Author: Paul Craig Roberts

Author: Paul Craig Roberts

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.