Does the Washington Establishment Seek War with Russia?

by Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org


Which does the Washington’s Establishment prefer: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies?
What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that, so far:
They replaced Saddam Hussein.
They replaced Muammar Gaddafi.
They replaced Viktor Yanukovych.
They’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership.
There still is question, however, as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue this string; and many in America’s ‘news’media consider him to be too favorable toward Russia. The aristocracy own the few ‘news’media that have substantial audiences in the U.S., and their advertisers are also overwhelmingly owned by them; and the politicians’ campaigns tend also to be receiving most of their money from them; so, generally, it’s considered political suicide to buck what the few billionaires are rather united on in America, and what they seem quite united on right now is that Mr. Trump isn’t sufficiently anti-Russian. For a government official in this country to view Russia as even potentially an ally instead of an enemy, is increasingly viewed as treasonous in America, and any contacts that Mr.
Trump might have been trying to nurture so as to establish an alliance with Russia on anything — even merely an alliance against international jihadists — is being treated in America’s press as treasonous — as if Russia were still the entire U.S.S.R.; and communism were still a threat, and there still existed the Soviet Union’s military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, as being a counter-weight to America’s NATO alliance. But those assumptions about Russia are obviously false. So: do America’s billionaires still simply want to conquer Russia, instead of to be allied with it, even in that limited way, as a global alliance to crush jihadists?
The newsmedia pick up from the Democrats and the other neoconservatives, and therefore Trump is being pressed hard on his being ‘Putin’s stooge’ or even ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate,’ though the presumption in those statements is that Russia is doomed to be America’s enemy unless America outright conquers it — and this is a war-mongering and arrogant presumption for the U.S. government to be making about Russia, and it’s also very far from being a realistic assumption about Russia. Will Russia tolerate having all of its allies overthrown by the U.S. (a project that the U.S. has already come close to completing)?
How many more U.S. nuclear missiles will Russia accept being placed near and on its borders in formerly allied countries that now are in NATO — that are in the anti-Russia military club, but were formerly in the U.S.S.R., or else in its Warsaw Pact? If you were a Russian, would you now be scared?
Trump made clear during his campaign, that he wants to be allied with Putin’s consistent war against “radical Islamic terrorism” — no one can challenge that Putin has always, and consistently, been uncompromisingly determined to oppose that — never to arm nor train jihadists like the U.S. and its Saudi ‘ally’ the Saud family, do (in order to overthrow Russia’s allies).
So: which of the two is scary — the Hillary Clinton and John McCain crowd, the neocons, who dominate both Parties and want to crush Russia; or the few people in Washington who (at least until Trump became elected) were that crowd’s enemies? It’s looking like Trump has joined the neocons, after an election in which he was opposed by them.
As soon as Trump became elected, his fear of being dubbed ‘Putin’s stooge’ or ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate’ caused him to appoint a national-security team who were hell-bent on replacing Russia’s remaining allies, Iran and Syria. But even this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the neocons who run both Parties, and the newsmedia. Trump has been trying to accommodate the people who are doing all they can to bring him down, but it doesn’t seem to be appeasing them.
The Washington Establishment has terrified him away from his campaign promise of creating an alliance with Russia to cooperate together in wiping out jihadism — and jihadism is something that didn’t even exist in modern times until the U.S. and its Saud allies introduced it into Afghanistan in 1979 to overthrow the secular, Soviet-allied leader of that country, Nur Muhammed Taraki. This joint effort with the Sauds created jihadism in the modern age. Zbigniew Brzezinski said of his and the CIA’s and the Sauds’ achievement, in a 1998 interview, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” It became the model for what they’re now doing to Syria (which is causing all those refugees into Europe).

Trump had said that his top national-security priority would be against jihadism, not against Russia and its allies. But, so far, his foreign policy in this regard seems more like what had been widely anticipated in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. (Even Trump’s focus against “radical Islamic terrorism” is directed now almost exclusively against seven mainly Shiite nations that America’s Saudi allies — who are fundamentalist Sunnis and hate Shia muslims — despise. So: it’s no different from Hillary Clinton’s. And two of those Shiite-run nations, Iran and Syria, are backed by Russia; so, Trump might just be continuing his predecessor’s pro-Saud policy there.)
Yet nonetheless, the neoconservatives press on with investigations of whether Trump is a secret Russian agent. The leading headline in the Wall Street Journal on March 30th was “Trump’s Rapid Rapprochement Plans With Russia Fade” and the report noted that Trump’s appointees are advising him against any relaxation of the previous President’s anti-Russia policies, but failed to indicate that (with the exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson), all of them are long-committed neoconservatives and NATO enthusiasts. Either candidate Trump’s ameliorative statements regarding Russia were intended merely in order to win votes, away from the super-hawk Hillary Clinton, from some independents and Bernie Sanders supporters, or else Trump is very easy for the Cold War Establishment (the “neoconservatives,” today’s Washington Establishment in both Parties) to manipulate.
What does the Washington Establishment really want? What is their real demand? Putin’s head on a stake? Or. do they really want Trump’s head on a stake, for some entirely different reason? The motivations that they are stating for wanting to replace Trump by his Vice President, Mike Pence — a rabid neoconservative — don’t make sense; and, the ‘evidence’ they’re basing this campaign on, is, as of yet, after months of trying, still more smears than authentic evidence. And it’s based on false allegations regarding America’s and Russia’s respective involvements in Ukraine and in Syria. Clearly, there are ulterior motives behind this coordinated bipartisan lying campaign. And they seem to be winning — whatever their real motivations are.
Is this a palace coup? And, if so, what’s the real motivation for it? Why do they want Mike Pence to be the U.S. President? What’s their real goal in this bipartisan campaign to replace Trump with Pence?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ewiak Ryszard
Reader
Ewiak Ryszard

The nuclear war is inevitable, like death, but not yet. When and how will this happen? Let me remind here a fragment of an ancient vision: “And [the king of the north] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945. This detail indicated that Hitler will attack also the Soviet Union and will fight to the bitter end. In the beginning there were no signs of such the ending of this war]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [Soviet Union introduced state atheism]; and will act [it means activity in the international arena]; and turned… Read more »

David Simpson (@DavidjsimpsonJ)
Reader

“How does one overcome illusions? Surely not by force or anger. Nor by OPPOSING them in ANY way. Merely by letting reason tell you that they CONTRADICT reality. They GO AGAINST what must be true. The opposition comes from THEM, and NOT reality. Reality opposes nothing. What merely is, NEEDS no defense, and offers none. Only illusions need defense, BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS. And how CAN it be difficult to walk the way of truth, when only WEAKNESS interferes? YOU are the strong ones in this seeming conflict. And you need NO defense. Everything that needs defense YOU DO NOT WANT.… Read more »

binra
Reader

A Course in Miracles. ACIM. A tool is not more or less than the purpose for which it is used. While the active purpose is a desire for true sanity of coherence and congruity, of being, then not only will everything in our mind and world be fitted to such purpose – but we attract into our life, things, relationships, events, thoughts and teachings that resonate with our desire. ACIM is an example of such for me – but there are as many forms of the Universal Course as there are individuals to recognize and accept truth because it is… Read more »

postkey
Reader

” . . . as if Russia were still the entire U.S.S.R.; and communism were still a threat, . . . ” Was the U.S.S.R. ever ‘a threat’? “Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and… Read more »

BigB
Reader
BigB

@postkey: I’m with you. The relationship between Capitalism and Communism was more symbolic and symbiotic than most would care to admit. Reading Sutton, the myth of the Cold War of ideologies, of East v West, simply collapses. It also puts into perspective the so called “Russian Reset”; and the Wikileaks revelations about John “molester” Podesta’s ties with Putin-backed Joule Unlimited – and HRC’s involvement in the Uranium One/Rosatom deal in return for $145m in ‘donations’. 20% of a strategic asset sold to Putin? As much as it is about profit, it also appears to me that the western ‘Jeckyl’ needs… Read more »

michaelk
Reader
michaelk

It’s difficult to understand who the American ruling elite want to fight first, is it Russia… or China? It’s like the situation before WW1 where the British Empire was obsessed with the rise of Imperial Germany and how to stop the Germans becoming the dominant power in mainland Europe and then a power to rival the British Empire. Today the US looks at China in the same way. The rise of China is a direct challenge to the United States. The alliance between Russia and China is a nightmare for the Americans because if one adds China’s vast population, industrial… Read more »

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

[[ It’s difficult to understand who the American ruling elite want to fight first, is it Russia… or China? ]] Surely it’s North Korea? A country with no allies like to come to its aid against the jelly-wobbling yankees, and whose population – in the eyes of the average retarded American – still deserves an ass-whooping for their failure to capitulate to Froghorn Leghorn in the Korean War. The escalating spew of rhetoric coming out of Washington seems calculated to lure any potential ‘seconds’ to NK out of their corners – so far even China has remained tight-lipped… meaning that… Read more »

michaelk
Reader
michaelk

But an attack on North Korea, which seems to be what Trump is hinting at, would be an attack on China too, as NK is one of China’s few foreign allies. It could bring war and chaos right up to China’s borders, with perhaps millions of refugees flooding into China and causing chaos. How should China respond to a US attack on NK? It would be an incredible humiliation for China and show the Chinese regime as both incompetent, weak and held in contempt by the Americans. First China, then Russia.

Seraskier
Reader
Seraskier

Possibly. But an attack on N Korea might also be the Pentagon’s way of prising China away from N Korea. Faced with nuclear annihilation, China may prefer to hang Pyongyang out to dry. China’s support for Pyongyang is already spotty at best – but its love for America is boundless.

binra
Reader

Does this ‘ruling power class’ actually fight among its own – or does it enact a sacrificial blood-letting upon which to engorge and gratify a sense of power over life? The very idea of power – as we generally use it, corrupts. Is it meaningful to regard corporate or national ‘powers’ or their apparent leaders as discrete entities? Are they puppet masters or themselves puppet to ideas they know not of? Do we in turn align in a similar posture of ‘someone else must pay’ so that not to lose our face. Do we hate the hidden hate and fear… Read more »

rtj1211
Reader
rtj1211

The American system is not democracy because billionaire oligarchs change presidential policy against the mandate given by the people.
The American people need to realise that and storm the billionaires’ fortresses. Peacefully to begin with, but prepared to burn them down if the billionaires refuse to desist.
Making the billionaires extremely unwelcome, threatened, is what it will take to stop them subverting electoral outcomes…..

Michael Leigh
Reader
Michael Leigh

Historian Mr Eric Zuesse is obviously correct in citing the ” battle to mind control the North American general public’s opinions ‘ , as the contininuing base of the so-called ” aristocracy of robber-barons as in earlier times who can only further enrich themselves by this mind control “. But, I think his remarks in the Saudi Arabian context : that the Islamic peoples of the Sunni popular schism hate the Islamic peoples of the Shia schism is not in fact correct, because the basic daily teachings of both groups of Islamic believers are in fact the same – and… Read more »

flybow
Reader
flybow

“and communism were still a threat”??? LOL

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

For John-Bomb McCain and his knuckledragging countrymen, communism means their children might not get Chocolate Milk with their toasted waffles for breakfast.

binra
Reader

Are wars what they seem – a struggle between powers? Or are they the mind’s power to assert a conflicted state upon the power of life, so as to sow division and confusion by which to exploit and manipulate fragmented and polarised minds, unlike and other? Is not much of the trouble abroad a means to divert from and persist in trouble at home? And the trouble at home presented as provocation by which to be baited into intended and directed reaction? The ‘US’ is being used – as most else is being used – by the purpose of deceit… Read more »

Seraskier
Reader
Seraskier

[[ Are wars what they seem – a struggle between powers? ]]
Oh no, all that stuff about powers is long forgotten.
Wars are the means by which multinational weapons corporations keep their businesses running smoothly. No-one cares about countries or powers any longer.

binra
Reader

You are somewhat saying what my ‘question’ implied, for the acting out of competing ‘powers’ is nurtured as the narrative for public consumption – by which indeed a population may be literally entrained and consumed. The mind-capture beneath market share, asset stripping and power fed thereby, is subtler and more pervasively inhibiting of freedom to live and grow from within. Indeed such a technocracy of systemic imposition replaces the relational field with the ‘mind’ of the automaton. Life lived is out of bounds – save as a carrot by which to come under the stick. The consolidation of power –… Read more »

David Simpson (@DavidjsimpsonJ)
Reader

what is ACIM?

binra
Reader

I answered somewhat in another post reply to you. What it is intended to be and what it is used for may be at variance – that is the freedom to accept or delay. But in terms of the world A Course in Miracles is a Text, a Workbook and a Manual for teachers, by which to recognize and re-align the mind to teach and learn from an unconflicted source and nature – even amidst the results of having taught and learned conflict – and taken it to be our world or reality. So among other things, a miracle in… Read more »

aaronmicalowe
Reader
aaronmicalowe

After witnessing the Bush administration slaughter 3000 American civilians live on TV, you have to conclude that they are capable of absolutely anything if they see profit in it. America is a country where violence is normalised to such a degree that it is an every day occurrence. Just yesterday I watched an American advert about a young girl turning her fantasy of wanting to help kids get the football from the neighbours dog into becoming a technician for stealth bombers. Of course! That’s my first instinct when I want to help others…. duh! I could be helping planes bomb… Read more »

Dead World Walking
Reader
Dead World Walking

The insatiable, avaricious psychopaths who rule the planet will not rest from their quest of complete economic domination.
We, the people, must resist.
For the sake of our children and the Earth.

binra
Reader

I empathise with your feeling – but I call to resist the temptation to align in hate. Feel it? Yes. There is hurt within hate and a deep sense of violation of life being different than it ‘should be’ . So heartbreak is beneath the pain that set a heartlessness of unfeeling to anything that triggers the threat and pattern of the violation or betrayal of trust. The journey I sketch is what the ‘psychopathic’ mind embodies the denial and refusal of. You can recognize your own resonance with any energetic by its triggering your own sympathetic vibrations – for… Read more »

susannapanevin
Reader

Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin.