America Versus Russia

 

The First US Onslaught To “Weaken” Post-Cold War Russia  [ but not Poland ]
QUOTE
The first post-cold war assault on Russia by the West began in the early 1990s well before the expansion of NATO. It took the form of a U.S.-induced economic depression in Russia that was deeper and more disastrous than the Great Depression that devastated the U.S. in the 1930s. And it came at a time when Russians were naively talking of a “Common European Home” and a common European security structure that would include Russia.

The Disastrous Russian Depression Resulting from Western supervised “Shock Therapy.”
The magnitude of this economic catastrophe was spelled out tersely in a recent essay by Paul Krugman who wondered whether many Americans are aware of the enormous disaster it was for Russia. Krugman is quite accurate in describing it – but not in identifying its cause.

The graph below shows what happened to Russia beginning in the early 1990s as a result of the economic policies that were put in place under the guidance of U.S. advisors, the economist Jeffrey Sachs, perhaps the foremost among them. Sachs describes his contribution here. These policies drive an economy abruptly from a centrally planned economy with price controls to an economy where prices are determined by the market. This process is often described as “shock therapy.”.....................

The plot shows that, upon the onset of “shock therapy” in 1991, the economy of Russia crumbled to 57% of its level in 1989, a decline of 43%! By comparison the U.S. economy in the Great Depression of the 1930s fell to 70% of its pre-Depression level, a decline of 30%. The life expectancy dropped by roughly 4 years in Russia during that period. Poverty and hopelessness became the norm. From my experience, few Americans know of this, and fewer still understand its magnitude....................

It is immediately clear that Poland went through a brief downturn lasting two years but recovered quickly, unlike Russia which continued in a slump for 16 years. Why the difference between the two? A big part of the answer is provided by economist Jeffrey Sachs who was in the forefront of advisors for the transitions in both countries and hence is a man who knows whereof he speaks. As Sachs put it in an interview here on DemocracyNow!, he was present during a “controlled experiment” where he could observe what led to such different outcomes. He says:

“I had a controlled experiment, because I was economic adviser both to Poland and to the Soviet Union in the last year of President Gorbachev and to President Yeltsin in the first two years of Russian independence, 1992, ’93. My job was finance, to actually help Russia find a way to address, as you (the interviewer, Juan Gonzalez) described it, a massive financial crisis. And my basic recommendation in Poland, and then in Soviet Union and in Russia, was: To avoid a societal crisis and a geopolitical crisis, the rich Western world should help to tamp down this extraordinary financial crisis that was taking place with the breakdown of the former Soviet Union.

“Well, interestingly, in the case of Poland, I made a series of very specific recommendations, and they were all accepted by the U.S. government — creating a stabilization fund, canceling part of Poland’s debts, allowing many financial maneuvers to get Poland out of the difficulty. And, you know, I patted myself on the back. ‘Oh, look at this!’

“I make a recommendation, and one of them, for a billion dollars, stabilization fund, was accepted within eight hours by the White House. So, I thought, ‘Pretty good.’

“Then came the analogous appeal on behalf of, first, Gorbachev, in the final days, and then President Yeltsin. Everything I recommended, which was on the same basis of economic dynamics, was rejected flat out by the White House. I didn’t understand it, I have to tell you, at the time. I said, ‘But it worked in Poland.’ And they’d stare at me blankly. In fact, an acting secretary of state in 1992 said, ‘Professor Sachs, it doesn’t even matter whether I agree with you or not. It’s not going to happen.’

“And it took me, actually, quite a while to understand the underlying Geopolitics. Those were exactly the days of Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and what became the Project for the New American Century, meaning for the continuation of American hegemony. I didn’t see it at the moment, because I was thinking as an economist, how to help overcome a financial crisis. But the unipolar politics was taking shape, and it was devastating. Of course, it left Russia in a massive financial crisis that led to a lot of instability that had its own implications for years to come.

“But even more than that, what these people were planning, early on, despite explicit promises to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, was the expansion of NATO. And Clinton started the expansion of NATO with the three countries of Central Europe — Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic — and then George W. Bush Jr. added seven countries — Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic states — but right up against Russia. …..”

The Neocons at Work, Carrying Out “The Wolfowitz Doctrine,” the Latest Expression of the Post-WWII U.S. Drive For Total Global Domination.
It is quite clear that the goal of the United States was not to help Russia but to bring it down, and Sachs correctly links that to the US quest for global hegemony first set forth in the months before Pearl Harbor and reiterated by the neocons who are now its champions. Among them Sachs mentions Paul Wolfowitz whose “doctrine” sums up the goals of the post-Soviet era with the words:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival , either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

“We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

What better way to achieve this goal than to reduce the economy of Russia to a basket case? Sachs draws a direct line from the Great Russian Depression of the 1990’s and early 2000’s to the expansion of NATO, the U.S. backed coup of a duly elected President in Ukraine in 2014 and on to the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, also designed to “weaken” Russia. The hand of the US was at work every step of the way..............

Certainly there were other factors contributing to this tragedy which Sachs himself discusses here. But there is no doubt that the actions of the US and the West were critical factors in the Great Russian Depression. An understanding of this goes a long way in making sense of events leading up to the present moment of U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and the brutal sanctions imposed on Russia. This understanding, however, does not fit the narrative to which the NYT confines itself – and its readers.

John V. Walsh, until recently a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for the San Francisco Chronicle, EastBayTimes/San Jose Mercury News, Asia Times, LA Progressive, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch, Consortium News, Scheerpost and others
UNQUOTE
TPTB = The Powers That Be  in America hate Russia. They are building their New World Order with its head office in Tel Aviv. But they will fail because China is getting bigger, richer, stronger.

 

Enlargement of NATO ex Wiki
NATO is a military alliance of twenty-eight European and two North American countries that constitutes a system of collective defense. The process of joining the alliance is governed by Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows for the invitation of "other European States" only and by subsequent agreements. Countries wishing to join must meet certain requirements and complete a multi-step process involving political dialog and military integration. The accession process is overseen by the North Atlantic Council, NATO's governing body. NATO was formed in 1949 with twelve founding members and has added new members eight times. The first additions were Greece and Turkey in 1952. In May 1955, West Germany joined NATO, which was one of the conditions agreed to as part of the end of the country's occupation by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, prompting the Soviet Union to form their own collective security alliance (commonly called the Warsaw Pact) later that month. Following the end of the Franco regime, newly-democratic Spain chose to join NATO in 1982.

In 1990, the Soviet Union and NATO reached an agreement that a reunified Germany would join NATO under West Germany's pre-existing membership. However, restrictions were agreed to on the deployment of NATO troops on former East German territory. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led many former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states to initiate discussions about joining NATO. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic became NATO members in 1999, amid much debate within NATO itself and Russian opposition. NATO then formalized the process of joining the organization with "Membership Action Plans", which aided the accession of seven Central and Eastern Europe countries shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Two countries on the Adriatic Sea—Albania and Croatia—joined on 1 April 2009 before the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit. The most recent member states to join NATO were Montenegro on 5 June 2017 and North Macedonia on 27 March 2020.

In July 2022, NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join the organization, and the ratification process for the two countries is in progress.^[1][2] In September 2022, Ukraine applied for NATO membership.^[3] As of October 2022, two additional states have formally informed NATO of their membership aspirations: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia.^[4] Kosovo also aspires to join NATO.^[5] Joining the alliance is a debate topic in several other European countries outside the alliance, including Austria, Ireland, Malta, Moldova, and Serbia.^[6]

 

Washington Orchestrating Ukraine Protests [ 20 February 2014 ]
The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department, and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department.  The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

The US and EU were initially cooperating in the effort to destroy the independence of Ukraine and make it a subservient entity to the EU government in Brussels. For the EU government, the goal is to expand the EU.  For Washington, the purposes are to make Ukraine available for looting by US banks and corporations and to bring Ukraine into NATO so that Washington can gain more military bases on Russia’s frontier.  There are three countries in the world that are in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world—Russia, China, and Iran. Each of these countries is targeted by Washington for overthrow or for their sovereignty to be degraded by propaganda and US military bases that leave the countries vulnerable to attack, thus coercing them into accepting Washington’s will.

The problem that has arisen between the US and EU with regard to Ukraine is that Europeans have realized that the takeover of Ukraine is a direct threat to Russia, which can cut Europe off from oil and natural gas, and if there is war completely destroy Europe.  Consequently, the EU became willing to stop provoking the Ukraine protests.

The response of the neoconservative Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was “fuck the EU,” as she proceeded to describe the members of the Ukraine government that Washington tended to impose on a people so unaware as to believe that they are achieving independence by rushing into Washington’s arms. I once thought that no population could be as unaware as the US population.  But I was wrong. Western Ukrainians are more unaware than Americans.

The orchestration of the “crisis” in Ukraine is easy. The neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told the National Press Club in Washington on December 13, 2013, that the US has “invested” $5 billion in agitation in Ukraine. The crisis essentially resides in western Ukraine where romantic ideas about Russian oppression are strong and the population is less Russian than in the eastern Ukraine.

The hatred of Russia in western Ukraine is so dysfunctional that the duped protesters are unaware that joining the EU means the end of Ukraine independence and rule by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels, the European Central Bank, and US corporations.  Perhaps Ukraine is two countries. The western half could be given to the EU and US corporations, and the eastern half could be reincorporated as part of Russia, where the entire Ukraine resided for as long as the US has existed.

The disaffection from Russia that exists in western Ukraine makes it easy for the EU and US to cause trouble. Those in Washington and Europe who wish to destroy Ukraine’s independence portray an independent Ukraine as a hostage of Russia, while a Ukraine in the EU is allegedly under the protection of the US and Europe.  The large sums of money that Washington funnels into NGOs in Ukraine propagate this idea and work the population into a mindless frenzy.  I have never in my life witnessed people as mindless as the Ukrainian protesters who are destroying the independence of their country.

The US- and EU-financed NGOs are fifth columns designed to destroy the independence of the countries in which they operate. Some pretend to be “human rights organizations.”  Others indoctrinate people under cover of “education programs” and “building democracy.” Others, especially those run by the CIA, specialize in provocations such as “Pussy Riot.” Few if any of these NGOs are legitimate.  But they are arrogant.  The head of one of the NGOs announced prior to the Iranian elections in which Mousavi was Washington’s and the CIA’s candidate that the election would result in a Green Revolution. He knew this in advance, because he had helped to finance it with US taxpayer dollars. I wrote about it at the time.  It can be found on my website, www.paulcraigroberts.org and in my just published book, How America Was Lost.

The Ukrainian “protesters” have been violent, but the police have been restrained.  Washington has a vested interest in keeping the protests going in the hopes of turning the protests into revolt so that Washington can grab Ukraine.  This week the US House of Representatives passed a resolution threatening sanctions should the violent protests be put down by the police.

In other words, if the Ukrainian police behave toward violent protesters in the way that US police behave toward peaceful protesters, it is reason for Washington to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Washington is using the protests to destroy the independence of Ukraine and has ready the list of puppets that Washington intends to install as Ukraine’s next government.

This article was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org and has been used here with permission.

Does this sound paranoid? If only it were. Paul Roberts, a distinguished economist who was in American politics explains all. He quotes Victoria Nuland, a  Foul Mouthed Jew who said America had invested $5 billion to incite trouble there. It is a power play, mainly about controlling oil. The Main Stream Media hasn't told us, which pretty well proves that Doctor Roberts is right. See the action at  Kiev

 

 

US Blacklists China's High Tech Chip Company  [ 23 December 2022 ]
QUOTE
The US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) last week moved Chinese NAND flash memory maker Yangtze Memory Technologies Co (YMTC) from its “Unverified List” to its “Entity List”, the Biden administration’s latest punitive move against a major Chinese technology company.  

In the words of the BIS, those who qualify for the Entity List “have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.”

Sales of semiconductor production equipment, electronic design automation software and other products to YMTC will now be subject to “stringent license requirements” that cover exports not only from the US but of products made in other countries using US technology.
UNQUOTE
China has real education, high IQ people and a work ethic. America has a policy of importing millions of low IQ alien parasites, who might speak English. It is also using Diversity as an attack on society; infiltrating black parasites into jobs with responsibilities. The Long March Through The Institutions is doing its job of destroying Western Civilization, infiltrating the incompetent and malevolent into power. One example is Joe Biden, incapable of reading a teleprompter. It is why China Gets Richer As America Gets Poorer. The American response, its counter-attacks are a nasty case of Geopolitics at its worst.