine-program-cost-billions/100959082) , the broken submarine contract with France, could cost Australian tax-payers as much as 5 billion dollars. Aukus, is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced on 15 September 2021 for the Indo-Pacific region. Under the pact, the US and the UK will help Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The pact would essentially expand NATO into the Pacific region. On the other hand, NATO is not intended to be weakened in Europe. Also, to the contrary. While several EU NATO members have quietly started expressing doubts about the usefulness of NATO in times of Peace, the Ukraine-Russia proxy-war has changed the tune. Worldwide highly funded propaganda of Russian aggression, makes “everyone” scramble for more security. European “leaders” (sic) – most of them scholars of Klaus Schwab’s Academy for Young Global Leaders are implanted by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) and its invisible handlers. They will follow their learned script of working towards the Great Reset, a global tyranny, eventually leading to the western dream of a One World Order (OWO), or a Global Governance, led by Washington. That’s their pipedream. In the meantime, NATO in Europe may soon have two new members – if their dream comes through, Sweden and Finland. They are considering applying for NATO membership. Mr. Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, has already said, he would favor an accelerated accession, if indeed the two countries would apply. According to Stoltenberg, full membership could be possible by June 2022. Just imagine, Finland that shares a 1,340-kilometre-long border with Russia. Sweden, however, shares no border with Russia, and Sweden and Russia have not been at war with each other for at least the last two centuries. Sweden joining NATO might, therefore, be considered a specially sever act of aggression by Russia. In the case of Finland, if Ukraine is any indication, Russia would most certainly not tolerate another NATO country – Finland – on her doorstep. This could become another point of contention, escalating the war scenario – and again, God-forbid, towards a hot (nuclear?) WWIII scenario. An overwhelming majority of the people in both Finland and Sweden are against their countries’ accession to NATO. For the sake of world piece, we may just hope that the leadership of the two countries listen to their people. Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020) Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Peter Koenig is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: The hostility of the West toward Russia has been clear for 30 years

GEOFOR: Dear Sir, US President Joe Biden has continued to impose one package of sanctions against Moscow after another since Russia launched the special military operation in Ukraine. McDonald's, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Visa, MasterCard and other companies stop working on the Russian market, new restrictions are being introduced against banks and individuals, the largest Russian companies. All this is a new reality not only in the relationships between the two countries, but also in the whole world. Sir, what shall we be waiting for next? After all, soon the platforms for sanctions will simply end… Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: If Foreign businesses forgo the opportunity to do business in Russia, that is their loss, not Russia's.  It is an economic myth that foreign business investment is a benefit to a country, especially such a technological and scientific advanced country as Russia.  Initially, the foreign business brings in some money--although none that the Russian central bank itself cannot create to finance domestic investment--but afterwards the foreign businesses take money out of a country.  The companies repatriate their profits and pay them to their shareholders in dividends and capital gains.  Really, think about it.  How dependent is Russia on McDonald's, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Visa, MasterCard?  These companies simply siphon off income from Russia's own consumer companies. Perhaps the sanctions will teach Russia that globalism and interdependence are just the West's methods of compromising a country's sovereignty.  Indeed, Russia should be happy about the sanctions as they should teach Russia that power and security reside in self-sufficiency. GEOFOR: It is becoming increasingly clear how the restrictions against Moscow affect ordinary Europeans and Americans. First of all, we mean a record increase in energy prices and, as a result, gasoline price hike, which is already breaking all records at American gas stations. The other day, Biden decided to ban the import of oil and natural gas from Russia altogether. And an attempt to replace it with the crude oil from Venezuela, apparently, failed. Undoubtedly, the American economy has a large safety margin, and yet, is Washington ready for the consequences of such a sanctions war? Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: The puzzling question is where are Russia's sanctions against the Western countries? It is Russia that holds all the power when it comes to sanctions.  Indeed, Russia could have achieved its goal in Ukraine just by turning off energy to Europe.  As the West is stealing Russia's foreign exchange, why does Russia pay its debts?  Why doesn't Russia nationalize American and European corporate assets in Russia?  If Russia is in difficulty, it is because she does not fight back. As far as I can tell, as the Western media is a lie machine and not a source of reliable news, the US ban on imports of Russian oil and gas applies only to the US.  Europe cannot do without Russian energy and has not followed the US in banning imports.  Russian oil imports into the US are only 7% of US oil use, so this small reduction in supply only to the US market cannot explain the large price rise.  I attribute the price rise not to a supply reduction but to hysteria and to the Western oil companies seizing the opportunity to use "crisis" to raise prices. GEOFOR: And now on Russia's ability to mitigate sanctions by reorienting its foreign trade and political priorities to the East and other regions outside the collective West. To what extent, in your opinion, can the deepening of relations with China and India, and with other BRICS member countries, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other regional associations of Asia, Latin America and Africa be promising? Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: The hostility of the West toward Russia has been clear for 30 years. Yet, instead of shielding herself from this hostility, Russia has made herself vulnerable to hostility by trying to integrate herself into the West.   This is a nonsensical policy.  Instead, Russia should be building her relationships with China and other parts of the world. There are far more potential customers in China, India, and the rest of Asia than the West offers. GEOFOR: Despite the hopes of the Kiev authorities, undoubtedly extremely naive, the NATO today refuses to send troops to the territory of Ukraine and provide a no-fly zone, fearing a direct clash with the Russian military. Only financial assistance and supplies of certain types of weapons continue, which, however, do not always reach the front line. Tell us, did the North Atlantic Alliance actually "conned" the Ukraine? Or did it initially not plan and did not promise to directly intervene in the situation in the event of a conflict between Moscow and Kiev? Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: The West has never regarded Ukraine as anything other than a weapons to be used against Russia.  This was clear for years prior to the Maidan Revolution from the $5 billion Washington spent in Ukraine to purchase supporters for establishing a Ukrainian government answerable to Washington, not to the Ukrainian people.  GEOFOR:  And the final question. Soon, in November, the midterm elections in the US are due to take place. Does the Republican Party probably bet big on November 8 as a serious bid ahead of the presidential election in 2024? Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS: As for US elections, Republicans are as Russophobic as Democrats. Biden was out of favor long before the special military operation.  The inflation was caused by supply disruptions caused by the lockdowns.  Normally, war helps a president by rallying the people behind him.  This is why, although the US is not at war, Washington is pretending that it is, focusing voters away from Biden's failure to the "Russian threat." Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Paul Craig Roberts: No dialogue has begun. Washington could not care less about Russia's security concern

GEOFOR: Dear Mr. Roberts, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. So, the Russian-American diplomatic marathon, which lasted for a whole week, is over. And as many, including yourself, predicted, the bilateral meeting and negotiations in the format of NATO and the OSCE ended in nothing. The parties simply fixed their positions. However, some Russian analysts believe that the only result of these contacts was that the united West and, first of all, the United States, for the first time in thirty years, still "condescended" or were forced to condescend to talk with Russia on equal terms. What, in your opinion, prompted Washington and its satellites to do this? Paul Craig Roberts: Russians are always looking for a silver lining, this time that the US condescended to talk with Russia on equal terms.  The US did no such thing. Washington used the talks to elevate the propaganda against Russia as, for example, Undersecretary of State Nuland's denunciation of Russia.   The talks did not end in nothing. The talks confirmed the Kremlin's belief that Washington would not accommodate Russia's security concern and that Russia would be forced to look for solutions outside of diplomacy. GEOFOR: It seems that the world is no longer preparing to enter, but is entering a new geopolitical reality, where Russia has learned to quickly resolve crises in different parts of the world, be it Syria, Belarus or Kazakhstan. What do you think is the reason for such transformations - is it a consequence of Moscow's "muscle building" or the result of a reduction in the capabilities of the United States? Paul Craig Roberts: It is a consequence of the Kremlin awakening to the fact that Russia's role for Washington is to serve as the necessary enemy for the profits of the US military/security complex and as the threat that guarantees Washington's control over Europe. For too long Russians believed all the nice democratic slogans that Washington expresses but does not believe.   GEOFOR: Although Russia has made its position public well in advance, moreover, it has made available a draft document listing Moscow's demands point by point, as well as the obligations that it is ready to assume, it seems that the United States and its NATO partners have not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with them. At least, judging by the statements for the press, instead of discussing security issues on the European continent, the American side tried with all its might to reduce the discussion to the issue of Ukraine's accession to the alliance and the deployment of offensive weapons on its territory. What is the reason for this, if we may say so, misunderstanding? Is it the desire to delay negotiations? If so, for what purposes? Or is the problem something else? Paul Craig Roberts: It most certainly is not a misunderstanding. It was a propaganda opportunity for Washington and its NATO puppets.  Russia is the necessary enemy. Therefore, Washington will never acknowledge that Russia has a valid case about anything. GEOFOR: Speaking of the Ukraine, which was the top priority topic for American negotiators. Do you rule out that Washington is playing out a scenario under which Kiev would decide on a military conflict in the Donbas or Crimea, and Moscow would be forced to respond with the use of force? In this case the United States and its allies, on the one hand, would increase the volume of military assistance (this week the Congress authorized the allocation of an additional $ 500 million), but at the same time they have declared that neither the United States nor NATO would go to war for the Ukraine. For the current Ukrainian leadership, with the country going through a deep economic and political crisis, an armed conflict might be the last chance to retain power and regain the favor of the West. Moreover, regardless of who would unleash the conflict, Russia would immediately be declared an "aggressor". Paul Craig Roberts: For Washington Ukraine is a tool to be used against Russia. Whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and hosts missile bases on Russia's border or whether Ukraine invades Donbass and causes Russian intervention makes little difference to Washington. If the former, then Washington has more ability to intimidate Russia. If the latter, Washington has a result that proves its propaganda and solidifies its hold on Europe and strengthens  Americans' belief that Russia is a dangerous threat. GEOFOR: And now on the background against which the Russian-American discussion took place. Speaking politely, Washington was not shy in their expressions. We are not talking about the press and political pundits, the Lord is their judge. But some officials were not inferior to them. For example, after the talks in Geneva, Victoria Nuland blamed Moscow for fomenting the crisis between Russia and the United States, simultaneously accusing it of lying and misinforming. And after the Brussels meeting, the same lady, who holds the post of Under Secretary of State, said that Washington was working with Germany and the EU to slow down the commissioning of Nord Stream 2. But this did not seem enough for her, so she said that the United States was ready to discuss with Finland and Sweden the issue of their accession to NATO, which, judging by the reaction of Helsinki and Stockholm, caused some consternation in these countries. Why and who needs it? Raising the stakes on the eve of negotiations is a common thing for politicians and diplomats. But why do it when negotiations have already begun? Or is it just a deficit or lack of professionalism and, we are sorry to say, culture and education? Paul Craig Roberts: Washington cannot make it any clearer that Russia is in the way of US hegemony and that Washington intends to remove the Russian constraint on US hegemony via intimidation and destabilization.  It seems that this has finally been realized by the Kremlin if not by the Russian media.   GEOFOR: Currently, the Russian leadership is waiting for a written response from the American side to its proposals, which, as promised, should be provided next week. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the members of the same party as President J. Biden have prepared a draft of new sanctions, including ones against President Vladimir Putin, as well as the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, major banks, etc. As the Russian Ambassador to the United States Mr. Antonov noted in this regard, if they are adopted, it will mean the rupture of diplomatic relations between our countries. In these circumstances, what could be the response from the White House and the State Department? Is it possible to expect at least something constructive in it, giving a reason to continue the dialogue that has begun? Paul Craig Roberts: No dialogue has begun.  Washington used the talks to make completely clear to Russia that Washington could not care less about Russia's security concern, that Washington wants and intends Russia to be insecure and will be working to make Russia more insecure. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

The Russian website GEOFOR interviews the Saker

Translated from Russian into English by Lilia Shumkova GEOFOR: Dear Mr. Raevsky, I recall how after the Geneva meeting with President Vladimir Putin, his American colleague President Joe Biden, in response to a question about the continuation of high-level contacts between our countries, said that we should wait until the end of the year, and after that time make an appropriate decision. And now, six months after Geneva, a new dialogue, albeit in a video format. Moreover, this time the initiator was the American side. What do you think this means? What did the White House want to achieve, and to what extent did it succeed? Raevsky: Under Biden, the United States turned to Russia five times with a request for negotiations – three times by phone, once in person and now via a video conference. Why did they need it? Here, you just need to look at the general context from the point of view of the United States and Biden himself. He has several “fronts,” not only the problem of Russia and Ukraine. I would even say that this is not the main “front” for him. There are two main ones. First of all, there is an internal “front”: he has a very low rating; The social, economic, and political crisis in the United States is now total and, in many ways, resembles the Soviet Union in the 1980s. American armed forces have already proved many times their total inability to conduct combat operations and achieve anything with them. Iraq is a disaster. They are afraid of Iran and do not even want to compete with it. You have seen the disgrace in Afghanistan. Now the mood is very depressed and angry. This internal “front” of President Biden is undoubtedly the most dangerous. The second very dangerous “front” he has is the issue of China. The Americans say that in two years they will no longer be able to gain the upper hand in the war against China; something needs to be done urgently. People who understand the principles and timing of the reform of the armed forces and the development of new weapons systems, the principles of tactics and military art in general, understand that nothing can be done in two years. It takes a decade, and maybe more than one. China and the United States are moving towards a confrontation. Beijing definitely occupies the position of the stronger player. And the Americans are weak on all fronts. Then they have the Middle East, where Iran is now, in fact, ruling the ball. Israel is trying to maintain the appearance that it is very strong and very dangerous, but in reality the United States is now losing the entire Middle East. This was an open goal of the Iranians. This is a country that is an order of magnitude smaller or weaker than Russia or China, now – in general, successfully – expels the United States from the Middle East, or at least from many parts of the Middle East. And, of course, another “front” is Ukraine and Russia plus Europe. And in Europe – and this needs to be pointed out – there is an economic crisis. For all these reasons, Biden was in an extremely difficult situation. Russia has been retreating on all fronts over the past 20 – if not 30 – years. And now the situation resembles the one when German tanks were near Moscow. The time is now to say, “Not a step further.” I think that [Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery] Gerasimov and Putin conveyed exactly this to the Americans: “Say what you want, we will not practice the same belligerent rhetoric. But in reality we have the means to repel any provocation or strike from you, and we will have to do it if you don’t change course.” I think that the realization of how dangerous the situation is today has reached the “collective Biden.” Now about whether he achieved what he wanted in this video conference. Sure. To some extent, yes. Because he will be able to say that it was he who stopped Russia in Ukraine, that it was he who stopped China, and no attack on Taiwan happened on his watch. But this, of course, is fiction. Everyone understands perfectly well that neither China nor Russia need these wars. All these fears were fanned by the Americans themselves. And, that’s where they really scared themselves, which was the right thing to do, because they are absolutely not tough enough to “butt heads” with Iran, China, and Russia at the same time. But there is a certain specificity of American politics in this. Very often, American diplomats come to Moscow and say one thing, then when they come back, they are attacked by the media and Congress. Both the media and the Congress are totally in the hands of the “War Party” here. Accusations of weakness, softness, cowardice, etc. follow and here they need to show their “coolness”. So, for example, Trump acted when he negotiated with the Russian side, and then declared: “There were no agreements.” Therefore, it remains to be seen whether Biden will be able to withstand the onslaught of the “War Party” now. If he can do it, say, in the next 2-3 weeks, then I would say that for him this conversation was a clear and undoubted success. And if the “War Party” breaks it, as Trump was very quickly broken, then everything will return to normal, and we will return to the same threshold where Russia and the United States will be on the verge of a full-scale war. This, in general, is not necessary for anyone, and maybe it has come to the American side that it is one thing to talk about world domination, to fight with weak incapacitated forces. And it’s quite another thing to wage war against a real military superpower. GEOFOR: The meeting was preceded by a strong propaganda attack against Russia, during which Washington clearly tried to “raise the stakes.” President Biden even said that he does not see and does not accept any “red lines” outlined by Moscow. And yet, just before the meeting, Congress lifted a number of sanctions against Russia from the defense budget, including on the Nord Stream-2. Clearly under the influence of the administration. How do you explain such a metamorphosis? Raevsky: Of course, firstly, it was necessary to “raise the stakes” in order not only, as they like to say in the West, “to negotiate from a position of strength,” but also to convince both public opinion and the “War Party” that we are in no way making concessions to Russia. And Biden said: “We will not recognize any red lines!” [NATO Secretary General] Stoltenberg said: “We do what we want and Russia does not order us!” and so on. It’s all PR. In reality – the fact that they have already asked for negotiations with Russia for the fifth time shows who is in a position of strength, and who is not. And this lifting of the sanctions you are talking about from the defense budget is, in general, a small step, rather, a diplomatic step of goodwill. But, in fact, the issue with the Nord Stream-2 has already been resolved. The only thing that can close it is a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine – or something worse. They have already sanctioned Russia so that there is nowhere else to go – they say it themselves. So, if you no longer have the opportunity to impose other sanctions, then you can “sell” this “non-imposition” of sanctions as a gesture of goodwill. This is Realpolitik, and nothing more. The Americans have never abandoned their strategic goals – containing and encircling Russia, forcing it to submissive obedience and surrender of its sovereignty, and this is their ultimate goal which the Americans have never agreed to abandon. This is a strategic goal. And everything that is being done now, for Americans, is the level of tactics, not strategy. They have not discussed the strategy yet, because to revise the strategy means to revise the entire ideology on which this country is built. They are not ready for this yet. GEOFOR: Could Putin’s visit to Delhi have influenced the position of the American side, and if so, what kind? Recall that during this bilateral meeting with the Indian leadership, a number of documents were signed, including an agreement on military issues until 2030. Moreover, this document concerns not only military-technical cooperation. Raevsky: Here you need to understand a very subtle game that the Indians are playing. They are friends with the United States, they will even go to this Summit of Democracies. But they are friends not against Russia, but against China, which for them is a regional enemy. But in order to emphasize how friendly they are with the United States not against Russia, Putin’s trip to India was organized and giant contracts were signed there, including contracts for weapons, including S-400 air defense, which the Americans categorically forbade Indians to buy, and the Indians did not care about this ban. In fact, India’s attitude towards Russia is a slap in the face of the United States. This shows that the Indians will look very selectively at what is beneficial to them and act in their own interests, and not be a submissive puppet in the hands of anyone, and certainly not the United States. I would also like to add that, in my opinion, the confrontation between China and India is the main current problem of the Eurasian continent. I see only one side that can help these two countries to change relations and switch to a different quality. This is, of course, Russia. And the strategic task of the Americans, on the contrary, is to incite further conflicts between China and India at any cost. And it is clear that the parties will continue to bend their own line. Moscow stands for peace in Eurasia, and the United States – if not for war, then, in any case, for military tension and confrontation between these two great countries. GEOFOR: One of the main priorities of Moscow in these negotiations was the issue of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation, which was stated long before the meeting. As it became known, the American side confirmed its readiness for dialogue on this issue. In particular, to discuss the issue of the deployment of offensive weapons along the Russian borders from Norway to Romania and possibly Turkey. This also automatically includes Ukraine. How does this relate to the belligerent and harsh statements on the eve of the meeting? Raevsky: Officially, right before the meeting, the Americans said that they categorically refuse to recognize Moscow’s red lines. Stoltenberg also said that “Russia is not a law for us, let it behave correctly and keep quiet, and we will do whatever we want.” But in reality, expert groups will meet. And what will they discuss? Yes, of course, just these red lines. This is the only subject of real bargaining that is possible between these two countries. So, in fact, the United States says one thing and does another. Yes, they are now making concessions to Moscow. The growing power of the Russian Armed Forces, and the forces of the Russian economy and political “soft power” forced the Americans to make concessions. From the Americans’ point of view, Ukraine itself in its current state is a “404 country”, and I would say, in general, the whole of Europe turned out to be such a “suitcase without a handle.” And Americans are no longer able to drag around with them – neither economically nor politically. So what can they do? If it has already been decided to leave the suitcase without a handle, then you can set it on fire and hope that this arson can achieve something. And what to achieve? Yes, it’s very simple – the dream of Americans is for Russia to really grab as much Ukraine as possible. First, because this is a “black hole” that would become a headache for Russia, not America. Second, it will create ideal conditions to block the Nord Stream-2 and even other energy projects between Europe and Russia. And, third, it will create – finally! – the next “cold war,” without which the American and, in general, western politicians and generals are so sad. Everyone understands that in the event of a war, Russia will win quickly and convincingly. But after that, a situation will arise that will resemble, perhaps, the “Berlin crisis” with a similar level of confrontation. And the “War Party” in the West wants this for a number of reasons. For example, if the supply of energy carriers from Russia is cut off, then whose fuel and energy sector will be able to compensate for the outgoing resources? American, of course. Their liquefied gas. The same is true in the sphere of political influence. If, say, an open war happens, and Russia liberates even just a part of Ukraine from Nazi rule, it will be presented as proof that only NATO can save Europe from Putin’s “mordor”. It would be very beneficial for the Americans to have a full-scale war unleashed. This is the interpretation of the “War Party”. But there are other people – sane people – who understand that such a situation is fraught with a very rapid escalation and direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. And they don’t want that. And so, on the one hand, we are seeing “cool” statements. On the other hand, there are a number of concessions that the Americans are ready to make so far. And the offensive weapons systems that they have now deployed in other countries is a purely political, not military, issue. When Putin says that for a Western hypersonic missile from the territory of Ukraine, the approach time will be five minutes to Moscow, this is a fact. But, on the other hand, the time of approach of a preemptive strike by Russian hypersonic weapons will also, by definition, be five minutes. And in this area, Russia has overtaken the United States for a long time and very significantly. Russia also has the opportunity to place missiles in the Atlantic Ocean outside the zone of operation of possible anti-submarine means of the United States and “swoop” from there. These offensive systems are dangerous for Russia not so much from a military point of view as from a political one, since this is really a political provocation. It shows what, as Americans like to say, “they send a message”. This is the message: “We don’t care about you! We do what we want and where we want.” This means that Russia is not an equal party to the negotiations, that there is a great Hegemon and Suzerain of the whole planet, who does everything he wants and how he wants, and Russia is invited to shut up, sit quietly, and not slack off. This political problem is very real for Russia. Therefore, the current situation will force Russia at some point to draw red lines and say that there are things that we will not tolerate. Obviously, both Putin and General Gerasimov have very successfully brought these realities to the consciousness of the “collective Biden.” GEOFOR: The information that comes to us after the meeting suggests that the tone of the conversation between the Russian and American presidents is similar to the tone of Biden’s remote talks with Comrade Xi, which also took place recently. For example, during a conversation with the Chinese leader, the US president stressed the need to refrain from seizing Taiwan by force, which essentially meant that Washington did not object to economic and political methods. As for the Russian-American negotiations, in part of Ukraine, for example, issues related to its territorial integrity, Crimea and the notorious “Russian aggression” were not discussed at all. And at the briefing following the conversation, Assistant to the President J. Sullivan called on Kiev to stop the escalation of tensions in the Donbas and referred the Ukrainian leadership to the Minsk agreements. What is the reason for this position: the desire to maintain the status quo for a while? Then – for what purpose and for how long? Raevsky: In this area, the situation can be said to have turned completely upside down. Russia needed these decades of concessions in order to strengthen the Russian society itself, strengthen the information sphere, the Russian economy, establish import substitution, create new ties with other countries and, most importantly, to develop the Armed Forces to such a level that they can cope with any threat to Russia. The Americans’ situation is flipped. They have the deepest internal crisis – political and economic. The state of the American armed forces is very fraught. Of course, the current status quo is beneficial to them. The alternative is to continue on the path of escalation, and then there is only one way – to military confrontation. There’s nothing else left. Everything below the level of military confrontation has already been done. And it is completely unprofitable for them to go to an open military confrontation with Russia. For how long is such a status quo beneficial to them? It is necessary to clearly distinguish two sides. On the military side, the reform of the armed forces is a very long and difficult process, very complex, and the armed forces have a huge inertia, which is very difficult to deploy in another direction, considering that the American political calendar is two years ahead; one year ahead, well, four years ahead at most. On the political side, Biden’s rating is now catastrophically low. The situation inside the country is very bad. Therefore, it is more profitable for him to maintain the status quo for a year or two rather than to have a direct confrontation with Russia during his presidency. Plus, it is still unknown what benefits the Chinese and Iranians could find for themselves in such a confrontation. Thus, Americans need the status quo. On the political side, two years, even one year, is much better than a war. In the long run, the current status quo, I think, is just a screen put up to hide the fact that they will continue to self-destruct. In my opinion – and I know this country quite well – it is absolutely impossible to rebuild it. Reforms are impossible here, because this country is based on imperialism, on the ideology of world domination, and it is simply impossible for it to abandon this. Speaking “in American language,” “it’s not American.” That is, to recognize, for example, just the possibility that the United States is “one of the countries of the world”, but not “the leader of all mankind”, is something that is literally unthinkable for most Americans, and certainly for American politicians. For them, this is simply unacceptable. The whole “crazy kindergarten” – there is no other way to say it – that we hear now from a local congressman about Russia, about China, about others, is a reflection of this type of thinking and worldview. Unfortunately, in the United States, being an open supporter of the “War Party” looks patriotic. And since this country did not have any real war in defense of its homeland, and they lost all the other wars after World War II, this is a country that simply cannot abandon its imperial ideology, and now it lacks the tools that it needs to impose its imperialist ideology on the entire planet. Therefore, realistically speaking, they need the status quo for as long as possible. But it is impossible to define this “longer”.” There are too many variables, too many scenarios. GEOFOR: About protocol problems in relations with the White House. In preparation for the meeting, it was widely announced that the conversation would be “one-on-one.” And now we see President Biden negotiating surrounded by four of his advisers. Does such a transformation of the format of the meeting contribute to the establishment of an atmosphere of trust in negotiations and, more broadly, in bilateral relations in general? Raevsky: First of all, you need to understand that when it comes to Biden, of course, we are talking about “collective Biden.” Biden himself is not able to delve into all the problems facing him, nor to negotiate. And, certainly, not with a man like Putin, who can talk for four hours without a piece of paper and remember all the numbers on all topics. Naturally, there should be advisers around him; there is nothing new here. When George Bush’s son was interrogated about the events of September 11 [2001], he was not trusted to answer questions alone. Dick Cheney was sitting next to him, who had to make sure, as the “senior supervisor,” that Bush would not blurt out anything superfluous. It’s the same here. These advisers surround him, naturally, to advise, but also to keep an eye on him. They are the watchers, and he is their official representative. Moreover, I would even say that this is a very good sign – just as I welcomed the trip of Victoria Nuland and the CIA director to Moscow. This shows that “serious people” are talking to the Russian side. Now if they sent Kamala Harris to talk to someone, that would be a sign of total disregard. Or, say, how Blinken calls Zelensky to tell him what happened at the negotiations. There is no such contempt here. On the contrary, there are serious people who know what they are talking about and who are able to make decisions. This shows that the negotiations were not symbolic and that there really was a shift. In my opinion, this can only be welcomed. But! There can be no question of any atmosphere of trust. This is what journalists think: there is an atmosphere of trust in the negotiations between Russia and the United States. Such negotiations only develop confidence-building measures – those that are verifiable. There can be no question of any trust. Most likely, in general terms, the parties agreed to some steps, and expert groups will work on specifics – who, how and when will check the measures mutually agreed during the negotiations. Here we can recall President Ronald Reagan, who said: “Trust, but verify”. This is exactly what we are seeing now: both sides will check to the maximum, because the stakes are very high. When there is a risk of military confrontation between two nuclear superpowers, there can be no trust. There can only be absolutely verifiable mutually obligatory steps of the two sides. GEOFOR: And now a few words about the affairs of Washington. The further away, the more noticeable the discord in the White House foreign policy team. If the aggravation of the situation in bilateral relations, harsh criticism of Russia, etc. comes from the Secretary of State and his team, then a certain constructive approach comes from the national security assistant. This became especially noticeable after Mrs. Nuland, whose work results apparently did not satisfy the White House much, an experienced diplomat, a former ambassador to Russia, and now the director of the CIA, William J. Burns, whom a number of Russian analysts write down in the “Sullivan team,” arrived in Moscow. Will President Biden be able to continue to stay above the fray of his closest aides? How subjective is he in making and implementing his political decisions? After all, it is still impossible to ignore the opinions of both parties on Capitol Hill… In short, how much can Russia trust the agreements that were reached during the dialogue at the highest level? Will the decisions on joint study of issues of interest to both sides go beyond expert consultations and translate into concrete binding agreements? Or is it still an attempt to get a respite in time in order to settle their internal problems, reformat relations with allies, and then return to the period of confrontation? Raevsky: There are undoubtedly two parties here. There is a very serious struggle going on within the ruling classes of the United States and in the so-called “deep state.” Imagine some kind of gangster group – one of those organized criminal groups, each of which controls some part of the city. As long as things are going well, they sit quietly. But as soon as the crisis begins, then they start fighting among themselves. And so the election of Trump four years ago brought such a split in the ruling American elites that now a very strong battle is going on at the top in different groups, clans of the American government. And the divide is not between Republicans and Democrats. Relatively speaking, on the one hand there is a “War Party,” and on the other hand there is a “Peace Party.” This is very conditional, but not wrong. First, the “War Party” members are pure ideologists. Second, it is the fuel and energy sector of America, which is very interested in “cutting off” Europe from Russia. It would be very beneficial for the American economy as a whole if Europe were both weaker and more dependent on the United States. Any cooperation between Russia and the EU is a direct and clear threat to the economic and political interests of the United States. There are still those who retain nostalgia for the Cold War. There are so-called “Neocons,” there are “Neoliberals,” and there are various lobbies that are hostile to Russia for various reasons. The Israeli lobby, the Polish lobby, the Ukrainian lobby. All of these groups lumped together can be called the “War Party”. And there is a “Peace Party”, which, I think, consists of those people who understand that, going further along this path, you can only come to one point – war. This party does not want to pay such a price. This party probably understands that it is simply too much for the United States to go into a total confrontation with Russia, Iran and China at the same time. Even if they wanted war, they realize that in this position it is better for them to present themselves as a “Peace Party”. This is probably what Biden wants to achieve. He wants to demonstrate that with his “coolness” and disregard for any demands of Russia and China, he has succeeded, stopped both “Russian aggression” against Ukraine and “Chinese aggression” against Taiwan. That there is absolutely no reality under this rhetoric, it does not matter at all. This is all for domestic consumption and for domestic policy. And also to preserve the image of the World Hegemon, which, unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible for Americans to abandon, since this ideology is “embedded” in the national identity of many – if not all – Americans. In addition, all politicians, in order to show that they are patriots, must be supporters of the “War Party,” supporters of wars and “cool” unilateral measures. In this country – alas! – this is interpreted not as a sign of insanity or irresponsibility, but as a sign of “coolness”. And if the president demonstrates these qualities, then he is a strong and serious president. How to reform such a country and give it the opportunity to become just a normal country, and not an Empire, I can’t imagine. I don’t see how this system can be reformed. The only way out, which I unfortunately see, is that it should collapse. Collapse either quickly during a military confrontation, or – God forbid! – through some kind of agreement to “hit the brakes.” This is the best we can all hope for. GEOFOR: So, how do you see the future of relations between Moscow and Washington? Raevsky: First of all, I have always believed and written that for at least seven years – if not more – the American Empire and Russia have been at war. This is an ideological war, this is an informational war, a political war,  and an economic war. And-thank God! – there have not been any major military actions yet. But this does not negate the fact that, in fact, there can be only one winner in this war. Russia, Iran, China and other countries want a multipolar world in which there would be a place for sovereign states that treat each other with respect and in accordance with the principles of international law. The American vision of the future is world hegemony, “the USA is ahead of the whole planet,”  the USA governs everything and everyone, and there are no equals. This is a very important point – “We have no equal.” It’s an idea that generations of Americans have been raised on. But suddenly [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Milley said that, in general, from a military point of view, the world already has at least three poles – the United States, Russia and China. There are actually more of these poles. For example, in the Middle East, the strongest regional power is no longer Israel – it is Iran. The situation is changing, and not to the benefit of the United States. Russia plays for a long time. She has been yielding, stepping aside, and giving way for a long time, because it was necessary to create such Armed Forces that could really guarantee the security of Russia in any threats. Russia has finally achieved this. For Russia, the idea of Anglo–Saxon domination over the planet, when everyone else should serve them, is fundamentally unacceptable – and I would even say civilizationally. Russia sees herself to be an equal player among the great of this world. What will be the relations between Moscow and Washington? One side will lose the war, and the other will gain the upper hand in it. Not necessarily, by the way, a war with military operations. This could be a purely political war only, God willing! But only one of the two boxers in the ring will remain standing. The second one will have to accept a real defeat. For Russia, such a defeat would mean the loss of sovereignty and destabilization. Which will once again put her in a dangerous position. And for the United States, simply giving up world domination is already a total defeat, because it will force this country to completely reformat itself and recreate itself on a new basis. Which they are absolutely not capable of, at the moment. In order to reform the country, it takes decades – if there is no external force. And since Russian tanks will not appear on the streets of Washington, no purge like the one that was against the Nazis after World War II in Germany, here – alas! – it won’t happen. It means that all this will take a long time, and this process will not only be long, but also dangerous for this country. Andrei Raevsky was born in Zurich, Switzerland, his father is Dutch, his mother is Russian from a family of White Russian immigrants. In 1984, he entered active military service in the electronic warfare unit, and then was transferred to the military intelligence service as a language specialist, to work in the interests of the Swiss Air Force. Then he moved to the USA, where he received a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) American University (American University) and a Master’s degree in Strategic Studies (Strategic Studies) at the School of Advanced International Studies. Paul N. Nitze of Johns Hopkins University (Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University). Upon returning to Switzerland, he worked as a civilian consultant (in a position corresponding to the military rank of “major”) in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service (SND), preparing strategic analytical materials, primarily about the Soviet/Russian armed forces. He worked as a specialist in “enemy operations” (“Red Team” in American military jargon) to train personnel at the operational level of the General Staff of the Swiss Armed Forces. Later he worked at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), where he specialized in peacekeeping tactics and operations. He wrote a book about psychological and intelligence operations in peacekeeping and four books of collected works “The Essential Saker” (The Essential Saker). Speaks Russian, English, French, Spanish and German. Raevsky holds a Licentiate in Orthodox Theological Studies (PhD in Orthodox Theology) from the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies at the Monastery of St. Gregory Palamas in Etna, California (the “Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies” (CTOS) at the Saint Gregory Palamas monastery in Etna, California). Swiss citizen. Lives in the state of Florida. The questions were asked by Serge Duhanov, a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Paul Craig Roberts: Biden is unlikely to be the Democrat candidate

GEOFOR: If you look at the U.S. sociology, then for the 9 months of this year, the rating of President Biden declined by 11 points. Moreover, 57% of respondents do not support the President, who, in fact, has not yet passed the midpoint of his cadence, (49% of them are categorically opposed – «I don't really support»). Only 42% of those surveyed support (of which only 21% of respondents « support very strongly») How dangerous will this melting popularity of the head of state be for the Democratic Party one year before the midterm elections? Paul Craig Roberts: There is no doubt that Biden is unpopular.  Many regard him as senile and incoherent.  It is important to keep in mind that the evidence is strong that Biden was not honestly elected. His election occurred from strange and unexplained large swings in vote counts in the middle of the night in the “swing states” where Trump had substantial leads. For example, it is not plausible that a red state such as Georgia elected a Democrat President and two Democrat US Senators.  Many experts provided proof that the election was stolen, but the media suppressed the evidence and the Republicans were powerless as the stolen election also cost Republicans control of the Senate.  So nothing could be done about it.   Biden’s confusions and stumblings have become a joke and will prevent him from being the Democrat candidate in the next presidential election.  GEOFOR: Some Russian pundits express the opinion that the popularity of the Democrat President is undermined by three main factors: the economic policy of the Administration, especially in its taxation part; the crisis with the uncontrolled migration in the South of the country; as well as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which has become a nightmare for the administration from the PR point of view. How fair are these estimates and what is your opinion on this? Plus, what could or should the President do under current circumstance in order to somehow resolve the issues and regain, at least, some of the lost popularity? Start a “small victorious war”? If so, where and against whom? Paul Craig Roberts: The Biden regime’s acceptance of illegal entry by immigrant-invaders, and the regime’s suggestion that illegals who entered during Trump’s presidency and experienced family separation be paid large sums of money in “restitution,” has angered many voters against him.   Although there are super-patriots who resent the chaos of the Afghan withdrawal, most Americans are glad the 20-year attempted occupation is over. The public’s original support for the Afghan invasion was based on Washington’s deception that Afghanistan was somehow responsible through Osama bin Laden for 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Once the public caught on to the deception, support for the war evaporated.  It was a war that served mainly the power and profit of the US military/security complex. The troubled economy is due primarily to the decade-long policy of the Federal Reserve pumping massive liquidity into the economy in order to support the large banks, Wall Street,  and the prices of financial assets, and to the Covid lockdowns and now the illegal vaccination mandates that are resulting in dismissals of non-compliant workers and the consequent breakdown in deliveries of goods and services. California’s environmental policy has contributed to the growing economic disorganization. The Democrat governor of California has blocked fully half of the US truck transport fleet from California for exhaust emission reasons. As a result ships cannot unload in the California ports, because the deliveries cannot be cleared from the docks. It is Biden’s vaccination mandate that is undermining any remaining acceptance of his regime.  It has become impossible to suppress the awareness of the deaths and injuries associated with the vaccine.  When people witness hospital nursing staffs, firemen, policemen, and military resisting the “jab,” they understand that there is danger in the vaccine and become concerned about the coercion of the vaccination drive.  If the election were held today, Biden would not get enough votes to count. The military/security complex would welcome another war, as would the neoconservative policymakers in Washington. Russia and China seem to have blocked further US adventures in Syria and Iran.  Washington would like to be rid of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Maduro in Venezuela and grounds could be orchestrated for military interventions in Central and South America. But as both are portrayed as left-wing governments, the Democrat leftwing would oppose. GEOFOR: In the Democratic Party itself – we, mostly, mean legislators - not everything is smooth either. There is no unity among the young radicals and the veteran centrists. This, in particular, is indicated by the debate around the national debt. The young stand for the implementation of social programs, at least in full, or even demand their expansion. And the veterans, not without reason, say that there is no money, and their emergence is not to be expected. That is, the moneys need to be printed. It seems that such a situation one year before the vote can also undermine the positions of the recent winners. If this is true, then to what extent? Paul Craig Roberts: I do not think there is conflict between Democrats over social programs and the money to pay for them. The US has plenty of social programs. They have been growing steadily since the 1930s with a big extra dose in the 1960s.  Democrat politicians tend to talk more than they act about raising taxes.  The rhetoric sounds good to the lower classes, but actually raising taxes affects political campaign contributions. What the Democrats are doing is striving for one-party rule by eliminating Republican majorities in currently red states. They are relying on border-crossings and on elimination of identification to vote. The Biden Justice Department is challenging red state requirements of an ID to vote as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.  The Democrats are also relying on Critical Race Theory taught in the public schools to convince white kids that they are racist because they are white and that they must make restitution for past white evils by supporting “people of color.”  In other words, they are being indoctrinated from a young age to vote against their own race. My conclusion is that Democrats are more unified around Identity Politics than they are divided by other issues. GEOFOR: A question from the sphere of unscientific fiction: how real does the Trump-Biden duel of 2024 seem to you? Or will the Parties propose other candidates? Then who of the politicians from both parties do you recommend to observe with special attention? Paul Craig Roberts: Biden is unlikely to be the Democrat candidate.  Trump has far more support among Republicans than any other candidate.  The Republican candidate will be Trump or whoever he gives his support.  Florida’s governor DeSantis is a Trump favorite. Even some Democrats now understand that “Russiagate” was a hoax directed by the CIA/FBI to discredit Trump, and awareness of the FBI’s role in the so-called “Trump insurrection” is spreading.  The leftwing of the Democrats have taken the party far out on limbs that disturb the average voter.  They don’t like the anti-white propaganda, the monument destruction, the persecutions of Trump activists and supporters, the transgender policy that permit males to present as females and have access to female facilities and sports teams.  They don’t like the non-gender pronouns.  The crazed Democrat left is trying to pull off a revolution that many Democrats dislike as much as do Republicans. GEOFOR: And the last question which we cannot pass by. Director of the CIA William Burns recently visited Moscow. Some in the USA say that his mission was to “warn Moscow” against “its buildup of troops near Ukraine's border closely, and to attempt to determine what is motivating Russia's actions”. What is your take on this visit and its outcome? Paul Craig Roberts: I do not know why the CIA director visited Russia or why the Kremlin permitted the visit.  If Burns gave any such warning, it is a reflection of Washington’s hubris.  Andrei Martyanov has argued that the US military is out-classed by the Russian military, and Ukraine is on Russia’s border, not America’s.  If the weapon systems Putin described awhile ago are actually deployed, the US is too much outclassed to give any warning to the Kremlin.  The Kremlin would have to be poorly informed and poorly advised to pay any attention to a warning from the CIA. What the Kremlin should take seriously is the CIA’s assassination of Putin.  For reasons that make no sense, the Russian government has permitted the existence in Russia of Western-funded organizations that serve US and NATO interests.  It is also the case that a substantial percentage of the Russian intellectual class is enamored of the United States.  There are indications that even the current Kremlin only reluctantly gives up the dream of being integrated into the corrupt and dying Western world.  Fanciful thinking can defeat realism, and the realism is that Washington would be pleased for Russia to lose a strong and capable leader. GEOFOR: Thank you very much, Sir. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Is Putin Walking into a Propaganda Trap

Before we give in to hopes that the Biden/Putin Summit will result in better relations between the US and Russia, we should remember the Trump/Putin Summit in Helsinki in July 2018.  The US media and the Democrat Party used the Trump/Putin Summit to blacken the event as where Putin “cemented his status and the status of Russia as US public enemy #1.” The American Establishment made certain the summit would fail. Three days prior to the summit the Department of Justice indicted 12 Russian GRU officers. Two days prior to the summit Senate Democrats urged Trump to cancel the summit meeting. CIA Director John Brennan said that the press conference following the summit showed that Trump exceeded “the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecile, Trump is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” In other words, the Democrat Party, the US military/security complex, and the American media considered Trump’s meeting with Putin an act of treason. Regardless of whether anything good happened at the Trump/Putin Summit, the media presstitutes, Democrats, and CIA controlled the narrative. The question before us is: If it was treason for Trump to meet with Putin, why is it permissible for Biden to meet with Putin? The answer perhaps is that the Biden/Putin Summit is a propaganda trap for the Kremlin. Just as the Kremlin walked into a propaganda trap when it allowed Navalny to take his poison complaint to Germany, the Kremlin might be repeating the folly by agreeing to the meeting with Biden. We know from reports of the pre-summit meeting of Lavrov and the US Secretary of State that Biden’s agenda is a list of accusations against Russia. In other words, Biden’s intent is to hold Putin accountable. Obviously, no improved relations can come from such a meeting unless Putin confesses to the accusations and promises to behave better in the future. Otherwise Washington’s narrative will be that the summit was a failure due to Putin’s unreasonableness. Putin wouldn’t agree to stop poisoning people. Putin wouldn’t agree to stop invading countries. Putin would not agree to stop interfering in elections. Putin would not agree to stop cyber attacks. In other words, Washington will use the summit to reiterate the status of Putin’s Russia as “US public enemy #1.” This is almost certain to be the outcome. Washington is using the Russian desire to be accepted by the West to draw an incautious Kremlin into a propaganda trap. The Biden regime consists of ideologues and is probably the least professional government in US history. But professionalism has nothing to do with it. Biden has many of the same people—Victoria Nuland for example—who organized the “Maidan Revolution” and installed in Ukraine a government hostile to Moscow. Despite Kremlin diplomatic efforts in the European Union, recently the European Parliament voted to support regime change in Russia. With such a high degree of Western hostility toward Russia, how can the Kremlin expect any positive result from a summit? The Kremlin has not understood that Russia is worth far more to Washington as an enemy than as a friend. The “Russian threat” is the basis for the one thousand-billion-dollar annual budget of the US military/security complex and the power that goes with this enormous sum. Without the “Russia threat,” what is the justification for the budget. The “Russian threat” also keeps Western Europe and NATO in line with US policy. If there is no Russian threat, what is the point of NATO? What would prevent European countries from having independent foreign policies, thus contributing to a multi-polar world? Biden’s interest is to heighten, not reduce, tensions with Russia. We should remember that the CIA, FBI, Democrats, and the US media orchestrated “Russiagate” in order to prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. There is no basis for believing that Biden will be permitted to do what Trump was prohibited from doing. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.