Almindeligvis er jeg uenig med Paul Craig Roberts om stort set alt. Som tidligere ansat i Reagan-administrationen regnes han for at være på højrefløjen, men hans synspunkter omkring krigen mod terror, krigen mod narko, det “palæstinensiske” spørgsmål og al-Qaedas angreb på USA i 2001 synes jeg nærmest placerer Roberts solidt på venstrefløjen. Reaktionær er han i hvert fald ikke.
Men for nyligt bragte Paul Craig Roberts på sin blog et længere indlæg, hvori han faktisk giver, hvad jeg vil kalde en glimrende sammenfatning af min egen opfattelse af baggrunden for den konflikt med Rusland, som USA har fået trukket EU med ind i.
Efter indledningsvis af have citeret Wolfowitz-doktrinen, skriver Paul Craig Roberts bl.a.:
When Russia blocked the Obama regime’s planned invasion of Syria and intended bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that while they had been preoccupied with their wars in the Middle East and Africa for a decade, Putin had restored the Russian economy and military.
The first objective of the Wolfowitz doctrine–to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival–had been breached. Here was Russia telling the US “No.” The British Parliament joined in by vetoing UK participation in a US invasion of Syria. The Uni-Power status was shaken.
This redirected the attention of the neoconservatives from the Middle East to Russia. Over the previous decade Washington had invested $5 billion in financing up-and-coming politicians in Ukraine and non-governmental organizations that could be sent into the streets in protests.
When the president of Ukraine did a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed association of Ukraine with the EU, he saw that it didn’t pay and rejected it. At that point Washington called the NGOs into the streets. The neo-nazis added the violence and the government unprepared for violence collapsed.
Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt chose the new Ukrainian government and established a vassal regime in Ukraine.
Washington hoped to use the coup to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base, Russia’s only warm water port. However, Crimea, for centuries a part of Russia, elected to return to Russia. Washington was frustrated, but recovered from disappointment and described Crimean self-determination as Russian invasion and annexation. Washington used this propaganda to break up Europe’s economic and political relationships with Russia by pressuring Europe into sanctions against Russia.
The sanctions have had adverse impacts on Europe. Additionally, Europeans are concerned with Washington’s growing belligerence. Europe has nothing to gain from conflict with Russia and fears being pushed into war. There are indications that some European governments are considering a foreign policy independent of Washington’s.
The virulent anti-Russian propaganda and demonization of Putin has destroyed Russian confidence in the West. With the NATO commander Breedlove demanding more money, more troops, more bases on Russia’s borders, the situation is dangerous. In a direct military challenge to Moscow, Washington is seeking to incorporate both Ukraine and Georgia, two former Russian provinces, into NATO.
Washington’s aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance. Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebration of the defeat of Hitler is a historical turning point. Western governments boycotted the celebration, and the Chinese were there in their place. For the first time Chinese soldiers marched in the parade with Russian soldiers, and the president of China sat next to the president of Russia…
For many years now the President of Russia has made the point publicly that the West does not listen to Russia. Washington and its vassal states in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan do not hear when Russia says “don’t push us this hard, we are not
your enemy. We want to be your partners.”
As the years have passed without Washington hearing, Russia and China have finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war.
Jeg er helt enig i Paul Craig Roberts’ betragtninger. Enten får USA sin NATO-krig med de to eurasiske stormagter eller også besinder først og fremmest Tyskland sig og søger kontinental ly i bjørnens og dragens favn. Gør Tyskland det, så følger resten af EU med.