Diana Johnstone / Global Research & Prof Michel Chossudovsky / Global Research – 2016-10-23 00:47:57
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition In A Nutshell. “Regime Change” in Russia… Putin is an Obstacle
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition In A Nutshell.
“Regime Change” in Russia . . . Putin is an Obstacle
Diana Johnstone / Global Research
(October 21, 2016) — It has become crystal clear. For the record, here it is.
She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.
She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.
She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.
The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”. As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who — as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs — was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton. Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship. Putin is an obstacle.
The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)
That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. US reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.
Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.
Hillary Clinton’s ambition — made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time — is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.
This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.
I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan. The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.
Copyright Diana Johnstone, Global Research, 2016
Vladimir Putin’s Plea Against Electing Hillary Clinton
Japan Partner Reviews (Sep 22, 2016)
Towards a World War III Scenario:
The Dangers of Nuclear War
Prof Michel Chossudovsky / Global Research
(October 19, 2016) — Today, people are finally waking up to the dangers of a world war, which might emanate from the highest levels of the US government.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has reassured us that in case she becomes president, a pre-emptive (first strike) nuclear attack against America’s enemies including Iran and Russia is “on the table” (on the grounds of “self-defense”):
“What I said and what I mean is that there will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken off the table. That has been my position consistently.”
The crowd erupted into gasps and chatter regarding what appeared to be Clinton suggesting a nuclear weapon could be used against Iran if they fail to comply . . . . (ABC Report, Hillary Clinton at the ‘Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum 2015′”)
We are no longer dealing with a hypothetical scenario. The threat of World War III is real. Public opinion has become increasingly aware of the impending dangers of an all out US-NATO led war against Iran and the Russian Federation.
While a World War III scenario implying the preemptive use of nuclear weapons remains on the drawing board of the Pentagon, military planners are now involved in concrete attack plans directed against Russia including the deployment of missile systems as well as NATO ground forces on Russia’s doorstep.
WW III has been contemplated by the US and its allies for more than ten years as revealed in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2012 best-seller: Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War
Excerpt below:
The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality.
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
Nuclear war has become a multi-billion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.
Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups, which support them.
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource — a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
— John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“Professor Chossudovsky’s hard-hitting and compelling book explains why and how we must immediately undertake a concerted and committed campaign to head off this impending cataclysmic demise of the human race and planet earth. This book is required reading for everyone in the peace movement around the world.”
— Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois College of Law
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
— Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust.
When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
— Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Copyright Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2016
Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton;
She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia
Tim Hains / Real Clear Politics
(October 12, 2016) — Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein says Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with Russia.
JILL STEIN: It’s important to look at where we are going. It’s not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser evil taken us?
All these times you have been told to vote for the lesser evil because you didn’t want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of our jobs, or the attack on immigrants, or the massive bailout for Wall Street, but that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves.
Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent, and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn’t solve the problem.
The Obama administration, even with both houses of Congress, actually did all of these fossil fuel emissions. “All of the above” gave us some renewable energy but it completely amplified and intensified our carbon production, which has been incredibly destructive to the climate.
The wars have gotten bigger, we are now bombing seven countries.
It is important to not just look at the rhetoric but also look at the track record and the reality is the lesser people and greater people is a race to the bottom, and even Donald Trump in the right wing extremism grows out of the policies of the Clintons, in particular Nafta, which sent our jobs overseas and Wall Street deregulation, which blew 9 million jobs up into smoke.
That is what is creating this right wing extremism. A vote for Hillary Clinton isn’t going to fix it…
It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.
We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.
Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.
I sure won’t sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won’t sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.
On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.
He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
