Author: Paul Craig Roberts

Author: Paul Craig Roberts

The US Has the World Setup for a Worse Financial Crisis than in 2008

Amid a possible financial crisis in the United States, GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. We respectfully asked Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in written form and he kindly agreed to answer them also in written form.. GEOFOR: The fall of yet another US bank, the First Republic, seems to have been prevented thanks to a temporary assistance of $ 30 billion. The panic in the US and EU markets is also gradually subsiding. Nevertheless, the story of the Silicon Valley Bank and the Signature Bank has made a lot of noise. Tell us, what was it? What can the Administration really do politically and financially to overcome this crunch? What to expect next from the US banking system? Paul Craig Robert: These are excellent questions which I will answer all together in one answer. There are two main avenues to a potential US financial crisis. Such a crisis, because of US financial dominance and because of the interconnections of globalism, a huge mistake for humanity, would be international. One avenue to crisis is the Federal Reserve's current policy of raising interest rates. This policy follows many years of nearly zero interest rates in nominal terms, and negative interest rates in real terms. During these many years the financial assets banks accumulated on their balance sheets, such as bonds, pay a low rate of interest. When the central bank (Federal Reserve) raises interest rates, the values of the lower interest rate financial instruments fall, thus shrinking the asset side of banks' balance sheets but not the liabilities side. Thus the central bank's policy is pushing banks toward insolvency. When depositors realize that their deposits could be frozen for some time or lost if over $250,000 in size, as many corporation payrolls and some individual accounts are, they withdraw their deposits. The banks cannot meet the withdrawals because their assets have shrunk in value relative to deposits and because as they sell the depreciated assets to meet the withdrawals the prices of the troubled assets fall further. Silicon Valley Bank had assets heavily weighted with low interest rate US Treasury bonds, the value of which was driven down by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. The other two banks were victims of crypto-currency which is too volatile for a bank's balance sheet. To prevent the failure of the three US banks from causing a general panic, it was announced that the central bank would provide all banks with sufficient cash to meet withdrawals and that all deposits were insured even if they were higher than the insured amount. This should prevent panic. However, if the central bank continues to raise interest rates, the higher rates will push more banks into insolvency. Central banks make mistakes just like everyone else. In Europe Credit Suisse, a large international bank, is in trouble, yet the European Central Bank just announced a rise in interest rates. The second avenue to crisis is the trillions of dollars in derivatives held by the five large US banks, which are international in their transactions. According to published reports, the five largest banks have $188 trillion in derivative exposure. This sum is vastly greater than the banks' capital base. No one knows what the risk is in these derivatives. But the dollar amount is much higher than in 2008, so the potential for a worse crisis exists. A crisis only takes one mistake by one bond trader at a large institution to ignite a crisis. The derivative crisis that occurred in 2008 (slowly building during 2006 and 2007) resulted from the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented financial crisis for 66 years since its passage in 1933. Advocates of repeal claimed that "financial markets are self-regulating and do not need regulators setting rules." They were wrong as became clear 9 years later. The Glass-Steagall Act separated commercial from investment banking. Commercial banks that take in deposits and lend on that basis were not permitted to undertake more risky and speculative ventures as investment banks that at that time were capitalized by the personal fortunes of their partners. This prevented commercial banks from speculating with depositors' money. The repeal of Glass-Steagall let commercial banks use depositors' deposits, not the banks' own money, to behave like investment banks. This is how the large commercial "banks too big to fail" acquired massive derivative exposure. The derivative risks were not understood by the banks, the rating agencies, or the regulators and exploded into the 2008 crisis resulting in taxpayer bailouts of banks and a decade of low interest rate policy in order to rebuild the asset side of banks' balance sheets. The public was annoyed by the bailout. The result was the Dodd-Frank Act which was misrepresented by politicians, economists, and financial media as a fix of the problem caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But it was not a fix. Dodd-Frank created a new problem. What the Dodd-Frank Act "fixed" was to prevent taxpayer bailouts. Instead, there would be "bail-ins." What this means is that banks in trouble would bail themselves out by being permitted to seize depositors' money. In other words, the Dodd-Frank Act created a powerful incentive for runs on troubled banks. A troubled bank doesn't necessarily mean, or result in, the bank's failure. But because of the Dodd-Frank Act the depositors cannot take the risk, so they withdraw their funds and cause the bank to fail. To summarize, the 2008 crisis and the potential for more crises rests entirely on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the enactment of Frank-Dodd. We are looking at the total, complete failure of intelligence on the part of the US government and economists. Their handiwork has the capability of collapsing the existing financial system of the world. It was the work of total idiots. There are now 200 US banks in the same position as was Silicon Valley bank, the one that failed. There is, of course, the question: Is this real stupidity or is a plot unfolding to collapse the financial system as we have known it in order to "save" us with the introduction of central bank digital currency? Are we passing from the remnants of democracy and self-government into total tyranny? Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. 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 Kremlin’s indecisiveness in Ukraine is dooming the world to nuclear war

On the anniversary of the start of Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine, GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, to find out how the United States assesses the future of the conflict. GEOFOR: Sir, how is the Russo-Ukraine conflict viewed from Washington? Paul Craig Roberts: The Kremlin’s demonstrated inability to take proactive and decisive action has convinced Washington there is nothing to fear from Putin and that Russia can be defeated in Ukraine.  Indeed, the UK media takes for granted that Ukraine will defeat Russia. Here is the latest headline: “The West Needs a Plan for when Ukraine wins.”  Biden’s recent trip was to shore up the Eastern flank of NATO in anticipation of renewed action against Russia. If the Biden regime favored a peaceful settlement, Biden would not have bothered to meet in Warsaw with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Bulgaria.  There would be no need for Biden to go to Kiev to show American support for Zelensky.   I am often interviewed by Russian journalists – never by American ones whose task it is to protect the official narratives.  The Russian journalists are ever hopeful for signs that the US favors a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.  I was just interviewed about Biden’s trip.  Did he go to Kiev to work out a peace plan with Zelensky? How can anyone possibly think Washington favors a peace plan other than Russia’s withdrawal from Donbass and Crimea and payment of reparations to Ukraine? Washington would favor this plan because it would be likely to bring down Putin, which is Washington’s intent. GEOFOR: In your opinion, what are the Kremlin's choices? Paul Craig Roberts: Such a withdrawal from Donbass and Crimea is one of the Kremlin’s two choices. As such a withdrawal would likely mean the fall of the Putin government, the Kremlin only has one choice:  to use the force necessary to quickly bring the conflict to an end before it spirals out of control. It is astounding that after a year of experience the Kremlin has not figured out that by letting the war drag on and on the Kremlin has given Washington and NATO every opportunity to widen it further with provocation after provocation:  sanctions, financial aid, military aid, intelligence, training, targeting information, attack on Crimea bridge, blown up Nord Stream pipelines, tanks, long-range missiles, sooner or later jet fighters. Now Putin is faced with a possible Ukrainian attack on Transnistria where a few thousand Russian troops, with no reinforcements in sight, are standing guard over a stockpile of Soviet-era weapons and ammunition suitable for Ukrainian use.  Will the Russian forces be caught between Ukrainians on their east and Moldavians and Romanians on their West and suffer a defeat that further emboldens the West?  GEOFOR: How do you think the situation could develop? Paul Craig Roberts: If the Kremlin can’t find the intelligence to get this conflict over with quickly, the Kremlin will be backed into a corner where nuclear weapons are the only option.  Not only do some neoconservatives believe Washington can win a nuclear war, but also the West is getting bogus information that Russia’s nuclear weapons don’t work and that there is no danger in attacking Russia. See:   Even if Russia’s nukes do work, Russia won’t use them the Dutch prime minister says: LINK   This kind of disinformation becomes believable because Putin’s unwillingness to use sufficient force to quickly achieve his aims has created the impression that the Russian military is incapable and after one year has failed to prevail over a third world army.  What appears to some as Russian military incompetence and to others as Putin’s lack of resolution encourages more provocative actions by the West.  In the West the belief is that Russia’s defeat is only matter of providing the weapons to Ukraine.   It is an unreal feeling to experience Russian journalists looking for a peaceful settlement when Biden’s Undersecretary of State and many military officers are saying that Crimea is a legitimate target for Ukrainian missile attacks.  Several days ago Secretary of State Blinken said a Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea would be a “red line” for Putin and could result in more forceful Russian action, but that the decision is up to Kiev.  Of course, the decision is not up to Kiev.  Zelensky would not dare make such a decision unless Washington gave the go-ahead.  Blinken’s statement indicates that Washington has given the go ahead, which suggests that longer range missiles are on the way to Ukraine. To put it frankly, Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian military are being discredited by Putin’s failure to commit sufficient resources to quickly win the conflict.  Indeed, in the eyes of the West the Russian military is being humiliated by Putin’s policy, and this must have bad effects on Russian military morale. Today, February 24, 2023, is the anniversary of Russia’s entry into Donbass, which was intended only to free Donbass of Ukraine military and neo-Nazi militias.  It was not an invasion of Ukraine.  But by under-committing military resources and imposing crippling rules of war, Putin guaranteed that Washington would use the generous time Putin provided to greatly widen the war.  Now Putin is faced with the likelihood of missile attacks on the Russian naval base in Crimea. Why is this unimaginable when Washington had no hesitancy in blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines?  What will be the next target for attack?  Moscow? When the expected Russian winter offensive did not materialize, those who reported a large buildup of Russian troops and weapons on Ukraine’s border said that Russians were a symbolic people and were delaying the attack for the anniversary date.  The date has arrived.  If the attack does not occur, the neoconservatives will become even more confident.  Provocations will worsen as they accelerate.  Putin will find Russia backed into a corner where nuclear weapons are his only option. Putin doesn’t realize it, but his inability to act decisively in Ukraine is dooming the world to nuclear war. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. 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: Russian victory will become unacceptable to the West

The conflict in Ukraine is expanding, and in 2023 the West intends to supply Kiev with tanks, as well as long-range weapons. Increasingly, the issue of the possible dispatch of fighters pops up on the agenda. GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, to find out what the world can expect from 2023. GEOFOR: Dear sir! The year 2022 turned out to be a serious test of the world's strength. 2023 begins with a new escalation of the conflict and the start of the supply of tanks to the Ukraine. And delivery of F-16 fighters is increasingly being discussed. Will Europe slide into a big military conflict? Paul Craig Roberts: The problem in the Ukraine conflict is not tanks and F-16s. The problem is the unwillingness of the Kremlin to use sufficient force to bring the conflict to a quick Russians victory before the West adds provocation upon proocation and widens the war into a general war between the West and Russia. It is the inability after one year of the Kremlin to act decisively that is turning the conflict into a world war. The longer the conflict continues, the more involved the West will become. At some point a Russian victory will become unacceptable to the West, and then a general war will unfold. The inability of the Kremlin to understand this is leading to nuclear war. GEOFOR: Europe has relied on Russia for its energy, but now it is increasingly dependent on the supply of energy resources from the United States. Has Washington planned this? What will such a policy of Brussels lead to? Paul Craig Roberts: It is not mainly money but control that is Washington's motivation. Washington's worry is that its hold on its European Empire would be weakened by Europe's dependency on Russian energy. GEOFOR: If we turn to the American issues. Biden is still the president, but the Republicans showed good results in the midterm elections. What can we expect in the new year from the confrontation of «donkeys» and «elephants», as there are only two years left before the presidential elections? Paul Craig Roberts: The Senate Democrats can block whatever the House Republicans do and vice versa. Should any Republican measure get through, Biden can veto it. The House will do a number of investigations of the Russiagate hoax, the January 6 insurrection hoax, etc., and show that these were politically-driven propaganda shows devoid of a shred of real evidence. The media will either not report the findings or accuse the Republicans of «misinformation».   Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. 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 Suppression of Free Speech Has Close to Majority Support in America

Almost every minute of every day I see overwhelming evidence of America’s collapse as a free country.  Elon Musk conducted a poll on whether Twitter should allow President Trump to use the social media platform. Fifteen million people responded.  51.8% of the respondents said “yes,” but almost an equal number 48.2% said “no.”  In other words, almost half of the 15 million social media users who responded to the poll oppose free speech for a former president of the United States.   No doubt, being as indoctrinated as they are, they see Trump as a “pussy-grabber,” a Russian agent, and an insurrectionist and regard cancelling his First Amendment right as punishment.  Many of the same crowd want pedophiles to be relabeled “minor-attracted persons,” a step toward removing limitations on sexual relations between adults and children. They are content with the free speech right of pedophiles to advocate, but not for President Trump to express political views on Twitter. In the case of Julian Assange, Wikileaks’ founder who published the leaked information documenting US war crimes and lies to allies, my headline doesn’t go far enough. A large majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans in practically equal percentages, desire Assange to be prosecuted for doing what journalists are supposed to do. President Trump and his Secretary of State Pompeo denounced Assange with the same intensity as Nancy Pelosi.  Members of both political parties believe that free speech that challenges official narratives should be suppressed. Even more stunning, almost 100% of American print and TV reporters want Assange prosecuted.  Here we have the entirety of the US print and TV media renouncing their own profession. Those who oppose free speech for President Trump probably think of themselves as virtuous, the salt of the earth.  In fact, they are stupid, brainwashed people easily indoctrinated who are so badly educated that they do not understand that free speech is essential to the preservation of liberty.  They are so utterly stupid that they do not understand the meaning for their own lives of the fact that the governing elite are doing everything possible to censor everyone, no matter how distinguished and expert, who dissents from the lies that comprise the official narratives. Throughout the Western World truth is being rapidly closed down. Honest journalists, such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are evicted from print and TV media.  Medical doctors who saved lives by treating Covid patients with Ivermectin and HCQ instead of following the murderous imposed protocol that let them die rather than to admit that there were cures, which would have threatened vaccine profits, are having their medical licenses confiscated as if they had committed a medical crime by saving lives.  Scientists who don’t accept the Woke ideology that gender is self-declared, not biologically determined, are disciplined and fired as “transgender deniers.”  Anthropologists and sociologists who understand that a diverse, multicultural Tower of Babel is not a country are demonized.  Historians who understand that the United States is not based in “white racism” are branded “white supremacists” and “threats to democracy.”  Elections can be stolen in plain view, and no one is permitted to say so. The incidences of suppressions are not merely a few isolated cases that can be dismissed as anomalies.  They are across the board.  The so-called media speaks with one voice and it is all lies. Russian and Iranian news sources that do not adhere to the official Western explanations are either banned in the Western World or forced to register as “foreign agents.”   In other words, the Western World has it fixed so that everything that is not propaganda and a lie in service to official narratives is defined as “misinformation.”  The ruling establishment has set up “fact checkers” whose function is to represent official narratives as the only correct explanations.  Many Americans are so utterly stupid that they believe that someone who calls himself a “fact checker” is one.  The point has been reached where any American who favors free speech, such as Elon Musk, is a prospect for investigation as a foreign agent.  The suppression of truth is the road to tyranny, and 48.2% of Twitter users are all in favor of it. Americans today live in a matrix of lies. Their beliefs result from osmosis in constantly repeated lies.  Truthful information is difficult to find and is being closed down where it exists. The Western World is living in George Orwell’s 1984, the only difference being that the ruling elite today has far more powerful spying and punishment mechanisms.   And they grow stronger every day. Published with the permission of the author

Paul Craig Roberts: Washington is no longer certain that Russia even has any defense of her homeland other than nuclear weapons

GEOFOR: Sir, what’s your view of the prospects of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Dr. Roberts: The future prospects depend entirely on the Kremlin. The situation in Ukraine can radically change if the Kremlin realizes it is at war and not involved in a limited operation and makes the decision to win the war. So far the Kremlin maintains, despite extensive US and NATO involvement, that Russia is conducting a limited military operation to protect Donbass Russians from being slaughtered by Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Consequently, the Kremlin has done very little to prevent Kiev and its Western allies from conducting war against the Russian forces and attacking the territories recently reincorporated into Russia. So the Kremlin is now fighting on Russian territory. Not long ago Putin said that Russia would never again fight on her own territory. Yet Russia is. As long as the Kremlin refrains from attacking Kiev's ability to wage war, the war will continue, and it will continue to widen. Already the war has gone from the West supplying weapons and financial aid to intelligence and targeting information, to US troops deployed on Ukraine's border, to the attack on the Crimea bridge, to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, to the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO, to the reformulation of US nuclear doctrine to permit first use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat. Clearly, the mistaken attempt to limit the war has greatly expanded it by allowing the conflict to drag on and on, thus enabling increasing Western involvement. GEOFOR: What are the consequences of the conflict being dragged out, and was the revision in US nuclear doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons in the absence of a nuclear threat was one consequence? Dr. Roberts: In my considered opinion the purpose of loosening Washington's constraints on the use of nuclear weapons is to put more pressure on the Kremlin. The purpose of the revision is to tell Russia that if the US decides a Russian victory in Ukraine is a threat to US national interest, the US can use nuclear weapons to prevent a Russian victory. Washington has seen so much of what Washington regards as Kremlin hesitancy, unpreparedness, and half-hearted commitments to the conflict, such as too few troops and no reserves, that Washington has decided to apply more pressure on the Kremlin. By permitting a long drawn-out conflict, the Kremlin gave the West the time it needed to take the initiative in the conflict. The West now sees Russia as reacting to Western propaganda and initiatives. When the attacking party loses the initiative defeat follows. GEOFOR: In view of the vast superiority of Russian military capability over the Ukraine, what, in your opinion, explains the length of the conflict and the Russian withdrawals from Kherson and the Kharkov areas? Dr. Roberts: The Kremlin's basic mistake was to regard its intervention as a legalistic rather than a strategic matter. The Kremlin was concerned not to open itself to being labeled a war criminal by attacking Ukraine. Therefore, Russia went to the aid of independent republics who were under attack. The purpose was to protect the Donbass populations, not to defeat Ukraine. This is permissible and is not considered an attack on the Ukraine. It is unclear why the Kremlin thought the West would refrain from calling Russia's intervention an "invasion of the Ukraine." The limited intervention was a strategic mistake. The Kremlin somehow overlooked that Washington, having forced the Russian intervention, would not allow the conflict to be limited. Much had been said and written in US foreign policy circles about involving Russia in a "Vietnam" in the Ukraine in order to break off European business deals with Russia and growing energy dependence, both of which threatened Washington's hold on its European empire.  Apparently, the Kremlin paid no attention to this dimension of the situation.  Additionally, the Kremlin intervened with insufficient forces and no reserves, leaving the Russian forces with insufficient troops to hold existing lines and continue the offensive. This mistake permitted the Ukraine to seize the initiative and launch counter-offensives that have been presented in the West as Russian defeats. These "defeats" have emboldened more crossings of Russian red lines and more serious provocations. What the Kremlin needed was a quick decisive victory over the Ukraine with a Russian imposition of peace terms dividing the country as the winner--Russia--saw as necessary for Russian security. Such a clear decisive victory would have deprived Washington of the opportunity to get the West involved and most likely would have discouraged Europe from contemplating military conflict with Russia. Indeed, I suspect NATO would have broken up instead of expanding. Instead, what the West has seen is unenforced Russian red lines, indecision, and a Russian military that can be defeated. And still the Kremlin fails to see the impracticality of its "limited operation." It is the limited operation that is the cause of an ever widening war. A new development might cause the war to widen into a direct US/Russia conflict. The small number of soldiers with which the Kremlin entered Donbass and the extraordinary amount of time it is taking to reinforce these troops is causing Washington to wonder if Russia really has a standing army. The Russian military must have known for some time that Russia had insufficient troops in the field to both defend existing lines and continue its offensive. Yet, in place of reinforcements, there are embarrassing withdrawals and retreats. Kherson, an important city of psychological value, now a Russian city, had to be given up to the Ukrainian Nazis. Russia's loss of Kherson has made Washington much more confident that the Russian military can be defeated on the battlefield. Washington is no longer certain that Russia even has a one million man standing army or any defense of her homeland other than nuclear weapons. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. 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: A revolutionary spirit has entered the Democrat Party which has a new constituency composed of LGBT and multiculturalism

GEOFOR: What happened to Republican hopes in the election?  Why was the outcome so different from expectations? Dr. Roberts: Americans, not all of them but most, are too proud of their country and too protective of its reputation as “the world’s best democracy” to admit it, but they have just experienced another stolen election.  All the telltale signs are there–just as they are for the 2020 presidential election that was stolen from President Trump.  Ballot count delays while Democrats round up sufficient fraudulent ballots to offset the Republican’s victory.  Sudden upward spikes of 100,000 votes in one moment of time to push a Democrat candidate on a losing path ahead of the Republican.  It is not possible for that number of ballots to be counted in such a short time period or that they would all be for one candidate alone.  I know of no Republican candidate winning by a sudden upward spike in votes. This is a phenomenon exclusive to Democrats.  A person might think that it would strike people as curious that only Democrats win by sudden upward vote spikes and ask questions, but no such question arises.  To my knowledge, no election official has ever produced the names of the vast numbers of Democrats who somehow voted all at once in a short time for the Democrat candidate.   Fox TV's Tucker Carlson pointed out one way the Democrats stole the Arizona election.  The Democrats arranged for the voting machines to fail in voting precincts known as Republican majority.  Those unable to vote, or some of them, were given a ballot to be put in a box when completed to be counted later. Next the Democrats announced that these uncounted ballots were “accidentally” mixed with already counted ballots and there was no way to tell them apart.  This is one-way Republican votes were flushed out of the vote counting system. Some insouciant people say, “there has always been vote fraud, there is nothing new to see here.”  What these unbothered people overlook is that never before the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 midterm election has vote fraud been organized on a national basis and across state lines. Past instances of election theft were local phenomena.   Other people say that Republicans steal votes also and point to George W. Bush’s victory in Florida over Al Gore.  But the Florida count was a procedural issue decided by the US Supreme Court, not by voting machines, stuffed ballot boxes, or other means.  The evidence was that it was Democrats in Brevard County who were trying to steal the election for Al Gore. My conclusion that the last two elections were organized thefts by Democrats is not partisan.  My conclusion rests in analysis.  There is a big new difference between Republicans and Democrats.  We can no longer view the parties as liberal vs. conservative, the working class against Wall Street and the large corporations.  The working class, formerly a protectorate of the Democrats, is today disavowed as “Trump Deplorables.”  A revolutionary spirit has entered the Democrat Party which has a new constituency composed of LGBT, multiculturalism, and Woke censors who claim the power to regulate speech and insure its compliance with their ideology.   A generation or two of anti-Western, anti-white propaganda in our Universities – “Western Civ Has to go,” for example, has filtered down into the primary public school system.  Transgender theory is used to confuse children about their natural gender and to give children the idea that gender is something chosen, not imposed by nature or birth. Critical race theory is used to inculcate guilt in white kids and infuse them with the acceptance that a merit-based society must be abandoned in the interest of advancement of the racially oppressed. The New York Times supports this indoctrination with its 1619 Project which teaches that the United States is based in racism and white supremacy.  “Diversity” and “multiculturalism” are used to break down and destroy the inculcation of youth into Western civilization.  By transforming a once homogenous country into a Tower of Babel, a social revolution is effected.  Parents lose control over their children to school boards and Child Protective Services. Democrats are currently trying to criminalize parental opposition to sex change operations of their children as “child abuse.”  Parents who object to public schools supported by their property taxes teaching their kids that the kids and parents are racists are ejected from school board meetings and in some cases threatened with investigation.  If the parents work for companies with Woke executives, they might be fired.  Just as revolutionary ideas have filtered down from universities into public schools via university graduates, the same has happened to corporations, media, and medical practice.   The revolution has been gradual and consequently was regarded as the ramblings of a few nutcases.  This left the revolution largely unopposed and contributed to its success. Another feature of the Democrats’ revolution is open borders that are flooding the US population with non-whites, essentially turning the US into a non-white country, thereby dispensing with the “reactionary values of Western civilization.”  At the hands of Democrats, white Americans are facing civilizational genocide. The first nationally organized theft of an election was the 2020 presidential election.  It met with much opposition.  Numerous independent experts analyzed the data and proved conclusively that the election was stolen. Some Republicans made national efforts to present the evidence to media and the public.  But nothing came of their efforts. The official narrative was immediately established that “there is no evidence of a stolen election.”  Some of those who had made an issue of the theft were branded “enemies of democracy” and threatened with investigations and arrests.  No one asked if the elections were honest why such an intense effort to silence skeptics?  When skeptical Republicans finally got an opportunity to present evidence of electoral fraud prior to the vote certifying Biden’s “victory,” the Democrats orchestrated an “insurrection,” and Rino Republicans like Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell helped to deep-six the presentation of evidence.  As the US has a propaganda ministry instead of a media, few Americans know that the reason for the orchestrated “insurrection” was to block the presentation of the evidence of electoral fraud to Congress prior to the certification of Biden’s win. There is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is very different from what people think.  Democrats have become a party with a revolutionary agenda while Republicans still operate in the old order that Democrats are in the process of overthrowing.  For those with revolutionary fervor, power is much more important than democracy or a  fair vote.  This leaves Republicans much disadvantaged as their lack of a revolutionary agenda leaves them without determination to seize power at all cost.  Yes, they want power, but not for revolutionary purposes. For revolutionaries, there are no constraints on the grasp for power. The Republican response to the stolen 2022 election is almost nonexistent.  Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich asked, “What’s going on?” But he doesn’t answer “a stolen election.”  He simply says that he was wrong in expecting, like all other analysts, a “red wave.”  He questions not the vote spikes, delayed vote counts, and misplaced or lost ballots.  Instead, he questions the models that projected on the basis of past experience the likely election outcome: “It makes me challenge every model I’m aware of, and realize that I have to really stop and spend a good bit of time thinking and trying to put it all together.”  Gingrich wonders how it is possible that Republicans got 5 or 6 million more votes in last Tuesday’s election than in the prior election and it only resulted in a small difference in result.  In other words, he hints that something is fishy, but knows he cannot say it.   Rino Republicans were quick to blame the Republicans’ disappointing outcome on Trump.  Other Republicans, such as Senator Josh Hawley (R, Mo.), blame the Republicans for caving in on issues instead of fighting and says, “The old party is dead. Time to bury it. Build something new.”  This is sort of what President Trump was trying to do by trying to reinvigorate the American way, and the Establishment ejected him and is determined that he not return to politics.  As Trump discovered, the problem of restoration or renewal is impossible politically when all major institutions–media, education, corporate, Wall Street, CIA, FBI, Department of Justice even when they are your own appointees are opposed to it. How can the Republican Party survive as an independent force when the Department of Justice and FBI are politicized weapons in the hands of Democrats, when corporate America, supposedly “big business behind Republicans” is in the hands of Woke executives, when the print and TV media serve as a Ministry of Truth & Propaganda for Democrats, when insouciant Americans have little comprehension of what is happening before their eyes and little time, energy, and inclination to find out? Conservative Kevin MacDonald blames a lack of white awakening.  White Americans, despite the clear fact that the Democrats are out to get them with critical race theory and Identity Politics still vote for the Democrats who are at work displacing white civilization with “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”   In other words, blame the victims and not the Democrats who stole the election. The vote in large Democrat controlled cities is in the hands of Democrats who control the process and vote counting.  There is no way   for Republicans to monitor the voting.  Authority is in the hands of local Democrats, not in the hands of Republican poll watchers. Whatever objections the poll watchers make will be dismissed by the presstitutes as “misinformation.”   To bring in an outside authority, the elections would have to be federalized which would mean over-riding the Constitution, which can’t stand any more over-riding and still exist.  Moreover, federalizing the elections would simply put them more firmly in the hands of Democrats and their operatives in the FBI, DOJ, and federal bureaucracy.  What must be understood is that a political party with a revolutionary agenda is not constrained by rules.  It is just as nonsensical for Republicans to expect revolutionary Democrats to abide by rules as it for the Kremlin to expect the same from Washington.  When you continually expect an opponent to abide by rules who never does, you are continually surprised and taken advantage of.   For Republicans it might be too late to come to this realization.  I doubt Republicans will ever be permitted to return to power.  Two successfully stolen elections in a row have established a new election paradigm that is immune to fraud accusations.  As for the Kremlin, it remains to be seen if Putin has waited too long to bring the war in Ukraine to a close that is to Russia’s advantage.  The Kremlin’s delay in bringing the war to a victorious conclusion has allowed the war to widen to such an extent that it is difficult for the West to step back from the conflict and disengage.   I fear that America is on two deadly paths.  One leads to a one party state.  The other leads to nuclear war. This is what happens when people do not pay attention. GEOFOR: Was there a Trump Insurrection? Dr. Roberts: On October 11, FBI Special Agent Justin Eller testified at the seditious conspiracy trial of four Oath Keepers in federal court.  An attorney for the defense asked Eller if in the Oath Keepers’ communications that he reviewed there was any indication that the Oath Keepers intended to storm the Capitol or stop the certification of the stolen presidential election.  He answered “no” to both questions. In other words, the FBI and the federal prosecutor had no evidence in support of the charges against the Oath Keepers who were on trial. Today this is commonplace in America.  Before we go further, let us establish the identity of Oath Keepers.  According to the whore media they are far rightwing white supremacists who are a threat to American democracy.  But in actual fact they seem to be for the most part military veterans who swore the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  As the Oath Keepers were formed for that purpose, why, if they are Oath Keepers, would they violate their oath by conspiring against the United States? The Democrats know, as does the whore media, that the Democrats stole the last presidential election. The presstitute mantra that “there is no evidence of a stolen election” is demonstrably false from the hard evidence and its presentation by many independent experts.  But as the presstitutes say it is not so, it is not so. People do not know because the whore media have not told them that prior to the vote certification that was to be held on January 6, dissenting Republicans had an opportunity to present evidence that the vote was fraudulent.  The Democrats used the “insurrection” that they orchestrated with federal agents to prevent the presentation of the evidence of electoral fraud. This suited Rino Republicans such as Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who, himself being a member of the Washington Establishment, was both threatened and outraged by Trump’s assault on the Washington Establishment. Rino McConnell was instrumental in using the orchestrated “insurrection” to break up the vote certification before the evidence of fraud could be presented. If Oath Keepers are aligned with Trump against the Establishment, which is the case, why would they act to prevent the presentation of the evidence that the election was stolen?  It makes no sense.  In other words, the Oath Keepers had no motive for the behavior for which they are on trial. As the joint party Establishment and its media whores control the explanations, few Americans are aware that the allegedly vote certification session that Oath Keepers are accused of disrupting was also a certification to determine whether the election was fraudulent.  It was the presentation of evidence of electoral fraud that was blocked by using the cover of a “Trump Insurrection.” An insurrection needs insurrectionists.  The Democrats had none to put on trial except the federal agents at the Capitol who tried to incite incidents while President Trump addressed the rally at the Washington Monument a mile or more away.  How could there be an insurrection at the Capitol when the Trump supporters were attending a rally at the Washington Monument?   The whore media, of course, never asked this question. And neither did federal prosecutors prosecuting innocent people. Where did the Democrats get the needed “insurrectionists”? They got them from social media, cell phone, and email providers who turned over to the FBI social media messages and emails that indicated who attended the Trump rally.  Americans who attended the rally were designated “potential insurrectionists.”  Those who filtered down to the Capitol became the “insurrectionists.” The “Trump Insurrection” was the first unarmed insurrection in history. According to media reports there are 600 “Trump insurrectionists” serving prison sentences.  The worse offense seems to have been to take your photo sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair and posting it on social media, clearly a non-intelligent thing to do, but hardly an indication of insurrection. Some of the imprisoned insurrectionists copped a plea, so the Democrats use these “confessions” as proof that there was a Trump insurrection.  But in America today all sorts of people cop a plea, both the innocent and the guilty.  The reason is that defending oneself is extremely expensive and fraught with high risk. Few defendants have the financial means or toleration of risk to face a jury trial.  In times past juries were protective of defendants; today juries are wrapped around the prosecutors’s finger.  Those without resources are dependent on government subsidized public defenders.  Public defenders who defend their clients are not assigned clients by the system as they waste prosecutors and judges’ time in jury trials when the system wants cases quickly disposed of with plea bargains.  The incentive of public defendants is to encourage their clients to cop a plea.  Defense attorneys’ convincing argument to their clients is that if you demand a jury trial, you face these problems that your attorney can do nothing about.  First, you make problems for the prosecutor, whose career and political aspirations depend on his conviction rate. Trials take time, during which the prosecutor could have achieved numerous plea bargain convictions, thus boosting his all important conviction tally. The prosecutor can respond to your refusal to cop a plea by enlarging the criminal accusations against you. Prosecutors have the ability to hire people to testify falsely against you.  If the prosecutor wants you as an addition to his conviction rate, I cannot help you.  Let me make a plea for you that will get you off lightly compared to the sentence you will get if you go to trial. Your innocence aside, you are going to jail regardless.  The only question is for how long.  I can shorten your imprisonment if you cooperate with me. This is the way American “justice” works.  It works the same way for rich and poor.  The same thing happened to billionaire Michael Milken, to billionaire Leona Helmsley, and to centi-millionaire Martha Stewart. They were all falsely accused, they all had the best and most prestigious attorneys, and they were all convicted and went to prison, Milken with a plea bargain and Helmsley with a trial.  And their prosecutor, Rudy Giuliana, used their high-profile convictions to become Mayor of New York. Second, protesting your innocence you make problems for the judge whose docket is already full and crowded. You are making the judge’s life stressful by making him have a trial that might take a week or longer while his docket builds. Third, you have close to zero chance with a jury.  Juries composed of brainwashed Americans who see themselves threatened by crime are predisposed, unless black, to believe the prosecutor, and if the defendant is white, the blacks on the jury are all predisposed to convicting him for being a racist.  It would be interesting to know how many white defendants have been found innocent by black jurors. In short, a jury trial angers prosecutor, judge, and your defense counsel who wants to collect his fee and move on to to his next fee by having you cooperate with the system.  Plea bargains are so prevalent that according to the US Department of Justice, 96% of felony cases are resolved by plea bargains. The plea bargain that the defendant has to make does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with the charges that are the basis for his indictment.  He can be accused of A and confess to B.  All the prosecutor and judge need in order to avoid a time-consuming trial is an admission to something.  Some years ago I read that most people in prison are there on charges that are not in their original indictment. They were in prison on plea bargains that provided shorter sentences in exchange for admitting to offenses that were not even charged in the original indictments. In the Unites States “justice” is a weapon to discipline and to punish people who are out of step with official narratives.  The Oath Keepers are out of step, because they point to the erosion of the US Constitution, still a governing, though much weakened, document.  In the United States, the British Isles, and Europe the presstitutes can destroy anyone–even a President of the United States–by printing lies about him.  Look at what has happened to Trump.  Look at what has happened to Julian Assange.  Look at what has happened to the medical scientists and doctors who were on the side of the people instead of on the side of Big Pharma and its marketing agents such as Fauci, Biden, NIH, CDC, FDA. In the Western world today, nothing is based on truth.  Facts are inconvenient for the ruling elites and are discarded in George Orwell’s 1984 Memory Hole. The failure of the American people to correct the situation on November 8 and the success the Democrats have had in stealing another election tells us that the only future Americans and the entire Western world face is tyranny. In America it is only patriots who are persecuted.  Voters in Pennsylvania, if the election was not stolen, actually elected a US Senator who wants to release the criminals from prison.  It is not the innocents wrongly convicted that he wants to release, it is the real criminals who rob, rape, and murder. Before America lost its way, who would ever have thought that Americans would elect a US Senator who believes that it is robbers, rapists, and murderers who are abused and not their victims. Sodom and Gomorrah was once regarded as the epitome of evil, but not today.  Sodom and Gomorrah pales in comparison to the evil that rules the West today. And the Russians still place hopes in “negotiations” with the Evil Empire.  How can such a self-deceived people as Russians survive? GEOFOR: Is the US too involved in Ukraine to disengage? Dr. Roberts: The Pentagon has appointed a Lt. General (3 stars) Terry Wolff to head a new Army headquarters in Germany with a staff of 300 US military members to coordinate security assistance for Ukraine. Gen. Wolff is a graduate of the US Army Ranger School, a former officer of an armored division, and former director of Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff.  This is not the kind of officer that is given inventory assignments. As previously reported, Washington already has a division of troops deployed, not training, on Ukraine’s border and uniformed personnel in Ukraine ostensibly to prevent Ukraine from selling the weapons supplied by the West in black markets.  Is “security assistance” a cover story for setting up a War Command Staff for the purpose of waging war in Ukraine against Russia? If it is a subterfuge, it is one similar to those used to get the US involved in the Vietnam War. Putin might be on the point of learning that his “limited operation” has left him with two choices:  conclude a face-saving truce with Ukraine, if permitted, or find himself at war with the United States. Meanwhile, the Kremlin is trying to revive Russian financial integration with the West, having learned nothing from the sanctions.  Russia wants financial reconnection to the SWIFT payments system in order to be paid for food and fertilizer shipments.  In other words, the Kremlin wants to bail out Washington from the responsibility for the hardships Washington’s sanctions policy is imposing, not on Russia, but on countries where hunger is a threat.  Again, we have the Kremlin protecting her enemies as in Ukraine.  The Kremlin certainly behaves strangely for a country at war. I hope Putin doesn’t think he is going to earn brownie points in Washington. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. 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 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.

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.

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.