China, Essays, latest, Latin America, Russia, USA
Comments 18

World War III Has Begun

by Paul Craig Roberts

Russia_USA_nuclear_weapons_220213
The Third World War is currently being fought. How long before it moves into its hot stage?

Washington is currently conducting economic and propaganda warfare against four members of the five bloc group of countries known as BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are being destabilized with fabricated political scandals. Both countries are rife with Washington-financed politicians and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Washington concocts a scandal, sends its political agents into action demanding action against the government and its NGOs into the streets in protests.

Washington tried this against China with the orchestrated Hong Kong “student protest.” Washington hoped that the protest would spread into China, but the scheme failed. Washington tried this against Russia with the orchestrated protests against Putin’s reelection and failed again.

To destablilze Russia, Washington needs a firmer hold inside Russia. In order to gain a firmer hold, Washington worked with the New York mega-banks and the Saudis to drive down the oil price from over $100 per barrel to $30. This has put pressure on Russian finances and the ruble. In response to Russia’s budgetary needs, Washington’s allies inside Russia are pushing President Putin to privatize important Russian economic sectors in order to raise foreign capital to cover the budget deficit and support the ruble. If Putin gives in, important Russian assets will move from Russian control to Washington’s control.

In my opinion, those who are pushing privatization are either traitors or completely stupid. Whichever it is, they are a danger to Russia’s independence.

Eric Draitser provides some details of Washington’s assault on Russia here.

And of Washington’s attack on South Africa here.

And of Washington’s attack on Brazil here.

For my column on Washington’s attack on Latin American independence, see here.

As I have often pointed out, the neoconservatives have been driven insane by their arrogance and hubris. In their pursuit of American hegemony over the world, they have cast aside all caution in their determination to destabilize Russia and China.

By implementing neoliberal economic policies urged on them by their economists trained in the Western neoliberal tradition, the Russian and Chinese governments are setting themselves up for Washington. By swallowing the “globalism” line, using the US dollar, participating in the Western payments system, opening themselves to destabilization by foreign capital inflows and outflows, hosting American banks, and permitting foreign ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments have made themselves ripe for destabilization.

If Russia and China do not disengage from the Western system and exile their neoliberal economists, they will have to go to war in order to defend their sovereignty.


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. In early Sept, 2012, China announced to the world that everything was set up for all countries to start trading oil in yuan if they so chose. Russia dived in the very next day.

    That was a declaration of war on the USD – and the war has progressed ‘nicely’ since then with AIIB and BRICS NDB and trading in “own currencies” being set up all over the place – where trade does not involve the US.

    So yes. You, they, everyone, should expect the US to fight back. And with everything they’ve got.
    Because their global hegemony thrives or dies on their control of global trade. Without that USD control of the world markets the US will no longer be able to massage its exuberant national debt or force allies to toe their “American interests first” line.

    If (when?) they lose that dollar hegemony they fade away – and empires don’t die easily.
    Expect war. A real shooting war. The US has nothing to lose and an empire to hold.
    Pretty much – If they go down they might as well take the world with them.

    Like

  2. Lazy bones says

    I dunno…been reading Paul Craig Roberts angry articles for many years now, after awhile they all begin to sound the same. The same themes about evil neo-cons, and of course endless articles on CounterPunch about the ongoing USA vs. Russia conflict. But WWIII has begun now? Really? I just don’t think so. America couldn’t even manage Iraq or Afghanistan, look at what an endless quagmire that has turned out to be. So now we’re supposed to believe USA is up for a war with Russia? Yeah, right. Paul needs to get back on his meds 😀 ….I think many of the alternative news websites need authors like Roberts to keep generating articles to keep web traffic up–even if they are grossly exaggerating the realities on the ground. And this is just one such example.

    Like

  3. Carl says

    “If Russia and China do not disengage from the Western system and exile their neoliberal economists, they will have to go to war in order to defend their sovereignty.” If Russia and China DO disengage from the western system and exile their neoliberal economists this will be seen as a casus belli by the western system and Russia and China will have to go to war to defend their sovereignty. I would suggest that, in reality, this is already underway because that’s the intent of the BRICS system and its new institutions, even if its not yet fully realized. That’s the reason for the Anglo-American assault already underway against Brazil and South Africa and why Russia and China are preparing themselves for color revolution assaults against them. Even India is not safe from this. Just look at how Ash Carter tried to pull India into the anti-China orbit. He failed, but there’ll be more attempts at that.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I really have to wonder what kind of ideology this website’s creators adhere to. Paul Craig Roberts is a capitalist ideologue as his credentials would indicate. He was Ronald Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and extols Paul Volcker’s stint at the Federal Reserve to this day. When Volcker raised interest rates as an anti-inflationary measure, it had devastating effects on the Third World. According to UNICEF, this resulted in the deaths of half a million young children-and in just a 12 month period.

    Plus the Putin worship here. From what I can gather, you have no problem with what he said about Lenin who he blamed for the collapse of Russia through the “time-bomb” of Communism. This is the thing that troubles me most about all these “anti-imperialist” websites like yours, Information Clearing House, Voltairenet, Global Research et al. There seems to be zero interest in class. Is it that you have never read Marx? Or having read him, reject what he wrote? Is the idea to simply repeat RT.com talking points? Will that lead to a more peaceful and egalitarian world?

    Like

    • Seamus Padraig says

      Off-Guardian has no official ideology. Does that matter? The facts should come first and the theory second; not the other way around.

      Like

    • Seamus Padraig says

      BTW, I’m aware that Paul Craig Roberts is a supply-sider. I am definitely not, but his views on fiscal policy do not necessarily invalidate his opinions on foreign policy, constitutional rights or other issues. And anyway, he is also regularly reposted at CounterPunch, where you yourself are a contributing columnist, n’est-ce pas? Will you now be tendering your resignation there, since they’ve allowed such a ghastly non-Marxist on board? I thought not …

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jen says

      Louis Proyect,

      Why this obsession with Off-Guardian’s political affiliations and the constant insinuation that the website must be fascist and “anti-Semite” in orientation?

      No-one is asking anyone here to support PCR’s views on how economies should be run. Like everyone else, he is sometimes right and sometimes wrong on many issues. Off-Guardian does not reprint everything he says uncritically, it only reprints those articles of his it finds important. PCR has changed over the years as well – it is nearly 30 years since Ronald Reagan left the US Presidency – but you don’t even grant PCR the possibility that over time he may have changed his position on economic issues.

      There’s no Putin worship either, this is not a website that discusses political or economic philosophy.

      You clearly have an agenda to besmirch Off-Guardian and other websites like Information Clearing House and Global Research and which has nothing to do with Marxism and class issues, and everything to do with attacking the messenger and silencing it. You are clearly on the side of the people you claim to be crusading against.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Seamus Padraig says

        “PCR has changed over the years as well – it is nearly 30 years since Ronald Reagan left the US Presidency – but you don’t even grant PCR the possibility that over time he may have changed his position on economic issues.”

        As it happens, PCR hasn’t renounced supply-side-ism. I had an email exchange with him on this very subject a few years back; plus, he’s even written a few pieces for CounterPunch defending Reagan.

        Nevertheless, as I pointed out in my riposte to Proyect above, none of that necessarily invalidates his opinions on matters other than US fiscal policy–at least not in my book.

        Like

  5. proximity1 says

    Throughout much of the Cold War period (1945-Gorbachev) U.S. policy vis -à-vis Moscow and Beijing seemed to favour stability in a regime/leadership over overt/covert confrontation with it/him. Though occasionally that broke down or was strained (1946, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1962, 1963-1972, 1978-80) from tensions and flare-ups in “hot-spots,” most direct armed conflicts were avoided and leadership-change/destabilization was not a persistent high priority outside of a handful of intelligence-agency planners and ultra-hawks of the political right-wing which weren’t particularly inclined to serve U.S. industries’ interests in developing trade relations with what were considered hostile foreign powers.

    Why now, with a global economic depression still in course and with trade still fragile and national economies struggling to achieve any positive GDP at all–and with Russia weakened from the very oil-price drop you cite as having been deliberately engineered–why should Washington and its clique of partner states actually seek to throw Putin and Xi Jinping even further off-balance than they already are? Wouldn’t U.S. and allied interests be better-served by not rocking the boat during world-wide economic heavy-weather?

    What exactly are the goals of undermining these two (Russia and China) now? Their leaderships’ replacement by more ‘suitable’ leaders? Corporate market-share gains? Corporate take-overs of former oligarchy-owned enterprises? These strike me as foolishly short-sighted and contrary to most sanely-defined U.S. & client-states interests.

    Like

  6. There is little doubt in my mind the US is also trying to destabilise Europe, where economic sanctions intended to damage Russia might just easily have been designed to damage the economies of Europe.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Good point. US foreign policy is deliberately aimed at weakening both its allies and its enemies. Why do you think that Frau Merkel’s phone was hacked into by the NSA? Even a foreign policy novice knows that today’s ally might well be tomorrow’s enemy. Lord Palmerston got it right: ‘A nation does not have permanent friends or allies, it only has permanent interests.’ Spot on, and the Americans obviously believe and practice this, however the dumbass Europeans, particularly the Brits, actually believe the opposite. More fool them.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Agree with you entirely Bryan. Sanctions pressured into being by the shoot down of MH-17 and the resulting false WMSM narrative. Designed to weaken the EU economies meanwhile the introduction of TTIP under a cloud of secrecy to finalise the manoeuvre.
      Beef this up with US increased military spending in Europe with the sole purpose of creating a theatre for war.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Straight truth & while we can at times admire Putin & Jinping sometimes their gullibility is absolutely mind staggering !

    I & many others really hope this does not end up in a Hot War & I’m ever hopeful that while the Western Tyranny thinks its being smart it is in fact making a great many mistakes especially Merkel as she destroys the EU following Washington’s orders. Hard to believe that this one woman can be allowed to do more damage to the EU than Thatcher did to Britain ?

    Liked by 1 person

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s