2 BLOOMBERG EDITORIALS: US MUST PREPARE FOR WAR WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA SIMULTANEOUSLY (topics: Saudi, Israel)
In the following, you will find our translation of another analysis by Ivan Danilov, who always shows uncommon insight into the machinations of American Establishment figures, including politicians and intellectuals. Here Danilov examines two editorials from Bloomberg, which are both aimed at preparing the US for a confrontation with both Russia and China simultaneously, or in other words, something that could only turn into an apocalyptic scenario. Though Danilov doesn’t mention by name the Thucydides trap described by Allison Graham, he writes:
“...the fact is that the feeling of “American decline” and the death of American hegemony, which no longer even needs resuscitation, but rather the miracle of resurrection from the dead, is both a conclusion and an emotion that can be found throughout the American “press for thinking people.”
In his book “Destined for War” Published May 2017, a scant 2 years ago, author Graham Allison reminds us that Thucydides had once written:
“It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”
The Belferd Centre of the Harvard Kennedy School writes of this theme:
“China and the United States are heading toward a war neither wants. The reason is Thucydides’s Trap, a deadly pattern of structural stress that results when a rising power challenges a ruling one.”
Danilov recognizes that the Thucydides trap has just doubled in size and in danger to world peace, as we are reminded by two Neocon writers published by Bloomberg, who think the US must prepare for war with both China and Russia at the same time, by building up its armed forces even further, as if spending over twice the amount on armaments as China, the world’s biggest defence spender, were not already an extravaganza that threatens to bankrupt the US and rather than strengthen it, in fact, further weakens an already decrepit economy built solely on debt and Ponzi schemes like the petrodollar agreement with Saudi or the attempt to make America great by the Rube Goldberg scheme of fracking and strong-arming Europe into buying extravagantly priced American LNG instead of the much cheaper pipeline-delivered Russian natural gas. Only the fools who run the US fail to realize that you can’t keep holding a gun to your trading partners’ heads and expect them to keep swallowing this insult without fighting back against the dollar that is used more as a weapon than it is as a currency.
Nor is there a clean analogy between the empire building and war making of the US and the ancient empires. The wars of Rome and Greece were focused on confronting real enemies and conquering new lands for their empires. But the US makes war for reasons that are not nearly as clear as this. Geopolitical analysts spend their lives trying to decode the motives of US war makers and go to their graves without fully grasping these motives.
Academicians have long sought the true motivation of America’s wars, but their theories do not reveal anything resembling a clear-cut striving to build riches and conquer territory or to benefit their own people in any way for that matter. Of course, the false pretexts are superficially moral-sounding and many ordinary people still fall for the narrative of the US as the saviour of mankind. But people with a modicum of insight who have lived through, for example, the WMD and Gulf of Tonkin lies, know there is something sinister going on behind the scenes and they have drawn their own conclusions, some of which make sense.
We have shown at New Silk Strategies that there are two factors in these wars that are provable and not just conspiracy theories because they are supported by facts from the msm, though the facts almost never support the conclusions of editorialists and academic analysts, and these factors are Saudi and Israel. Bloomberg supplied the details of the petrodollar agreement concluded between President Nixon and King Faisal in 1973, whereby the US agreed to use its military to protect the Saudi dictators (please don’t call them royals and don’t call Saudi Arabia a kingdom as long as US media and pols call democratically elected leaders like Bashar al Assad dictators and call Syria a “regime.” But if Syria is a regime and Assad is a dictator, then the Saudis are a double dictatorship and deserve no respect at all, only condemnation, for having supported the Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda for many years and having brought permanent chaos to the Middle East. We have exposed the Saudi role in US wars here, here, here and here. As for the Israeli role, we have described it here and here, and it is described in greater detail elsewhere, for example, by Consortium News. We need only look at a brief excerpt, regarding the debate in Congress over entering the Iraq war:
“AIPAC Marching Orders
The more serious problem with focusing on the Logan Act, however, is that what Cotton and his Republican colleagues were doing was not negotiating with a foreign government but trying to influence the outcome of negotiations in the interest of a foreign government.” [which was done under the influence of AIPAC].
And this heavy hand on US foreign policy got started over 50 years ago.
Jewish Press lovingly calls LBJ the first “Jewish president” and the venerable Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes:
“It was 33 years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. While a traumatized nation grieved for its youngest president, he was succeeded by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was to become the most pro-Israel president up to that time. A sea change was about to take place in America’s relations with Israel.” And incredibly, LBJ was so blindly pro-Israel that he totally accepted the slaughter of American seaman of the USS Liberty and ever covered for Israel's ignominious role therein.
As we see, the Israeli involvement in US wars is an open secret and proving it is not the problem. The problem is to avoid being slandered as an anti-Semite if you dare to utter or print publicly what every historian knows. Fortunately, that is not as big a problem as it may seem because the best evidence that we have of the truth about this fact is the Jewish sources themselves, just as the best sources on Israel are Israeli experts, such as historian Ilan Pappe, author of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” and Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, and there is an increasing number of American Jewish groups that are horrified by the treatment of the Palestinians and no longer identify with Israel. Further, polls show that Evangelical young people are considerably less inclined to go along with “Christian” Zionism than their parents, so the support for Israel that made wars in the Middle East popular among US Christians is dwindling and eventually we can expect the religious support for senseless wars to slowly ebb away. It is noteworthy that Trump had to resort to retirement-age Neocons, notably John Bolton, to fill his cabinet, an indication that Zionism is slowly fading in the US.
I have discovered that, in my debates with even the most dyed-in-the-wool Israel defenders and Zionists on Quora, I can placate most of them and end the discussion on a friendly note by doing the following:
1—Quote from Israeli or Jewish sources to prove my point
2—Tell them that in my honest opinion, the bulk of the blame for the damage done by US wars waged on behalf of Israel and by the IDF’s brutality toward Palestine and the missile attacks by the IAF on Syrian targets must be borne not by Jews, nor by Israel, nor even by Zionists, but by American “Christian” Zionists and their total misinterpretation of both the Old and New Testaments. It is obvious that none of these people had ever heard anyone say this and were disarmed by the obviously non anti-Semitic thrust of my arguments.
I then take this opportunity to explain how these “Christians” misinterpret the scriptures, using a limited number of examples. I tell them that their main basis for their belief that God wants them to support Israel and its warlike policies is the prophecy in Ezekiel 37 about the dry bones re-assembling and forming the nation of Israel that was dispersed. Then I mention that, according to verse 24 of that chapter, this resurrected Israel was to have David as its king and to be “obedient to God’s decrees,” whereas a WIN/Gallup poll shows that a full 65% of today’s Israelis have no religion at all and could not possibly be obeying the decrees of the Old Testament God! I tell them that another teaching of “Christian” Zionism comes from a prophecy in II Thessalonians 2:3-4 that the anti-Christ will sit in “the temple of God,” and that therefore, Christians must supposedly support the building of a third temple in Jerusalem so that the anti-Christ may sit there as predicted. However, neither God nor Jesus ever commanded believers, either Jewish or Christian, to help God fulfil His prophecies, and even so, would it not be blasphemy for people calling themselves “Christians” to support the building of a temple so that the anti-Christ would have a place to sit as he persecuted Christians and wreaked chaos on earth?
Thus the most devastating wars of recent time have been promoted and started by Christians who thought they were helping God and supporting Israel but were only deceiving themselves and blundering into delicate foreign policy areas that require years of intense study to understand and of which they are totally ignorant. However, as thorough as our investigation of the causes of recent wars has been, none of this research applies directly to earlier wars such as the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Nonetheless, there is a certain commonality between the wars since, say, the signing of the petrodollar agreement between Nixon and King Faisal in the 70s and some of the earlier geopolitical meddling and wars prior to that, and one of the most prominent features is the US support for jihadism in that earlier period. There is little evidence that Israel or Saudi, for example, supported the Vietnam war, although there are small clues. For example, Mondoweiss writes:
“...in 2002, my brother shocked me when he said, ‘I demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but my Jewish newspaper said this war could be good for Israel.’ “
As for Afghanistan, the CFR writes:
“Beginning in the late 1980s, Saudi Arabia—along with the United States, Pakistan, and others – began supporting the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet occupation.” In fact, interventionist Zbigniew Brzezinski manage to twist Jimmy Carter’s normally pacifist arm into supporting CIA meddling in Afghanistan to weaken the Soviets’ hold on the country.
The US’ early involvement in Afghanistan, beginning with the CIA’s support of the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation, is emblematic of how, despite any good intentions there may have been in Washington, the US is consistently on the side of chaos, confrontation and war while the Russians have sought peace, though at times through brief military involvement. Thus Russia lent its support to a non-sectarian secular Afghan government, while the US has never supported a secular government in any conflict in a Muslim country, invariably taking the side of the religious fanatics, supporting radical jihadists with values diametrically opposed to those of the supposedly “Christian” US. It is obvious to any thinking person today that supporting radical Muslims is playing with fire. Osama bin Laden benefitted, whether directly or indirectly, from the US meddling in Afghanistan, which kicked off a long series of US-initiated wars and regime change interventions in various parts of the world, and the leitmotif was always chaos and instability. It never seems to have occurred to the US interventionists that the genie they were letting out of the bottle might never be contained again.
Russia, even in Soviet days, always strove to bring stability and to overcome radical Islamic terror through secularization. Yes, this was certainly mostly because the Soviets were militantly atheistic, but the end effect of their actions was to oppose and mitigate radical Islamic terrorism and inhuman treatment of women and minorities. This is, BTW, clearly evident in Syria, where, despite whatever ill effects the Assad family may have had on the Syrians, harmony reigned among religious groups. The first US-backed Syrian Spring uprisings were led by radical Sunni sympathizers of the harsh policies introduced by US-backed “rebels” who wanted strict enforcement of sharia law and of laws that forced women into subservient roles in society. And yet, at home in the US, they supported feminists. Thus there was no rhyme nor reason to their policies, which, with a tad bit of foresight, could have been expected to fail colossally, as they did.
Meanwhile, Saudi has been deeply involved in supporting terror groups through private donations while officially supporting the US.
The NYT wrote in 2016:
“The dual tracks allow Saudi officials plausibly to deny official support for the Taliban, even as they have turned a blind eye to private funding of the Taliban and other hard-line Sunni groups.”
“The result is that the Saudis — through private or covert channels — have tacitly supported the Taliban in ways that make the kingdom an indispensable power broker.”
Westerners who point out the errors of their countries, especially the US, as I often do, are often accused of being unpatriotic. But it’s like this.
If you had a son with a serious case of diabetes, would you allow him to eat sweets all day long? The unthinking “Christian” Zionists believe they are “helping to defend” Israel when they send them tons of lethal weapons every year and reflexively spring to the defence of dangerous Israeli policies that only serve to anger countries like Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. There are politicians like John Bolton in the US who would attack Iran at the drop of a hat claiming this would help Israel, when in fact it could easily lead to the nation’s destruction.
I personally see only one path to reconciliation or at least peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Muslim nations not aligned with the US. The US has disqualified itself as an arbiter in the Israel-Arab confrontation because it only sees the arguments of one side in the debate and has no interest in the Arab side at all, only disdain. Which is why it ignores the fact that Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy site as well and the fact that Syrians consider the Golan Heights theirs since it was theirs until it was occupied illegally by Israel. So the US will never be an even-handed arbiter and the Arabs are fully aware of that.
The Arab Youth Poll shows that, unlike a few years ago, this group now deems Russia the most trustworthy and the US the least trustworthy of all non-Muslim nations. There are good reasons for this, but the main one is that Russia has shown itself to be even-handed and friendly toward all nations, even those that deem it an enemy, like the US. I believe that if Russia is chosen as the arbiter in the Middle East conflict, it will eventually pacify Iran on one hand and Israel and the US on the other, and will bring a degree of peace to the Middle East that has never been seen before. All the US has to do is step aside.
It will never do so voluntarily but events with a life of their own, centred about the US dollar, are inevitably shutting down the hegemon.
USA: we must prepare for war with China and Russia at the same time
June 14, 2019
An information campaign has begun in the United States to prepare for a new war: the Pentagon is being asked to prepare for war on two fronts - with Russia and with China at the same time.
The Bloomberg Business Information Agency has published two comprehensive articles designed to frighten the American reader and the decision makers in Washington. One of these frightening texts was written by a geopolitical specialist, an expert at several very influential NGOs (Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Foreign Policy Research Institute), Johns Hopkins University Professor Hall Brands, and the second was released from the pen of the former US and NATO Commander for Europe, James Stavridis, a retired admiral, and now an expert at the financial company Carlyle Group. Both venerable specialists are trying to present to the audience two very unpleasant theses. The first thesis, which the professor and the admiral promote in tandem with each other, is that the United States and its European allies are definitely not ready for the "Russian-Chinese alliance" that threatens the United States and the America-centric world by the very fact of its existence. The second point is that the United States must begin preparations for a clash with two great powers at the same time, with Professor Brands emphasizing that otherwise there is a chance that Washington will be exposed to a combination such that either Beijing or Moscow will get involved in a war with the United States and tie down all American forces, and the second partner in the Russian-Chinese coalition will simply finish off a defenceless America.
This media event could be attributed to the negative attitude of two separate (albeit highly influential) Washington experts who found like-minded pessimists in the team of billionaire Michael Bloomberg (the owner of the Bloomberg agency). But the fact is that the feeling of “American decline” and the death of American hegemony, which no longer even needs resuscitation, but rather the miracle of resurrection from the dead, is both a conclusion and an emotion that can be found in the entire American “press for thinking people.”
From the point of view of American propaganda aimed at consumers of cultural and information fast food, everything is ok: Hollywood continues to make films about how bomb democracy is winning everyone over, creators of popular computer games (including those among the Russian youth) teach children to believe in the "White helmets” and deem Russian military pilots as murderers of innocent Syrians, while Russian (including business) publications write articles about how they want Russia to “be like in Ukraine. "
However, if you go up a level and read, for example, the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, you can get acquainted with another view on reality:
“Looking back, it can be said that the fall seems inevitable. Today, it seems, it’s not the present reality of the eternal conflict within the United States and abroad that needs to be explained, but Washington’s feverish dreams of the end of the last century about the eternal virtuous hegemony of the United States should be explained. However, those who survived know that nothing was predetermined and that history could have turned out differently. Therefore, we decided to carry out a posthumous autopsy of the American leadership of recent decades - those years when the US elites squandered an inheritance and good the name bequeathed to them."
If you look at the slightly panicky text of Admiral Stavridis, it is easy to see that he is appealing to the deepest fear of the Washington (and indeed the entire English-speaking) political elite, which was brought up on Halford John Mackinder’s geopolitical theory. “China and Russia want to control World Island,” Admiral Stavridis writes, and from his point of view, this is a big, one might say, existential threat to the United States. The Russian reader is more familiar with another term from Mackinder’s theory, ie, Heartland, which implies the most strategically important part of Eurasia, control over which is considered one of the key factors of world domination. “World Island” is a better bet than the Heartland, for which our Western partners were ready to fight in the last century, because the “World Island” is (very roughly stated) “Heartland” plus all of Europe, plus all of Asia and Africa. Stavridis, listing the points of interaction between Moscow and Beijing, comes to the iron-clad (from his standpoint) conclusion that the ultimate goal of this cooperation is Sino-Russian control over Eurasia and Africa as a whole, which inevitably implies ousting the United States and its allies (if they survive at all) to the "periphery of the world."
In response, it is proposed to do everything to bind Europe to the United States and not allow the Sino-Russian alliance to "seduce" European countries. The recipe for opposition from a retired admiral is strikingly diplomatic: "The US and its allies should pay attention to the growing cooperation between Russia and China; focus intelligence gathering on how far this cooperation can go; do everything possible to support a united Europe and strengthen the alliances, partnerships and friendships across the periphery of Asia."
Obviously silent on this list of measures is work on sabotaging Russian-Chinese cooperation, but although Admiral Stavridis does not mention this directly, in the very text of the article he deals with propagating typical anti-Chinese theses, starting with statements that Putin "is making the mistake of” collaborating with China and ending with the statement that China “is eyeing Siberia like a dog eyes a steak."
It is significant that it has never occurred to any of the American experts concerned with the rapprochement along the Moscow-Beijing line to suggest any options for normalizing relations between Washington and Moscow. Only punitive and coercive measures are discussed, although this applies equally to US-China and US-European relations: only coercive techniques are discussed, and the word "compromise" essentially does not exist in the lexicon of recommended solutions.
Professor Brands does not mince words and does not rely on diplomacy, but writes with almost military directness about what to do: “America must work out the right combination of capabilities and concepts to defeat China or Russia before it significantly expands its armed forces. But after this combination is determined, the US will have to create - at considerable cost - a large force that can reliably prevent the aggressor from achieving its goals in the second theatre (military operations. - Ed.), Even if America is fighting in the first. In the foreseeable future, the US will simultaneously participate in a tense and dangerous rivalry with China and Russia. "
No need to entertain illusions. In Washington, Russia is perceived as an enemy, and the strengthening of Russian-Chinese friendship and cooperation is perceived as a direct bid for world domination, and the United States will struggle with this “bid,” including by force and diplomatic means. We need to be prepared for this, and protective measures must be taken in advance, without counting on the possibility that common sense and readiness for compromise will prevail in Washington.