When the U.S. toppled the freely elected, pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, in February of this year, and replaced him with a U.S. appointed Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that coup enabled the U.S. to have access to Ukraine as a launching-pad for U.S. nuclear missiles that could destroy Russia's Moscow command-center in less than ten minutes, which would be too short a time-window for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory weapons. Our new Government in Ukraine is ethnically cleansing from southeastern Ukraine the people in the area of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for the former President, Viktor Yanukovych. This will lock-in Ukraine's newly dominant anti-Russian tilt, and will thus solidify Ukraine as a NATO ally, and, soon (as our regime there hopes), a new NATO member, like other post-Soviet and now NATO members. Other NATO members that have already been brought over from the former Soviet Union are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Ukraine would be the keystone to that.
In addition, the U.S. already has troops in many countries, which include the following nations where our soldiers are stationed (and this includes ones with missile bases located near Russia): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. We also have some soldiers in other former parts of the U.S.S.R.: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
The U.S. nuclearly surrounds Russia; we have missiles in nations that border Russia; Russia doesn't have any missiles in nations that surround the U.S.
When the Soviet Union tried to get a missile base in our nearby Cuba, during the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy said no, and a nuclear war was imminent until Nikita Khruschev removed the threat -- and that was just one nearby nation, and one missile base that was being built by the U.S.S.R. near us. The United States has already vastly exceeded that same threat against Russia, indeed many times over, while Russia is powerless to stop us. Russia can do nothing whatsoever about it.
Back in the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced a "Star Wars" program, which subsequently became America's program to develop and deploy Anti-Ballistic Missiles, or ABMs, to destroy incoming Soviet nuclear missiles in the event of a nuclear war. Though Reagan described it as "peaceful," and "purely defensive" in the event of a nuclear war, it was actually a measure to win a nuclear war, it was an aggressive measure, because, if it works, it will enable the U.S. to destroy the other side (now only Russia) in a "pre-emptive" nuclear U.S. attack against the "enemy," while blocking the "enemy" from retaliating: the "enemy"s retaliatory missiles will then be knocked down before they reach their U.S. targets. So: Reagan lied about the "purely defensive" nature of his plan, and every U.S. President since then has been lying as well, including Barack Obama, who, as soon as he entered office, reviewed George W. Bush's ABM program and radically revamped it, and greatly improved it, so that now, finally, there is a version of ABM that might actually work. On 21 May 2014, the U.S. DOD headlined, "Standard Missile Completes First Test Launch from Aegis Ashore Test Site," and reported that: "The Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. Navy, and sailors at the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), successfully conducted the first flight test involving components of the Aegis Ashore system. During the test, a simulated ballistic missile target was acquired, tracked, and engaged by the Aegis Weapon System. At approximately 7:35 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, May 20 (1:35 a.m. EDT, May 21), the Aegis Weapon System fired a Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block IB guided missile from the Vertical Launch System. Several fire control and engagement functions were exercised during the test. A live target missile launch was not planned for this flight test." In other words: The "test" was only a "flight test," not a real test. But it is the closest that the U.S. or any nation has yet gotten to developing an effective ABM.
In addition, President Obama has established a new program, "Prompt Global Strike," which aims to disable Russia's retaliatory ability by use of non-nuclear weapons, so as to force Russian surrender without destroying the country (and perhaps the world) -- a Hitlerian blitzkrieg against "the enemy." This would be even better for America's aristocrats than a nuclear knock-out, because it wouldn't only give them unchallengeable global dominance, which a nuclear destruction of Russia would do, but it would also enable our aristocrats to plunder the country, whereas a nuclearly destroyed Russia wouldn't even be worth plundering. So, in addition to slaking the aristocracy's primary craving, which is for sheer unchallengeable dominance, it would also further enrich them. All other nations' aristocracies would then have to do their bidding, not only by unchallengeable force, but by unchallengeable money.
Furthermore, Obama's Ukraine-ploy has been strikingly effective at helping him to whip up in America a fear of Russia, so as to enable this nation to go increasingly onto a war-footing. A recent CNN Poll found that 29% of Americans think that Russia is a "Very serious threat" to the United States, and that 40% consider it a "Moderately serious threat." That's 69% who consider it a "serious threat." In 2012 (before our coup in Ukraine), only 11% considered it a "Very serious threat," and 33% considered it a "Moderately serious threat." 44% then considered Russia a "serious threat." The huge surge in fear of Russia -- from 44% to 69% -- seems to be due entirely to Ukraine. 81% of poll-respondents said that "Russia's actions in Ukraine are ... a violation of international law." Only 12% said that it's not. Asked whether "there was any justification for Russia's actions in Ukraine," 72% said "No," and only 17% said "Yes." In other words, the stenographic reporting by the U.S. media, of the White House's accusations that the problems in Ukraine and the civil war there are Russia's doing, instead of ours -- are Putin's, instead of Obama's -- has proceeded according to Obama's plan, just as the propaganda-media in the U.S. had earlier done about "Saddam's WMD," when George W. Bush was planning to invade Iraq.
An article, "The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy," from the highly influential journal of the organization of U.S. aristocrats and their agents, the Council on Foreign Relations, their authoritative Foreign Affairs journal, in March 2006, argued that the U.S. can win a nuclear war. It argued that the old U.S. nuclear strategy, of using nuclear weapons only as deterrence ("Mutually-Assured Destruction" or MAD), is over. Nuclear victory can now be America's aspiration, argued this article, not in an ordinary magazine, but in the foreign-affairs journal of America's aristocracy. It is Wall Street's Foreign Affairs. Obama seems to be following the goal that was set forth there. And his ethnic-cleansing program in southeast Ukraine is part of that broader strategy of his. Many analysts consider America's winning control in Ukraine to be the lynchpin of that strategy -- and clearing out the pro-Russians from there is an important part of it.
Consequently, Russia is now preparing for a nuclear attack by NATO. Furthermore, NATO has now established a new policy that effectively treats Russia as its enemy. This is why Obama booted Russia out of the G8: to make Russia the "odd man out."
President Obama's speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, said: "Here's my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will." Obama alleged: "Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us." Our President said: "In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe."
He seems to have all his ducks in a row. The complaints by liberals saying that Obama is an ineffective President are nonsense; he's the most effective conservative President since Ronald Reagan. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he's making clear how conservative he really is, not only regarding bailing out the aristocracy after the 2008 crash, but also setting up to hand them an unchallengeable global dominance. He's brilliant. However unfortunate that may be, it's what is; and liberals who keep thinking he's one of them are just obstinate fools, suckers really. They're in their fantasy-world, and seem determined to stay there. Just consider the victims he's producing to achieve his aims, (and here is testimony from that woman's daughter, who survived), and it is clear.
Anyone who thinks Obama can't possibly be that far right-wing should listen to the testimony of Mona Eltahawy in Egypt, interviewed by NPR's Michelle Martin June 24th headlining, "'Shameful' Verdict Exposes Egyptian Journalists' Fears," where this courageous independent journalist said, "And just the day before the verdict [imprisoning entirely innocent journalists], John Kerry, the Secretary of State, told Egypt that the U.S. would release millions of dollars that had been suspended in aid to Egypt. Just a few months ago, Apache helicopters, which had also been put on hold, were promised back to Egypt." Now, the people of Egypt will viscerally hate the United States, and with sound reason to do so. Obama's boot is on their necks. And at the start of his Presidency, Obama, alone of all world leaders, kept the fascist coup junta in power in Honduras after they had overthrown that country's progressive democratically elected President. Obama is consistent. He's just not honest.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.