Cold War Renewed With a Vengeance While Washington Again Lies

Vladimir Putin at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 28, 2009 (World Economic Forum/Flickr)
Vladimir Putin at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 28, 2009 (World Economic Forum/Flickr)pu

The Cold War made a lot of money for the military/security complex for four decades dating from Churchill’s March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri declaring a Soviet “Iron Curtain” until Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War in the late 1980s. During the Cold War Americans heard endlessly about “the Captive Nations.”  The Captive Nations were the Baltics and the Soviet bloc, usually summarized as “Eastern Europe.”

These nations were captive because their foreign policies were dictated by Moscow, just as these same Captive Nations, plus the UK, Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Ukraine, have their foreign policies dictated today by Washington.

Washington intends to expand the Captive Nations to include Azerbaijan, former constituent parts of Soviet Central Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia.

During the Cold War Americans thought of Western Europe and Great Britain as independent sovereign countries.  Whether they were or not, they most certainly are not today.  We are now almost seven decades after WWII, and US troops still occupy Germany. No European government dares to take a stance different from that of the US Department of State.

Not long ago there was talk both in the UK and Germany about departing the European Union, and Washington told both countries that talk of that kind must stop as it was not in Washington’s interest for any country to exit the EU.  The talk stopped. Great Britain and Germany are such complete vassals of Washington that neither country can publicly discuss its own future.

When Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge with prosecuting authority, attempted to indict members of the George W. Bush regime for violating international law by torturing detainees, he was slapped down.

In Modern Britain, Stephane Aderca writes that the UK is so proud of being Washington’s “junior partner” that the British government agreed to a one-sided extradition treaty under which Washington merely has to declare “reasonable suspicion” in order to obtain extradition from the UK, but the UK must prove “probable cause.”

Being Washington’s “junior partner,” Aderca reports, is an ego-boost for British elites, giving them a feeling of self-importance.

Under the rule of the Soviet Union, a larger entity than present day Russia, the captive nations had poor economic performance.  Under Washington’s rule, these same captives have poor economic performance due to their looting by Wall Street and the IMF.

As Giuseppe di Lampedusa said, “Things have to change in order to remain the same.”

The looting of Europe by Wall Street has gone beyond Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Ukraine, and is now focused on France and Great Britain.  The American authorities are demanding $10 billion from France’s largest bank on a trumped-up charge of financing trade with Iran, as if it is any business whatsoever of Washington’s who French banks choose to finance.  And despite Great Britain’s total subservience to Washington, Barclays bank has a civil fraud suit filed against it by the New York State Attorney General.

The charges against Barclays PLC are likely correct. But as no US banks were charged, most of which are similarly guilty, the US charge against Barclays means that big pension funds and mutual funds must flee Barclays as customers, because the pension funds and mutual funds would be subject to lawsuits for negligence if they stayed with a bank under charges.

The result, of course, of the US charges against foreign banks is that US banks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are given a competitive advantage and gain market share in their own dark pools.

So, what are we witnessing?  Clearly and unequivocally, we are witnessing the use of US law to create financial hegemony for US financial institutions.  The US Department of Justice (sic) has had evidence for five years of Citigroup’s participation in the fixing of the LIBOR interest rate, but no indictment has been forthcoming.

The bought and paid for governments of Washington’s European puppet states are so corrupt that the leaders permit Washington control over their countries in order to advance American financial, political, and economic hegemony.

Washington is organizing the world against Russia and China for Washington’s benefit.  On June 27 Washington’s puppet states that comprise the EU issued an ultimatum to Russia. The absurdity of this ultimatum is obvious. Militarily, Washington’s EU puppets are harmless. Russia could wipe out Europe in a few minutes.  Here we have the weak issuing an ultimatum to the strong.

The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition in southern and eastern Ukraine to Washington’s stooge government in Kiev.  But, as every educated person knows, including the White House, 10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for the separatist unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine.

These territories are former constituent parts of Russia that were added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and Russia were two parts of the same country.

These Russians want to return to Russia because they are threatened by the stooge government in Kiev that Washington has installed. Washington, determined to force Putin into military action that can be used to justify more sanctions, is intent on forcing the issue, not on resolving the issue.

What is Putin to do?  He has been given 72 hours to submit to an ultimatum from a collection on puppet states that he can wipe out at a moment’s notice or seriously inconvenience by turning off the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe.

Historically, such a stupid challenge to power would result in consequences. But Putin is a humanist who favors peace.  He will not willingly give up his strategy of demonstrating to Europe that the provocations are coming from Washington, not from Russia.  Putin’s hope, and Russia’s, is that Europe will eventually realize that Europe is being badly used by Washington.

Washington has hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs in Russia hiding behind various guises such as “human rights,” and Washington can unleash these NGOs on Putin at will, as Washington did with the protests against Putin’s election.  Washington’s fifth columns claimed that Putin stole the election even though polls showed that Putin was the clear and undisputed winner.

In 1991 Russians were, for the most part, delighted to be released from communism and looked to the West as an ally in the construction of a civil society based on good will.  This was Russia’s mistake.  As the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines make clear, Russia is the enemy whose rise to influence must be prevented at all cost.

Putin’s dilemma is that he is caught between his heart-felt desire to reach an accommodation with Europe and Washington’s desire to demonize and isolate Russia.

The risk for Putin is that his desire for accommodation is being exploited by Washington and explained to the EU as Putin’s weakness and lack of courage.  Washington is telling its European vassals that Putin’s retreat under Europe’s pressure will undermine his status in Russia, and at the right time Washington will unleash its many hundreds of NGOs to bring Putin to ruin.

This was the Ukraine scenario. With Putin replaced with a compliant Russian, richly rewarded by Washington, only China would remain as an obstacle to American world hegemony.

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Paul Craig Roberts

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts attended four of the finest universities, studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in economics, authored 20 peer-reviewed articles in journals of scholarship, and published four academic press peer-reviewed books, including Harvard and Oxford Universities, and seven commercially published books. His most recent book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington's Perilous War for Hegemony

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • dubinsky

    very inventive and quite funny.

    Mr Roberts’ satiric essay is a comedic treat

    • Please keep it substantive with your comments, dubinsky.

      • dubinsky

        what’s your problem with my chuckling along and enjoying the parodic twisting of reality that Mr Roberts has penned and that you appreciated and published?

        it’s rib-tickling for Roberts to claim that Germany is still under US occupation and that no European government dares to disagree with any State Department positions.

        I’m thinking of sending him a free pair of my Fulda Gap jeans

        • What is rib-tickling is you denying that US troops still occupy German soil. As for EU governments not daring to challenge the US, this is obviously hyperbolic, but seems a valid generalization. You are welcome to try make the opposite case if you like. Good luck with that.

          • dubinsky

            nice try, but confusing the issue by shifting between the meanings of “occupy” doesn’t do more than engender derision.

            the funny old guy wrote ” … US troops still occupy Germany.”

            and trying to squirm to his defense by claiming that he meant that US troops are stationed on a couple of places in Germany is low comedy.

          • Thanks for acknowledging what Roberts said, that US troops still occupy German soil.

          • dubinsky

            thank you for continuing to weasel around and trying to uphold Roberts dishonesty.

            you are what you are.

          • But you just acknowledged that what Roberts said, that US troops still occupy German soil, is true! Silly.

          • dubinsky

            all the world loves a clown, Jeremy, but people are massively indifferent to your buffoonery.


            g’luck with the response to your begging for funding.

          • Andy

            Occupy definition #1: to take up (a place or extent in space) [this chair is occupied] [the fireplace will occupy this corner of the room]

            Occupy definition #2: to take or hold possession or control of [enemy troops occupied the ridge]

            When discussing military troops, definition #2 is assumed. Dubinksy is correct that the US does not occupy Germany in this sense.

          • But the US does “hold possession” of or “control” the bases on German soil that it occupies.

            This is absurd.Dr. Roberts, needless to say, did not mean that the US military controls maintains possession of and controls the entire country.

  • John

    I try to avoid wading into comments but Mr. Roberts it seems is under the assumption that the U.S. has a limited number of bases in Europe against their wishes. The various European states like the security umbrella afforded by a continued U.S. presence. Yes it’s outdated Cold War thinking but it is what it is. They still like to have that security blanket and it affords them the opportunity to cut back on military spending.

  • I would love to see you cite a public opinion survey among Europeans to support this contention that they love having the US military based in their respective countries. I doubt very much they feel the need to have the US “protect” them. I doubt very much that they are naive enough to believe that is why the US is there.

  • I can’t imagine how you arrive at the conclusion that those articles support your contention that Europeans “like the security umbrella afforded by a continued U.S. presence”. Did you bother to even read them? To each:

    1) A town of population 4,500 does not Germany represent, and the reason that particular town is anxious about US troops leaving has nothing to do with them fearing what will happen to them if Americans aren’t “protecting” them — it is because of the benefit to their local economy from having 13,400 American soldiers stationed nearby. A town built of business catering to foreign troops naturally fears becoming a “ghost town”, as one quoted in the article put it, when those troops go.

    2) The policy of the government of Poland is not the same thing as the will of the people of Poland. There is precisely zero evidence in that article to support your contention.

    Again, I challenge you to provide a public opinion survey to support your assertion. Again, I doubt very much they feel the need to have the US “protect” them. I doubt very much that they are naive enough to believe that is why the US is there.