Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Flight MH 17; Lying West Brings the World to Boil ;Remember 2013 False Charge of Syria Chemical Gas Attacks

 

 

Flight MH 17; Lying West Brings the World to Boil ;Remember 2013 False Charge of Syria Chemical Gas Attacks

 

If there was a Nobel Prize for falsehoods, United States and poodle British leaders will win them year after year. It makes little difference whether the US leader is white or otherwise and the British in the history have been lying since colonial days with Clive, Hastings, Curzon and Churchill, the recent contenders, hands down, would be Tony Blair, apart from George Bush Jr, Dick Cheney et al

 

It is understandable that the US and poodle British and even European media fall in line straightaway, but whatever goes by the name of the media in India has a deplorable record of repeating the lies of former and current overlords in the West.

 

President Barack Obama described the shooting down as "an outrage of unspeakable proportions" adding that there was increasing evidence that MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile launched from the area controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside Ukraine. While it was too early to go into detail about Russia's involvement, however he said the rebels would not be in the position they are in without the support of Russia.

 

"This will be a wake-up call to the world that there are consequences of an escalating conflict in east Ukraine," he threatened.

 

By now it is quite clear that Moscow had nothing to do and sooner or later, US led Western charge that anti-Ukraine, NTT Ukrainians fired at the aircraft are also not supportable. Reports are suggesting that a Ukrainian jet or two followed and MH17 till it was almost shot down .An unconfirmed report even suggests that an unmarked  Israel owned aircraft from Azerbaijan could be responsible for the catastrophe .

 

Europe: ECM Battle Over Poland Saved Putin's Life and ... 

europebusines.blogspot.com/.../ecm-battle-over-poland-saved-putins.htm...

Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) Saved Putin's Life but Downed MH17

(As the first ever Indian Ambassador to Baku in Azerbaijan, when I visited the unusually big Israeli embassy being further enlarged and renovated, I remarked jokingly to the Israeli ambassador if they will house agents to infiltrate Iran from the North. (US) &Tel Aviv and Baku have very close relations. At that time, 1993, the Russian embassy was confined to a couple of rooms in a grade C in tourist Hotel.)

I had written in depth pieces on US organised franchised regime changes in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine etc failing In Belarus, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. I will request readers to read though and separate grains from western chaff being spread day in and day out.

I am reproducing at the end the following to articles;

 

Ambassador (Rtd) K Gajendra Singh. 23 July 2014.Mayur Vihar, Delhi

http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2011/08/amb-rtd-k-gajendra-singh-cv-post.html

 

 

1. THE ROVING EYE
A chessboard drenched in blood
By Pepe Escobar 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-230714.htm


"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Everyone remembers the Downing Street Memo, which unveiled the Bush/Blair "policy" in the run-up to the 2003 bombing/invasion/ occupation of Iraq. The "policy" was to get rid of Saddam Hussein via a lightning war. The justification was "terrorism" and (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which had "disappeared", mounted in trucks, deep into Syria. Forget about intelligence and facts. (Full article below)

2. Economic meltdown scenario piles pressure on Russia and the West the Guardian.London

Policymakers dread slump in Russia – from further sanctions by the west – would trigger another global economic meltdown

Larry Elliott economics editor

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/22/economic-meltdown-scenario-piles-pressure-on-russia

 

European politicians are under pressure to be wary of provoking Vladimir Putin into retaliation that rebounds on the west.

The Guardian , Tuesday 22 July 2014

 

Oil prices above $200 a barrel. Energy shortages in western Europe. The return of recession to the still-fragile global economy. A slump in Russia. That's the fear haunting policymakers as they contemplate how to respond to the shooting down of MH17 over eastern Ukraine last week.

The meltdown scenario can be easily sketched out. Every global downturn since 1973 has been associated with a sharp rise in the price of energy. Russia is one of the world's biggest energy suppliers and is responsible for about one-third of Europe's gas. America's economic recovery from the deep recession of 2008-09 has been weak by historic standards, while the European Union's has barely got going. From the car plants of Germany to the finance houses of the City of London and French defence firms, there has been pressure on politicians to be wary of provoking Vladimir Putin into retaliation that might rebound on the west.


US and CIA's wet dream

However, before that, let me quote extracts from an article by George Friedman from CIA's website Stratfor and by Lee from Asia Times, which bring up the fact that US led West unhappy at the staying power of Vladimir Putin and Russia's rising influence on its own and along with other Brics powers are worried and want to take out Putin.

 

George Friedman let the cat out in CIA's website Stratfor

Can Putin Survive?

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article46552.html

 

--Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protégé, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of, among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.

Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin, but it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations. After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures, we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy. Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel.

 

Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before Ukraine.

Imagining Russia after Putin

In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government, even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course, and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues were frequently the most feared.

 

The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him.

 

It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?

 

 

The charge of the Atlanticist Brigade Peter Lee (Jul 22, '14 Atimes)

 

No credible version of events points to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine as intentional mass murder or terrorism, and with international experts now getting access to the black box, there seems to be little the Atlanticist Brigade can use to point the finger at Moscow. Still, expect sanctions on Russia to follow, and for the reverberations to reach east all the way to China.

 

--The key evidence for the overall investigation will be the surveillance records of US and Russian satellites and radars, which should be able to identify where the missiles came from, as well as addressing accusations that Kiev fighters were shadowing the jet, etc. 

 

---outsider's impression is that the US foreign policy for Russia has been pretty much captured by doctrinaire anti-Russians in a diplomatic and military deep state that pretty much permeates and survives every incoming administration. The Russia desk has had a reasonably good run since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I think today the prevailing idea is that oligarch anxieties about the sanctioning of their overseas assets will soon reach a tipping point (see this article about "horror of the oligarchs"), and the "Atlanticists", perhaps led by that nice Mr Medvedev, will club together against Putin's "Eurasianists" and pull the plug on his dreams of confronting the West as an equal and opposite force. 

Maybe Putin will need more of a shove - he's an ex-KGB guy with multiple assets in the Russian elite and his current approvals are running over 80% - but there's an app for that: intensified sanctions===. 

So sanctions, and more sanctions. Sanctions for Crimea, sanctions for succoring the separatist uprising, now sanctions related to the plane crash. Sanctions that will never go away, no matter what Putin does, as long as he stays in power. 

Best case, some combination of popular and elite revulsion pushes Putin from power and a new regime approaches the West as supplicant. Worst case, Russia = Venezuela, neutered by perpetual sanctions, vitriol, economic and political warfare, and subversion. 

The key point, at this stage, is for the US to get European buy-in - especially from Angela Merkel, who is demonstrably less than enthusiastic about having a constitutionally dysfunctional relationship with Russia (and not enamored of the continual political heat brought by revelations of US spying) - so that the US is isolating Russia, and not the other way around. 

My sense of the situation, especially from the Asian perspective, is that the US is in danger of overplaying its hand, indeed that it has a bad case of tunnel vision in which it is fixated on the goal of sticking it to Putin at the expense of US global interests. 

With its almost comical insistence that "the world" is uniting against Russia (which only counts if "the world" is defined as the Atlantic democracies and their close allies ;and China, India, et al are excluded) and, even more damagingly, the US insistence on peddling the Russia = the world's greatest monster story even as the United States condones the catastrophic and much more bloody Israel incursion into Gaza, the US is accelerating the natural trend toward disintermediation of America
   

 

THE ROVING EYE
A chessboard drenched in blood
By Pepe Escobar 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-230714.htm


"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Everyone remembers the Downing Street Memo, which unveiled the Bush/Blair "policy" in the run-up to the 2003 bombing/invasion/occupation of Iraq. The "policy" was to get rid of Saddam Hussein via a lightning war. The justification was "terrorism" and (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which had "disappeared", mounted in trucks, deep into Syria. Forget about intelligence and facts. 

The tragedy of MH17 - turned, incidentally, into a WMD - might be seen as a warped rerun of imperial policy in Iraq. No need for a memo this time. The "policy" of the Empire of Chaos is clear, andmulti-pronged; diversify the "pivot to Asia" by establishing a beachhead in Ukraine to sabotage trade between Europe and Russia; expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to Ukraine; break the Russia-China strategic partnership; prevent by all means the trade/economic integration of Eurasia, from the Russia-Germany partnership to the New Silk Roads converging from China to the Ruhr; keep Europe under US hegemony. 

The key reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin did not "invade" Eastern Ukraine - as much as he's been enticed to by Washington/NATO - to stop a US military adviser-facilitated running slaughter of civilians is that he does not want to antagonize the European Union, Russia's top trading partner. 

Crucially, Washington's intervention in Kosovo invoking R2P - Responsibility to Protect - was justified at the time for exactly the same reasons a Russian intervention in Donetsk and Luhansk could be totally justified now. Except that Moscow won't do it - because the Kremlin is playing a very long game.

The MH17 tragedy may have been a horrendous mistake. But it may also have been a desperate gambit by the Kiev minions of the Empire of Chaos. By now, Russian intel may have already mastered the key facts. Washington's predictable modus operandi was to shoot from the hip, igniting and in theory winning the spin war, and doubling down by releasing the proverbial army of "top officials" brimming with social media evidence. Moscow will take time to build a meticulous case, and only then lay it out in detail. 

Hegemony lost 
The Big Picture spells out the Empire of Chaos elites as extremely uneasy. Take Dr Zbigniew "The Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski, who as a former foreign policy mentor has the ears of the increasingly dejected White House paperboy. Dr Zbig was on CNN this Sunday challenging Europe's leaders to "stand up to Putin". He wonders if "Europe wants to become a satellite" and worries about "a moment of decisive significance for the future of the system - of the world system". 

And it's all Putin's fault, of course: "We're not starting the Cold War. He [Putin] has started it. But he has gotten himself into a horrendous jam. I strongly suspect that a lot of people in Russia, even not far away from him who are worried that Russia's status in the world is dramatically being undermined, that Russia's economically beginning to fail, that Russia's threatened by the prospect of becoming a satellite to China, that Russia's becoming self-isolated and discredited." 

Obviously Dr Zbig is blissfully unaware of the finer points of the Russia-China strategic partnership, as well as their concerted voice inside the BRICS, the G-20 and myriad other mechanisms. His trademark Russophobia in the end always gets the better of him. And to think that in his latest book, Strategic Vision (2012), Dr Zbig was in favor of an enlarged "West" annexing Turkey and Russia, with the Empire of Chaos posing as "promoter" and "guarantor" of broader unity in the West, and a "balancer" and "conciliator" between the major powers in the East. A quick look at the record since 2012 - Libya, Syria, Ukraine, encirclement of China - reveals the Empire of Chaos only as fomenter of, what else, chaos. 

Now compare a fearful Dr Zbig with Immanuel Wallerstein - who was a huge influence in my 2007 warped geopolitical travel bookGlobalistan. In this piece (in Spanish) Wallerstein argues that the Empire of Chaos simply can't accept its geopolitical decadence - and that's why it has become so dangerous. Restoring its hegemony in the world-system has become the supreme obsession; and that's where the whole "policy" that is an essential background to the MH17 tragedy reveals Ukraine as the definitive do or die battleground. 

In Europe, everything hinges on Germany. Especially after the National Security Agency scandal and its ramifications, the key debate raging in Berlin is how to position itself geopolitically bypassing the US. And the answer, as pressed by large swathes of German big business, lies in a strategic partnership with Russia. 

Show me the missile
slowly; with no hype and no spin, the Russian military are starting to deliver the goods. Here, courtesy of the Vineyard of The Saker blog is their key presentation so far. As The Saker put it, Russia had - and has - a "20/20 radar vision", or full spectrum surveillance, on everything going on in Ukraine. And so, arguably, does NATO. What the Russian Ministry of Defense is saying is as important as the clues it is laying out for experts to follow. 

The damaged MH17 starboard jet engine suggests a shape charge from an air-to-air missile - and not a Buk; that's consistent with the Russian Ministry of Defense presentation graphically highlighting an Ukrainian SU-25 shadowing MH17. Increasingly, the Buk scenario - hysterically peddled by the Empire of Chaos - is being discarded. Not to mention, again, that not a single eyewitness saw the very graphic, thick missile trace that would have been clearly visible had a Buk been used. 

Way beyond the established fact of a Ukrainian SU-25 trailing MH17, plenty of unanswered questions remain, some involving a murky security procedure at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport - where security is operated by ICTS, an Israeli company based in The Netherlands and founded by former officers from the Israeli Shin Bet intel agency. And then there is the unexplained presence of "foreign" advisors in Kiev's control tower.  

As much as Bashar al-Assad in Syria had absolutely no motive to "gas his own people" - as the hysterical narrative went at the time - the Eastern Ukraine federalists have no motive to down a civilian airliner. And as much as Washington doesn't give a damn about the current civilian slaughter in Gaza, it doesn't give a damn about the MH17 civilian deaths; the one and only obsession is to force Europeans to sanction Russia to death. Translation: break up Europe-Russia commercial and geopolitical integration. 

One week before the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies was already sounding the alarm concerning the Empire of Chaos's "policy" and its refusal to "adhere to the principles and norms of international law and the rules and spirit of the existing system of international relations". 

Moscow, in building its case on the MH17 tragedy, will bide its time to debunk Kiev's claims and maximize its own credibility. The game now moves to the black boxes and the cockpit voice recorder. Still Ukraine will remain the do or die battlefield - a chessboard drenched in blood. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). 

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

(Copyright 2014 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
 

 

Economic meltdown scenario piles pressure on Russia and the West

Policymakers dread slump in Russia – from further sanctions by the west – would trigger another global economic meltdown

Larry Elliott Economics editor the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/22/economic-meltdown-scenario-piles-pressure-on-russia

 

European politicians are under pressure to be wary of provoking Vladimir Putin into retaliation that rebounds on the west.

The Guardian , Tuesday 22 July 2014

 

Oil prices above $200 a barrel. Energy shortages in western Europe. The return of recession to the still-fragile global economy. A slump in Russia. That's the fear haunting policymakers as they contemplate how to respond to the shooting down of MH17 over eastern Ukraine last week.

The meltdown scenario can be easily sketched out. Every global downturn since 1973 has been associated with a sharp rise in the price of energy. Russia is one of the world's biggest energy suppliers and is responsible for about one-third of Europe's gas. America's economic recovery from the deep recession of 2008-09 has been weak by historic standards, while the European Union's has barely got going. From the car plants of Germany to the finance houses of the City of London and French defence firms, there has been pressure on politicians to be wary of provoking Vladimir Putin into retaliation that might rebound on the west.

"The possible involvement of Russian-backed separatists in the airliner's destruction has raised the risk of further sanctions against Russia by the international community," says Adam Slater, senior economist at Oxford Economics. "These would further damage Russia's economy. Russia's next moves remain uncertain but an escalation of the conflict is still a significant risk which would have potentially negative global spillovers in particular via the impact on global energy markets."

The extent of that economic damage depends on two factors: how tough the west gets and how Russia responds.

Given the public outrage at the loss of life on MH17 some increase in the severity of the sanctions looks inevitable. In Brussels on Tuesday, there was talk of imposing restrictions on capital movements from Russia and of curbs on exports of defence and energy technology. These measures would certainly increase the pain for Russia, and would run the risk that Putin would retaliate by choking off oil and gas exports to the west, looking instead to energy-hungry China as an alternative market. Slater estimates that UK growth next year would be 1% lower than expected were Russia to halt gas supplies through Ukraine, with the impact felt through higher energy prices, higher inflation, falling share prices and weaker consumer confidence. Closing the gas taps could then trigger the "phase three sanctions" being resisted by many EU countries, including Germany, France and Italy. These would target entire sectors of the Russian economy, blocking their exports to the west and preventing them doing business with companies in the European Union and North America.

It is this prospect that has prompted fears of rapidly rising oil prices. Slater calculates that Russian energy exports to the rest of the world could be cut by as much as 80%, with less than half the shortfall made up by the OPEC oil cartel. "In such a scenario, world oil prices could soar above $200 per barrel and gas prices would also rise steeply."

Julian Jessop at Capital Economics notes that the biggest losers from this would be Russia, already in recession. Other suppliers would have an incentive to keep prices low in order to grab Russia's energy customers. The west could draw down on strategic oil supplies to limit the impact of the loss of Russian supply.

 

It is the potential for Russia to damage the west and for the west to cause even more damage to Russia that explains the belief that the crisis will not escalate into a full-scale economic war. The European Union will talk tough but fall shy of imposing wide-ranging financial and trade sanctions as punishment for the Kremlin's alleged role in the attack on the Malaysia Airlines jet. Meanwhile, hopes that Putin is putting pressure on the separatists in Ukraine boosted share prices.

But events of a century ago show that the optimism of markets is not always to be trusted. It was only in the last week of July 1914 – once Austria-Hungary had delivered its ultimatum to Serbia – that bourses woke up to the fact that the assassination in Sarajevo had the potential to lead to a war involving all the great European powers. Up until then, the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was seen as merely a local affair and nothing to worry about. Similarly, the expectation now is that Europe will huff and puff but be wary of provoking Putin. For his part, the Russian president will be aware of the economic damage that even limited sanctions are doing and so be inclined to put quiet pressure on the rebels in the Ukraine to co-operate with the international investigation at the crash site. Russia's economy was already contracting before the west imposed its most recent set of sanctions in the spring. The fear now is that things could unravel quickly – just as they did in 1914.

 

Germany

Imports from Russia €38bn (£30bn) Exports to Russia €36bn Germany is by far Russia's largest trading partner in Europe, while 6,000 German firms have set up shop in the country. Business lobby groups anxious to protect the country's lucrative exports of machine tools, cars and chemicals have claimed Germany would suffer "irreparable damage", losing its dominant economic position to China if sanctions escalate. The Committee on Eastern European Relations estimates that German exports to Russia and Ukraine are on course to shrink by €6bn in 2014 and claims 25,000 people will lose their jobs if these companies do not find alternative export markets.

 

France

Imports €10.3bn Exports € 7.7bn

In 2008 the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, thrust himself into the centre of attempts to broker a peace between Russia and Georgia after a short war that saw Georgia crushed. Less than three years later, Sarkozy signed a contract to sell Russia two Mistral warships, below, that could have been used to defeat Georgia "in 40 minutes", according to a Russian naval commander. The €1.2bn deal – the Russian military's first major foreign arms purchase in modern history – supports 1,000 jobs in the French shipbuilding and defence industries, but France is now under heavy pressure not to deliver the second ship. French banks are also heavily exposed to Russia and could be vulnerable if Russian companies are unable to repay debts in the wake of tighter financial sanctions.

 

UK

Imports €8bn Exports €4.6bn

Russian billionaires' love of London houses and English football clubs is well known, but the UK may be less affected by a freeze in economic relations with Russia than generally thought. Just 1% of the UK's £118bn exports in financial services – lawyers' and bankers' bills – go to Russia, although this figure understates the money cycled back through UK offshore centres, such as the British Virgin Islands. UK banks have also lent generously to Russian companies, with $19bn flowing to Russia in 2013. More than 50 Russian companies are listed the main London stock exchange, but the number of companies seeking a listing has dropped sharply since the 2008 financial crisis.

 

Netherlands

Imports €29bn Exports €8bn

The economically liberal Dutch are one of Russia's most important trading partners. Out of all the EU countries, the Netherlands has the largest trade deficit with Russia, although the effect may be overstated by goods arriving at Dutch ports. The Dutch conglomerates Unilever, Heineken and Shell are heavily involved in Russia. After a meeting with President Vladimir Putin in May, just weeks after the annexation of Crimea, Shell's chief executive, Ben van Beurden, declared that he was keen to expand oil and gas projects in Russia's far eastern territory.

 

Central Europe and the Baltics

Poland: Imports €18.6bn Exports €8.1bn

Energy dependency is the Achilles heel of countries in central and Eastern Europe, which are among the Kremlin's most vocal critics. Poland gets more than 80% of its gas from Russia, while the Baltic States and Finland are 100% dependent. These countries are most vulnerable if Russia retaliates against tougher sanctions by turning off its gas supplies. Hungary, which is 80% dependent on Russian gas, could find a controversial deal it signed with Russia in February to build two nuclear reactors coming under the spotlight.

 

Southern Europe

Italy: Imports €20bn Exports €10.8bn

Italy's economy minister, Pier Carlo Padoan, said on Tuesday that Europe's economy was weaker than expected and sanctions could be a problem for all sides. Italy's energy giant Eni is building the €17bn South Stream pipeline with Gazprom, a controversial project to send gas from the Black Sea to Austria and Italy. In May Italian company Pirelli sold a 13% stake to Gazprom, underscoring the economic ties between the two countries. Italy's luxury handbag makers are also expected to be hit, as Russia's super-rich close their wallets in response to a weaker Russian economy: luxury good sales to Russia are forecast to fall by up to 6% this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Ukraine Overreach Hubris Confirms Decline of American Empire

Ukraine Overreach Hubris Confirms Decline of American Empire

 

 "Keynes's collective work amounted to a powerful argument that capitalism was by its very nature unstable and prone to collapse. Far from trending toward some magical state of equilibrium, capitalism would inevitably do the opposite. It would lurch over a cliff," --- Hyman Minsky.

 

"Capitalism has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, that it is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells"- Karl Marx

 

"When there is a general change of conditions, it is as if the entire creation had been changed and the whole world been altered." - Ibn Khaldun

 

"History is ruled by an inexorable determinism in which the free choice of major historical figures plays a minimal role", Leo Tolstoy 

 

"History is but glorification of murderers, criminals and robbers." - Karl Popper

 

The collapse of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eurasia in the wake of a tabletop 'Nuclear Confrontation 'when USSR could not match the military expenditure against US led West, was claimed to be a victory of capitalism over scientific socialism, and the silly 'End of history '.After barbaric colonialism, imperialism was invented the charade of Globalisation, used to transfer perhaps a trillion dollars worth of wealth from former communist states to the West.

 

But by the end of 20th century the neo-liberal capitalism model started to fray and fail and so it continues .Since then the author has been writing about the end of the US century and the decline of its hegemony . URLs of 10 articles are given below;

1. CAPITALISM IN CRISIS AND FAILURE OF GLOBALISATION 12 July 2000 http://tarafits-archives-usa-eurasia.blogspot.in/2009/11/capitalism-in-crisis-and-failure-of.html

Extracts;

 

"Globalisation ,much heralded since early 1990s as panacea has turned out to be a glib-lisation of economic and social problems of the people in former socialist countries with the so called shock therapy reducing  millions to penury and misery .The middle classes have been decimated with wealth and power becoming concentrated in the hands of a few ,--

 

But –"Now the very concept of capitalism as panacea for all problems and countries is being questioned, rightly, even in the West, after the collapse of economies in East and South East Asia, followed by crisis in Brazil. They had followed all the rules prescribed by IMF and other Western Institutions. In 1998 during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century there was furor when Malaysian PM Mahathir defied the conventional wisdom of the inter-national financial community by curbing free flow of hot money which had played such havoc with the economies of SE Asia .He brought in strict short-term capital control measures, made the ringgit non-convertible, set up three agencies - for corporate debt restructuring, for asset management and for refinance etc. Malaysia's recovery was almost as dramatic as it was full-blooded –

 

In August/Sept 1998 the very bastions of capitalism were reduced to utter panic and incoherence after the collapse of East and South East Asian economies, the decimation of the rouble and impending fall of the Brazilian economy.

 

 On September 8, The Washington Post under the title " Rethink Capitalism "wrote,' What is frightening about the world's current economic troubles is a sense that rules we thought we understood don't seem to apply now. Until a few months ago, we thought we knew what a developing country had to do to join the ranks of the wealthy. We thought we knew how a Communist country could transform itself into a capitalist one. The general understanding was that as the world became more connected, it also would become more prosperous. Now, with Russia and much of Asia having crashed, with Eastern Europe and Latin America imperiled and with much of Africa going backward, the certainties of only a year ago seem far from certain.

 

—'Some other headlines around the same time were 'Global Capitalism, Once Triumphant, Is in Full Retreat 'by Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek' ,'In Russia, the Liberal Western Model Has Failed 'by Martin Malia in International Herald Tribune etc. There were similar articles in Foreign Affairs of CFR, Washington and other journals. After chiding Asians for their crony capitalism , in Sep 1998, LTMC a big US Investment firm run by two 1997 Nobel Prize Winners for Economics (derivative trading?) had to be bailed out as its bets around  the world amounted to US$ 100 billion .Perhaps in expatiation Amritya Sen was given next years prize for his writings on famines and democracy." 

 

The 9/11false flag operation to bomb Afghanistan and latter invasion of Iraq against international law as confirmed by UN Sec Gen Kofi Annan and protests by tens of millions of people all over the world only confirmed the depravity and villainy of so called leaders like George Bush .Tony Blair, in fact the whole lot of them .they are but puppets in the hands of financiers and bankers.

 

Almost 1.5 million Iraqis have been killed since then and the state damaged beyond repair. But after the killing fields of Iraq the US army dare not put its boots on invaded and bombed hostile land .The Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," so proclaimed in 2005 late Congressman decorated Marine Col. John Murtha.The story about Afghanistan, then Libya, Syria is no different .Like losing armies of Napoleon and Hitler, West is bringing destruction where ever its eyes fall and more so when in retreat.

 

My articles and URLs are listed below.

 

2. The decline of the American Century   Sept 11, 2002 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DI11Ak06.html

3. The US Empire –Beginning of the End Game   24 Nov, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15729.htm

4. The Decline and Coming Fall of US Hegemony March 30, 2008 http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m42600&hd=&size=1&l=e

5. Western Military-Capitalist Civilization in Disarray September 25, 2008 http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47513; http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0386.htm

6. Corporate Culture and Greed Sink the American Republic 17 May, 2009 http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0442.htm

7. Confirmation of Pressure on Dollar and US Decline 8 October, 2009 http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0493.html

8. The Looming Mother of all Economic and Social Crisis 11 May, 2010

http://www.mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/2405-k-gajendra-singh.html, etc

 

9. Post Sept 2008 Crippled Economy & US Strategic Decline

Smoke and Storm Signals, 4 July.2011

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=11174

 

10. Post Bretton Woods; Emerging Outlines of New International Monetary Order

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/16527-new-international-monetary.html

 

Given below is an excellent article,

 

"The Ukraine Imbroglio and the Decline of the American Empire '

 

By Prof ARNO J. MAYER of the Princeton university .In spite of almost overwhelming control of military-industry complex and corporate control over education, barren think tank lands and communications , some spirited forces can still tell the truth in USA.

 

Please take your time in perusing these articles and comments

.

Amb (Retd) K Gajendra Singh 8 May, 2014, Mayur Vihar, Delhi.

 http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2011/08/amb-rtd-k-gajendra-singh-cv-post.html

 

The main points highlighted by Prof Mayer are as follows;

 

Prof Mayer refers to Edward Gibbon's insightful perception in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. "Why it had subsisted for so long," has a particular relevance today about the decline and coming fall of US empire... 

 

President Obama and his staff, as well as nearly all Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives, policy wonks and pundits, remain confirmed and unquestioning imperials.  Should any of them read Gibbon they would pay no mind to his hunch that "the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" which by blowback corroded the polity, society, and culture that carried it.  Of course today, with no barbarians at the gates, there is no need for legions of ground forces so that the bankrupting "defense" budget is for a military of airplanes, ships, missiles, drones, cyber-weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.  Si vis pacem para bellum—against whom and for which objectives?

 

In 1997, in his The Great Chessboard Brzezinski argued that "the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played" on the Eurasian "chessboard," and that as a "new and important space on [this] chessboard . . . Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia."  Indeed, "if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its [then] 52 million people and major resources, as well as access to the Black Sea," Russia would "automatically again regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia." 

 

American and Israeli hardliners want to contain and roll back a resurgent great-power Russia, as much in Syria and Iran as in its "near abroad" in Europe and Asia.

 

In sum, the unregenerate U. S. Empire means to actively contain both Russia and China in the true-and-tried modus operandi, starting along and over Russia's European "near abroad" and the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait connecting the South China Sea to the East China Sea.

 

The U.S.A. accounts for close to 40% of the world's military expenditures, compared to some 10% by China and 5.5% by Russia.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry contributes close to 3% of GDP and is the single largest positive contributor to the nation's balance of trade.  America's three largest arms companies—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are the world's largest, employing some 400,000 hands, and all but corner the world's market in their "products."  Of late defense contracting firms have grown by leaps and bounds in a nation-empire increasingly loathe deploying conventional boots on the ground.  These corporate contractors provide an ever greater ratio of contract support field personnel, many of them armed, over regular army personnel.  Eventually, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom private contract and regular military personnel were practically on a par.

 

The formidable oligarchy of arms makers and merchants at the heart of the military-industrial complex fields a vast army of lobbyists in Washington.  In recent years the arms lobby, writ large, spent countless millions during successive election cycles, its contributions being all but equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  And this redoubtable octopus-like "third house" is not about to sign on to substantial cuts in military spending,

 

There is, of course, a considerable work force, including white-collar employees, that earns its daily bread in the bloated "defense" sector.  It does so in an economy whose industrial/manufacturing sectors are shrinking, considerably because of outsourcing, most of it overseas.   This twisted or peculiar federal budget and free-market economy not only spawn unemployment and underemployment but breed growing popular doubt about the material and psychic benefits of empire.

 

Within a matter of days following Putin's monitory move NATO, notably President Obama, countered in kind: a guided-missile destroyer crossed the Bosphoros into the Black Sea for naval exercises with the Romanian and Bulgarian navies; additional F-15 fighter jets were dispatched to reinforce NATO patrol missions being flown over the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and a squadron of F-16 fighter bombers and a fulsome company of "boots on the ground" was hastened to Poland.   Of course, theses deployments and reinforcements ostensibly were ordered at the urging of these NATO allies along Russia's borders, all of whose "regimes" between the wars, and especially during the 1930s, had not exactly been paragons of democracy and because of their Russo-cum-anti-Communist phobia had moved closer to Nazi Germany

 

On Kiev's Maidan Square, or Independence Square, McCain not only mingled with and addressed the crowd of ardent anti-Russian nationalists, not a few of them neo-fascists, but also consorted with Victoria Nuland, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  Too much has been made of her revealing or unfortunate "fuck the EU" expletive in her tapped phone conversation with the local U. S. Ambassador Geoffrey Ryatt and her distribution of sweets on Maidan Square.   

 

In the midst of the Ukraine "crisis" President Obama flew to The Hague for the third meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) chartered in 2010 to prevent nuclear terrorism around the world

nuclear material worldwide and tightening security of all nuclear materials and radioactive sources in their respective countries.  At The Hague, with a myriad of journalists covering the event, some 20 heads of state and government and some 5,000 delegates took stock of advances made thus far in this arduous mission and swore to press on.  But there was a last minute dissonance.  Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, and Yi Jinping, the President of China, along with 18 other chief delegates, refused to sign a declaration calling on member nations to admit inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to check on their measures to rein in the menace of nuclear terrorism. {IAEA has been used to control and harass regimes not subservient to US imperialists}

 

The negotiated elimination or radical reduction of nuclear weapons is completely off the agenda.  It is dismissed as a quixotic ideal in a world of nine nuclear powers: U. S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea—and Israel.  It was on Obama's watch that the U. S. and post-Soviet Russia agreed that neither would deploy more than roughly 1,500 warheads, down from many times that number.  But now, with Russia's reemergence as a great power and China's prodigious forced-draft renascence, in a multipolar world the U. S. seems bent on keeping a considerable nuclear superiority over both.  Whereas most likely Washington and Moscow are in the throes of "modernizing" their nuclear arsenals and delivery capabilities, in this sphere China is only beginning to play catch-up.

 

The decline of the American Empire, like that of all empires, promises to be at once gradual and relative.  As for the causes of this decline, they are inextricably internal / domestic and external / foreign. There is no separating the refractory budgetary deficit and its attendant swelling political and social dissension from the irreducible military budget necessary to face down rival empires.  Clearly, to borrow Chalmers Johnson's inspired conceptually informed phrase, the "empire of bases," with a network of well over 600 bases in probably over 100 countries, rather than fall overnight from omnipotence to impotence risks becoming increasingly erratic and intermittently violent in "defense" of the forever hallowed exceptional "nation."

 

--to the fury of the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.  It is, of course, commendable that so many nations now seek to prevent "nuclear terrorism" by way of the Nuclear Security Summit.  However, there being no fail-safe systems of access control this endeavor is bound to be stillborn without a simultaneously resolute drive to radically reduce or liquidate the world's staggering stock of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.  After all, the greater that stock the greater the opportunity and temptation for a terrorist, criminal, or whistle-blower to pass the Rubicon.

 

According to informed estimates presently there are well over 20,000 nuclear bombs on this planet, with America and Russia between them home to over 90% of them.  No less formidable are the vast global stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium.

 

Not only Washington but Moscow knows that in 1945 the ultimate reason for using the absolute weapon was transparently geopolitical rather than purely military.

 

With the weight of the unregenerate imperials in the White House, Pentagon, Congress, the "third house," and the think tanks there is the risk that this U. S.- masterminded NATO "operation freedom in Russia's European "near abroad" will spin out of control, also because the American Know nothings are bound to have their Russian counterparts.(Indian TV channels are populated mostly by Know nothings)

 

In this game of chicken on the edge of the nuclear cliff the U. S. cannot claim the moral and legal high ground since it was President Truman and his inner circle of advisors who unleashed the scourge of nuclear warfare, and with time there was neither an official nor a popular gesture of atonement for this wanton and excessive military excess.  And this despite FDR and Truman Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy confessing that "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages," an observation possibly anticipated by General Eisenhower's plaint to Secretary of War Stimson of his "grave misgivings" and belief that "dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and… our country should avoid shocking world opinion…"  

 

The Ukraine Imbroglio and the Decline of the American Empire

by ARNO J. MAYER

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/18/the-ukraine-imbroglio-and-the-decline-of-the-american-empire/

 

When discussing the Ukraine-Crimea "crisis" it might be hygienic for Americans, including their political class, think-tank pundits, and talking heads, to recall two striking moments in "the dawn's early light" of the U. S. Empire: in 1903, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, under President Theodore Roosevelt America seized control of the southern part of Guantanamo Bay by way of a Cuban-American Treaty which recognizes Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over this base; a year after the Bolshevik Revolution, in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 5,000 U. S. troops to Arkhangelsk in Northern Russia to participate in the Allied intervention in Russia's Civil  War, which raised the curtain on the First Cold War.  Incidentally, in 1903 there was no Fidel Castro in Havana and in 1918 no Joseph Stalin in the Kremlin.

It might also be salutary to note that this standoff on Ukraine-Crimea is taking place in the unending afterglow of the Second Cold War and at a time when the sun is beginning to set on the American Empire as a new international system of multiple great powers emerges.

Of course, empires have ways of not only rising and thriving but of declining and expiring.  It is one of Edward Gibbon's insightful and challenging questions about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that is of particular relevance today.  Gibbon eventually concluded that while the causes for Rome's decline and ruin were being successfully probed and explicated, there remained the great puzzle as to why "it had subsisted for so long."  Indeed, the internal and external causes for this persistence are many and complex.  But one aspect deserves special attention: the reliance on violence and war to slow down and delay the inevitable.  In modern and contemporary times the European empires kept fighting not only among themselves, but also against the "new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child," once these dared to resist and eventually rise up against their imperial-colonial overlords.  After 1945 in India and Kenya; in Indochina and Algeria; in Iran and Suez; in Congo.  Needless to say, to this day the still-vigorous

U. S. Empire and the fallen European empires lock arms in efforts to save what can be saved in the ex-colonial lands throughout the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

There is no denying that America's uniquely informal empire, without settler colonies, expanded headlong across the globe during and following World War Two.  It did so thanks to having been spared the enormous and horrid loss of life, material devastation, and economic ruin which befell all the other major belligerents, allied and Axis.  To boot, America's mushrooming "military-industrial complex" overnight fired the Pax Americana's momentarily unique martial, economic, and soft power.

By now the peculiar American Empire is past its apogee.  Its economic, fiscal, social, civic, and cultural sinews are seriously fraying.  At the same time the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and Iran are claiming their place in the concert of world powers in which, for a good while, one and all will play by the rules of a new-model mercantilism in a globalizing soi-disant "free market" capitalist economy.

America's splendid era of overseas "boots on the ground" and "regime change" is beginning to draw to a close.  Even in the hegemonic sphere decreed by the Monroe Doctrine there is a world of difference between yesteryear's and today's interventions.  In the not so distant good old times the U. S. horned in rather nakedly in Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1962), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s), Grenada (1983), Bolivia (1986), Panama (1989), and Haiti (2004), almost invariably without enthroning and empowering more democratic and socially progressive "regimes."  Presently Washington may be said to tread with considerably greater caution as it uses panoply of crypto NGO-type agencies and agents in Venezuela.  It does so because in every domain, except the military, the empire is not only vastly overextended but also because over the last few years left-leaning governments/"regimes" have emerged in five Latin American nations which most likely will become every less economically and diplomatically dependent on and fearful of the U. S.

Though largely subliminal, the greater the sense and fear of imperial decay and decline, the greater the national hubris and arrogance of power which cuts across party lines.  To be sure, the tone and vocabulary in which neo-conservatives and right-of-center conservatives keep trumpeting America's self-styled historically unique exceptionalism, grandeur, and indispensability is shriller than that of left-of-center "liberals" who, in the fray, tend to be afraid of their own shadow.  Actually, Winston Churchill's position and rhetoric is emblematic of conservatives and their fellow travelers in the epoch of the West's imperial decline which overlapped with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and Communism.  Churchill was a fiery anti-Soviet and anti-Communist of the very first hour and became a discreet admirer of Mussolini and Franco before, in 1942, proclaiming loud and clear: "I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."  By then Churchill had also long since become the chief crier of the ideologically fired "appeasement" mantra which was of one piece with his landmark "Iron Curtain" speech of March 1946.  Needless to say, never a word about London and Paris, in the run-up to Munich, having willfully ignored or refused Moscow's offer to collaborate on the Czech (Sudeten) issue.  Nor did Churchill and his aficionados ever concede that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (Nazi-Soviet Pact) of August 1939 was sealed a year after the Munich Pact, and that both were equally infamous ideologically informed geopolitical and military chess moves.

 

To be sure, Stalin was an unspeakably cruel tyrant.  But it was Hitler's Nazi Germany that invaded and laid waste Soviet Russia through the corridor of Central and Eastern Europe, and it was the Red Army, not the armies of the Western allies, which at horrendous cost broke the spinal cord of the Wehrmacht.  If the major nations of the European Union today hesitate to impose full-press economic sanctions on Moscow for its defiance on Crimea and Ukraine it is not only because of their likely disproportionate boomerang effect on them.  The Western Powers, in particular Germany, have a Continental rather than Transatlantic recollection and narrative of Europe's Second Thirty Years Crisis and War followed by the American-driven and –financed unrelenting Cold War against the "evil empire"—practically to this day.

During the reign of Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev NATO, founded in 1949 and essentially led and financed by the U. S., inexorably pushed right up to or against Russia's borders.  This became most barefaced following 1989 to 1991, when Gorbachev freed the "captive nations" and signed on to the reunification of Germany.  Between 1999 and 2009 all the liberated Eastern European countries—former Warsaw Pact members—bordering on Russia as well as three former Soviet republics were integrated into NATO, to eventually account for easily one-third of the 28 member nations of this North Atlantic military alliance.  Alone Finland opted for a disarmed neutrality within first the Soviet and then post-Soviet Russian sphere.  Almost overnight Finland was traduced not only for "appeasing" its neighboring nuclear superpower but also for being a dangerous role model for the rest of Europe and the then so-called Third World.  Indeed, during the perpetual Cold War, in most of the "free world" the term and concept "Finlandization" became a cuss word well-nigh on a par with Communism, all the more so because it was embraced by those critics of the Cold War zealots who advocated a "third way" or "non-alignment."  All along, NATO, to wit Washington, intensely eyed both Georgia and Ukraine.

By March 2, 2014, the U. S. Department of State released a "statement on the situation in Ukraine by the North Atlantic Council" in which it declared that "Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace . . . [and that] NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference."  The State Department also stressed that "in addition to its traditional defense of Allied nations, NATO leads the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and has ongoing missions in the Balkans and the Mediterranean; it also conducts extensive training exercises and offers security support to partners around the globe, including the European Union in particular but also the United Nations and the African Union."

Within a matter of days following Putin's monitory move NATO, notably President Obama, countered in kind: a guided-missile destroyer crossed the Bosphoros into the Black Sea for naval exercises with the Romanian and Bulgarian navies; additional F-15 fighter jets were dispatched to reinforce NATO patrol missions being flown over the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and a squadron of F-16 fighter bombers and a fulsome company of "boots on the ground" was hastened to Poland.   Of course, theses deployments and reinforcements ostensibly were ordered at the urging of these NATO allies along Russia's borders, all of whose "regimes" between the wars, and especially during the 1930s, had not exactly been paragons of democracy and because of their Russo-cum-anti-Communist phobia had moved closer to Nazi Germany.  And once Hitler's legions crashed into Russia through the borderlands not insignificant sectors of their political and civil societies were not exactly innocent by-standers or collaborators in Operation Barbarossa and the Judeocide.

To be sure, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Obama administration's chief finger wagger, merely denounced Putin's deployment in and around Ukraine-Crimea as an "act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of pretext."  For good measure he added, however, that "you just do not invade another country," and he did so at a time there was nothing illegal about Putin's move.  But Hillary Clinton, Kerry's predecessor, and most likely repeat candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, rather than outright demonize Putin as an unreconstructed KGB operative or a mini-Stalin went straight for the kill: "Now if this sounds familiar. . . it is like Hitler did back in the '30s."  Presently, as if to defang criticism of her verbal thrust, Clinton averred that "I just want people to have a little historic perspective," so that they should learn from the Nazis' tactics in the run-up to World War II.

As for Republican Senator John McCain, defeated by Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008, he was on the same wavelength, in that he charged that his erstwhile rival's "feckless" foreign policy practically invited Putin's aggressive move, with the unspoken implication that President Obama was a latter-day Neville Chamberlain, the avatar of appeasement.

But ultimately it was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who said out loud what was being whispered in so many corridors of the foreign policy establishment and on so many editorial boards of the mainline media.  He advocated "creating a democratic noose around Putin's Russia."  To this end Graham called for preparing the ground to make Georgia and Moldova members of NATO.  Graham also advocated upgrading the military capability of the most "threatened" NATO members along Russia's borders, along with an expansion of radar and missile defense systems.  In short, he would "fly the NATO flag as strongly as I could around Putin"—in keeping with NATO's policy since

 

1990.  Assuming different roles, while Senator Graham kept up the hawkish drumbeat on the Hill and in the media Senator McCain hastened to Kiev to affirm the "other" America's resolve, competence, and muscle as over the fecklessness of President Obama and his foreign-policy team.  He went to Ukraine's capital a first time in December, and the second time, in mid-March 2014, as head of a bipartisan delegation of eight like-minded Senators.

On Kiev's Maidan Square, or Independence Square, McCain not only mingled with and addressed the crowd of ardent anti-Russian nationalists, not a few of them neo-fascists, but also consorted with Victoria Nuland, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  Too much has been made of her revealing or unfortunate "fuck the EU" expletive in her tapped phone conversation with the local U. S. Ambassador Geoffrey Ryatt and her distribution of sweets on Maidan Square.   What really matters is that Nuland is a consummate insider of Washington's imperial foreign policy establishment in that she served in the Clinton and Bush administrations before coming on board the Obama administration, having close relations with Hillary Clinton.

Besides, she is married to Robert Kagan, a wizard of geopolitics who though generally viewed as a sworn neo-conservative is every bit as much at home as his spouse among mainline Republicans and Democrats.  He was a foreign-policy advisor to John McCain and Mitt Romney during their presidential runs, respectively in 2008 and 2012, before President Obama let on that he embraced some of the main arguments in The World America Made (2012), Kagan's latest book.  In it he spells out ways to preserve the empire by way of controlling with some twelve naval task forces built around unsurpassable nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, its expanding Mare Nostrum in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.

 

As a disciple of Alfred Thayer Mahan, quite naturally Kagan earned his spurs and his entrée to the inner circles of the makers and shakers of foreign and military policy by spending years at the Carnegie Endowment and Brookings Institution.   That was before, in 1997, he became a co-founder, with William Kristol, of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, committed to the promotion of America's "global leadership" in pursuit of its national security and interests.  A few years later, after this think tank expired, Kagan and Kristol began to play a leading role in the Foreign Policy Initiative, its lineal ideological descendant.

But the point is not that Victoria Nuland's demarche in Maidan Square may have been unduly influenced by her husband's writings and political engagements.  Indeed, on the Ukrainian question, she is more likely to have been attentive to Zbigniew Brzezinski, another highly visible geopolitical who, however, has been swimming exclusively in Democratic waters ever since 1960, when he advised John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign and then became national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter.  Heavily fixed on Eurasia, Brzezinski is more likely to stand on Clausewitz's rather than Mahan's shoulders.  But both Kagan and Brzezinski are red-blooded imperial Americans.  In 1997, in his The Great Chessboard Brzezinski argued that "the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played" on the Eurasian "chessboard," and that as a "new and important space on [this] chessboard . . . Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia."  Indeed, "if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its [then] 52 million people and major resources, as well as access to the Black Sea," Russia would "automatically again regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."  The unwritten script of Brzezinski, one of Obama's foreign policy advisors: intensify the West's—America's—efforts, by means fair and foul, to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, including especially the Black Sea Peninsula with its access to the Eastern Mediterranean via the Aegean Sea.

Presently rather than focus on the geopolitical springs and objectives of Russia's "aggression" against Ukraine-Crimea Brzezinski turned the spotlight on the nefarious intentions and methods of Putin's move on the Great Chessboard.  To permit Putin to have his way in Ukraine-Crimea would be "similar to the two phases of Hitler's seizure of Sudetenland after Munich in 1938 and the final occupation of Prague and Czechoslovakia in early 1938."  Incontrovertibly "much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin—a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler—that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe."  For should Ukraine be "crushed with the West simply watching the new freedom and security of Romania, Poland, and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened."  Having resuscitated the domino theory, Brzezinski urged the West to "promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine legitimate" and assure it "privately . . . that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defense capabilities."  At the same time "NATO forces . . . should be put on alert [and] high readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U. S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful."  And as an afterthought Brzezinski suggested that along with "such efforts to avoid miscalculations that could lead to war" the West should reaffirm its "desire for a peaceful accommodation . . . [and] reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or turn it against Russia."  Indeed, mirabile dictu, Brzezinski, like Henry Kissinger, his fellow geopolitical with a cold-war imperial mindset, adumbrated a form of Finlandization of Ukraine—but, needless to say, not of the other eastern Border States—without, however, letting on that actually Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister had recently made some such proposal.

Of course, the likes of Kagan, Brzezinski, and Kissinger keep mum about America's inimitable hand in the "regime change" in Kiev which resulted in a government in which the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists, who had been in the front lines on Maidan Square, are well represented.

Since critics of America's subversive interventions tend to be dismissed as knee-jerk left-liberals wired to exaggerate their dark anti-democratic side it might help to listen to a voice which on this issue can hardly be suspect.  Abraham Forman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and renowned inquisitor of anti-Semitism, concedes that "there is no doubt that Ukraine, like Croatia, was one of those places where local militias played a key role in the murder of thousands of Jews during World War II."  And anti-Semitism "having by no means disappeared from Ukraine . . . in recent months there have been a number of anti-Semitic incidents and there are at least two parties in Ukraine, Svoboda and Right Sector, that have within them some extreme nationalists and anti-Semites."

But having said that, Foxman insists that it is "pure demagoguery and an effort to rationalize criminal behavior on the part of Russia to invoke the anti-Semitism ogre into the struggle in Ukraine, . . . for it is fair to say that there was more anti-Semitism manifest in the worldwide Occupy Wall Street movement than we have seen so far in the revolution taking place in Ukraine."  To be sure, Putin "plays the anti-Semitism card" much as he plays that of Moscow rushing to "protect ethnic Russians from alleged extremist Ukrainians."  Even at that, however, "it is, of course, reprehensible to suggest that Putin's policies in Ukraine are anything akin to Nazi policies during World War II."  But then Foxman hastens to stress that it "is not absurd to evoke Hitler's lie" about the plight of the Sudeten Germans as comparable to "exactly" what "Putin is saying and doing in Crimea" and therefore needs to be "condemned . . . as forcefully . . . as the world should have condemned the German move into the Sudetenland."

Abraham Foxman's tortured stance is consonant with that of American and Israeli hardliners who mean to contain and roll back a resurgent great-power Russia, as much in Syria and Iran as in its "near abroad" in Europe and Asia.

As if listening to Brzezinski and McCain, Washington is building up its forces in the Baltic states, especially Poland, with a view to give additional bite to sanctions.  But this old-style intervention will cut little ice unless fully concerted, militarily and economically, with NATO's weighty members, which seems unlikely.  Of course, America has drones and weapons of mass destruction—but so does Russia.

In any case, for unreconstructed imperials, and for AIPAC, the crux of the matter is not Russia's European "near abroad" but its reemergence in the Greater Middle East, presently in Syria and Iran, and this at a time when, according to Kagan, the Persian Gulf was paling in strategic and economic importance compared to the Asia-Pacific region where China is an awakening sleeping giant that even now is the globe's second largest economy—over half the size of the U. S. economy—and the unreal third largest holder of America's public debt—by far the largest foreign holder of U. S. Treasury bonds.

In sum, the unregenerate U. S. empire means to actively contain both Russia and China in the true-and-tried modus operandi, starting along and over Russia's European "near abroad" and the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait connecting the South China Sea to the East China Sea.

Because of ever growing budgetary constraints Washington has long since complained about its major NATO partners dragging their financial and military feet.  This fiscal squeeze will intensify exponentially with the pivoting to the Pacific which demands steeply rising "defense" expenditures unlikely to be shared by a NATO-like Asia-Pacific alliance.  Although most likely there will be a cutback in bases in the Atlantic world, Europe, and the Middle East, with the geographic realignment of America's global basing the money thus saved will be spent many times over on the reinforcement and expansion of an unrivaled fleet of a dozen task forces built around nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.   After all, the Pacific and Indian oceans combined being easily more than twice the size of the Atlantic and though, according to Kagan, China is not quite yet an "existential threat" it is "developing one or two aircraft carriers, . . . anti-ship ballistic missiles . . . and submarines."  Even now there are some flashpoints comparable to Crimea, Baltic, Syria, and Iran: the dustup between Japan and China over control of the sea lanes and the air space over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea; and the Sino-Japanese face-off over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.  Whereas it is all but normal for Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea to have tensions, even conflictual relations, with China and North Korea, it is something radically different for the United States to NATOize them in the pursuit of its own imperial interest in the furthest reaches of its now contested Mare Nostrum.

The Pacific-Asian pivot will, of course, further overstretch the empire in a time of spiraling fiscal and budgetary constraints which reflect America's smoldering systemic economic straits and social crisis, generative of growing political dysfunction and dissension.  To be sure, rare and powerless are those in political and academic society who question the GLORIA PRO NATIONE: America the greatest, exceptional, necessary, and do-good nation determined to maintain the world's strongest and up-to-date military and cyber power.

 

And therein lies the rub.  The U.S.A. accounts for close to 40% of the world's military expenditures, compared to some 10% by China and 5.5% by Russia.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry contributes close to 3% of GDP and is the single largest positive contributor to the nation's balance of trade.  America's three largest arms companies—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are the world's largest, employing some 400,000 hands, and all but corner the world's market in their "products."  Of late defense contracting firms have grown by leaps and bounds in a nation-empire increasingly loathe to deploy conventional boots on the ground.  These corporate contractors provide an ever greater ratio of contract support field personnel, many of them armed, over regular army personnel.  Eventually, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom private contract and regular military personnel were practically on a par.

This hasty evocation of the tip of America's military iceberg is but a reminder of President Dwight Eisenhower's forewarning, in 1961, of an "immense military establishment" in lockstep with "a large arms industry. . . [acquiring] unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought," injurious to democracy.  At the time Ike could hardly have imagined the gargantuan growth and political weight of this military-industrial complex or the emergence, within it, of a corporate-contract mercenary army.

The formidable oligarchy of arms makers and merchants at the heart of the military-industrial complex fields a vast army of lobbyists in Washington.  In recent years the arms lobby, writ large, spent countless millions during successive election cycles, its contributions being all but equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  And this redoubtable octopus-like "third house" is not about to sign on to substantial cuts in military spending, all the less so since it moves in sync with other hefty defense-related lobbies, such as oil, which is not likely to support the down-sizing of America's navy which, incidentally, is far and away the largest plying, nay patrolling, the world's oceans—trade routes.

There is, of course, a considerable work force, including white-collar employees, that earns its daily bread in the bloated "defense" sector.  It does so in an economy whose industrial/manufacturing sectors are shrinking, considerably because of outsourcing, most of it overseas.   This twisted or peculiar federal budget and free-market economy not only spawn unemployment and underemployment but breed growing popular doubt about the material and psychic benefits of empire.

In 1967, when Martin Luther King, Jr., broke his silence on the war in Vietnam, he spoke directly to the interpenetration of domestic and foreign policy in that conflict.  He considered this war an imperialist intervention in far-distant Southeast Asia at the expense of the "Great Society" which President Johnson, who escalated this war, proposed to foster at home.  After lamenting the terrible sacrifice of life on both sides, King predicated that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." He even intimated that "there is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent . . . the richest and most powerful nation in the world . . . from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war."

Almost 50 years later President Obama and his staff, as well as nearly all Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives, policy wonks and pundits, remain confirmed and unquestioning imperials.  Should any of them read Gibbon they would pay no mind to his hunch that "the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" which by blowback corroded the polity, society, and culture that carried it.  Of course today, with no barbarians at the gates, there is no need for legions of ground forces so that the bankrupting "defense" budget is for a military of airplanes, ships, missiles, drones, cyber-weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.  Si vis pacem para bellum—against whom and for which objectives?

In the midst of the Ukraine "crisis" President Obama flew to The Hague for the third meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) chartered in 2010 to prevent nuclear terrorism around the world.  The NSS was Obama's idea and project, spelled out in an official statement issued by the White House Press Secretary on the eve of its founding meeting in April 2010 in Washington.  This statement stressed that "over 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries" and that there have been "18 documented cases of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium or plutonium."  But above all :"we know that al-Qaeda, and possibly other terrorist or criminal groups, are seeking nuclear weapons—as well as the materials and expertise needed to make them."  But the U. S., not being "the only country that would suffer from nuclear terrorism" and unable to "prevent it on its own," the NSS means to "highlight the global threat" and take the urgently necessary preventive measures.

Conceived and established in the aftermath of 9/11, by the latest count the NSS rallies 83 nations bent on collaborating to head off this scourge by reducing the amount of vulnerable nuclear material worldwide and tightening security of all nuclear materials and radioactive sources in their respective countries.  At The Hague, with a myriad of journalists covering the event, some 20 heads of state and government and some 5,000 delegates took stock of advances made thus far in this arduous mission and swore to press on.  But there was a last minute dissonance.  Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, and Yi Jinping, the President of China, along with 18 other chief delegates, refused to sign a declaration calling on member nations to admit inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to check on their measures to rein in the menace of nuclear terrorism.

Inevitably the standoff over Ukraine-Crimea dimmed, even overshadowed, the hoped-for éclat of the Nuclear Security Summit.  President Obama's mind was centered on an ad hoc session of the G 8  in the Dutch capital; a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels; an audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican, in Rome; and a hastily improvised meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh.  Except for his visit with the Holy Father, from which he may have hoped to draw a touch of grace and indulgence, in his other meetings the President reasserted and proclaimed that America was and meant to remain what Hubert Védrine, a former French Foreign Minister, called the world's sole "hyperpower."  The Ukraine-Crimea imbroglio merely gave this profession and affirmation a greater exigency.

It is ironical that the scheduled Nuclear Security Summit was the curtain-raiser for the President's double-quick imperial round of improvised meetings in the dawn of what Paul Bracken, another embedded and experienced geopolitician, avers to be The Second Nuclear Age (2012), this one in a multipolar rather than bipolar world.  Actually Bracken merely masterfully theorized what had long since become the guiding idea and practice throughout the foreign policy-cum-military establishment.  Or, as Molière's Monsieur Jourdain would put it, for many years the members of this establishment had been "speaking prose without even knowing it."

 

The negotiated elimination or radical reduction of nuclear weapons is completely off the agenda.  It is dismissed as a quixotic ideal in a world of nine nuclear powers: U. S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea—and Israel.  It was on Obama's watch that the U. S. and post-Soviet Russia agreed that neither would deploy more than roughly 1,500 warheads, down from many times that number.  But now, with Russia's reemergence as a great power and China's prodigious forced-draft renascence, in a multipolar world the U. S. seems bent on keeping a considerable nuclear superiority over both.  Whereas most likely Washington and Moscow are in the throes of "modernizing" their nuclear arsenals and delivery capabilities, in this sphere China is only beginning to play catch-up.

 

Standing tall on America's as yet unsurpassed military and economic might, Obama managed to convince his partners in the G 8, the conspicuous but listless economic forum of the world's leading economies, to suspend, not to say expel, Russia for Putin's transgression in Ukraine-Crimea.  Most likely, however, they agreed to make this largely symbolic gesture so as to avoid signing on to ever-stiffer sanctions on Moscow.  With this American-orchestrated charade the remaining G 7 only further pointed up the prepossession of their exclusive club from which they cavalierly shut out the BRICS.

The decline of the American Empire, like that of all empires, promises to be at once gradual and relative.  As for the causes of this decline, they are inextricably internal / domestic and external / foreign. There is no separating the refractory budgetary deficit and its attendant swelling political and social dissension from the irreducible military budget necessary to face down rival empires.  Clearly, to borrow Chalmers Johnson's inspired conceptually informed phrase, the "empire of bases," with a network of well over 600 bases in probably over 100 countries, rather than fall overnight from omnipotence to impotence risks becoming increasingly erratic and intermittently violent in "defense" of the forever hallowed exceptional "nation."

As yet there is no significant let-up in the pretension to remain first among would-be equals on the seas, in the air, in cyberspace, and in cyber-surveillance.  And the heft of the military muscle for this supererogation is provided by a thriving defense industry in an economy plagued by deep-rooted unemployment and a society racked by a crying income and wealth inequality, growing poverty, creeping socio-cultural anomie, and humongous systemic political corruption.  Notwithstanding the ravings of the imperial "Knownothings" these conditions will sap domestic support for an unreconstructed interventionist foreign and military policy.  They will also hollow out America's soft power by corroding the aura of the democratic, salvific, and capitalist City on the Hill.

Whereas the Soviet Union and communism were the polymorphic arch-enemy during the First Nuclear Age terrorism and Islamism bid well to take its place during the Second Nuclear Age.  It would appear that the threat and use of nuclear weapons will be even less useful though hardly any less demonic today than yesterday.  Sub specie aeternitatis the cry of the terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Center and Boston's Marathon was a bagatelle compared to the fury of the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.  It is, of course, commendable that so many nations now seek to prevent "nuclear terrorism" by way of the Nuclear Security Summit.  However, there being no fail-safe systems of access control this endeavor is bound to be stillborn without a simultaneously resolute drive to radically reduce or liquidate the world's staggering stock of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.  After all, the greater that stock the greater the opportunity and temptation for a terrorist, criminal, or whistle-blower to pass the Rubicon.

According to informed estimates presently there are well over 20,000 nuclear bombs on this planet, with America and Russia between them home to over 90% of them.  No less formidable are the vast global stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium.

In September 2009 Obama adjured the U. N. Security Council that "new strategies and new approaches" were needed to face a "proliferation" of an unprecedented "scope and complexity," in that "just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city—be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris—could kill hundreds of thousands of people."  Hereafter it was not uncommon for Washington insiders to avow that they considered a domestic nuclear strike with an unthinkable dirty bomb a greater and more imminent security risk than a prosaic nuclear attack by Russia.  All this while the Nuclear Security Summit was treading water and the Pentagon continues to upgrade America's nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities—with chemical weapons as a backstop.  With the cutback of conventional military capabilities nuclear arms are not about to be mothballed.

Indeed, with this in mind the overreaction to Russia's move in Ukraine-Crimea is disquieting.  From the start the Obama administration unconscionably exaggerated and demonized Moscow's—Putin's—objectives and methods while proclaiming Washington's consummate innocence in the unfolding imbroglio.   Almost overnight, even before the overblown charge that Moscow was massing troops along Ukraine's borders and more generally in Russia's European "near abroad" NATO—i. e., Washington—began to ostentatiously send advanced military equipment to the Baltic counties and Poland.   By April 4, 2014, the foreign ministers of the 28 member nations of NATO met in Brussels with a view to strengthen the military muscle and cooperation not only in the aforementioned countries but also in Moldova, Romania, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.  In addition NATO air patrols would be stepped up while anti-missile batteries would be deployed in Poland and Romania.  Apparently the emergency NATO summit also considered large-scale joint military exercises and the establishment of NATO military bases close to Russia's borders which, according to Le Figaro, France's conservative daily, would be "a demonstration of force which the Allies had themselves foregone during the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union."  Would tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft—or nuclear-capable drones—be deployed on these bases?

 

To what end?  In preparation of a conventional war of the trenches, Guderian-type armored operations or a total war of Operation Barbarossa variety?   Of course, this being post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there must be a backup or contingency plan for nuclear sword play, with both sides, should reciprocal deterrence fail, confident in their first and second strike capabilities.  Not only Washington but Moscow knows that in 1945 the ultimate reason for using the absolute weapon was transparently geopolitical rather than purely military.

With the weight of the unregenerate imperials in the White House, Pentagon, Congress, the "third house," and the think tanks there is the risk that this U. S.- masterminded NATO "operation freedom in Russia's European "near abroad" will spin out of control, also because the American Knownothings are bound to have their Russian counterparts.

In this game of chicken on the edge of the nuclear cliff the U. S. cannot claim the moral and legal high ground since it was President Truman and his inner circle of advisors who unleashed the scourge of nuclear warfare, and with time there was neither an official nor a popular gesture of atonement for this wanton and excessive military excess.  And this despite FDR and Truman Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy confessing that "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages," an observation possibly anticipated by General Eisenhower's plaint to Secretary of War Stimson of his "grave misgivings" and belief that "dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and… our country should avoid shocking world opinion…"   Is there a filiation between this cri de coeur and the forewarning about the toxicity of the "military industrial complex" in President Eisenhower's farewell address?

This is a time for a national debate and a citizen-initiated referendum on whether or not the U. S. should adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament.  It might be a salutary and exemplary exercise in participatory democracy.

Arno J. Mayer is emeritus professor of history at Princeton University. He is the author of The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions and Plowshares Into Swords: From Zionism to Israel (Verso).