Eric Zuesse
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, several books such as: They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010; CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity; Iraq War: Truth; etc.
Support

U.S. President Donald Trump made unequivocally clear, on February 14th, that the new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia will continue until Russia complies with two conditions that would not only be humiliating to Russia (and to the vast majority of its citizens), but that would also be profoundly immoral. One of these two conditions would actually be impossible, even if it weren’t, in addition, immoral. For Vladimir Putin to agree to either of these two conditions, would not only be a violation of his often-expressed basic viewpoint, but it would also cause the vast majority of Russians to despise him — because they respect him for his consistent advocacy of that very viewpoint. He has never wavered from it. The support of Russians for that viewpoint is virtually universal. (This article will explain the viewpoint.) TRUMP’S DEMAND #1: “RETURN CRIMEA”

SUMMARY Unless the U.S. government’s lies about Crimea — the ‘Russia seized Crimea’ narratives — become acknowledged to be lies, war between the U.S. and Russia can only continue to become increasingly likely, because the world is sliding toward World War III based upon these lies, and will therefore inevitably continue that slide until these […]

There are several key reasons why Donald Trump won, such as that he achieved a 1,405,004 nationwide popular-vote victory in all states except California, where he lost by an enormous 4,260,978-vote margin to Hillary Clinton (and so Hillary beat him in all 50 states by 2,864,974 votes) — and the Electoral College represents all 50 states, […]

The Obama-Clinton (and Democratic Party newsmedia) war against Donald Trump — a war to delegitimize him as the U.S. President, and to soften the country up for installing instead a President as rabidly hostile toward Russia as Hillary Clinton would have been — continues on every front. The New York Times headlined on Inauguration Day, Friday the 20th of January, «Donald Trump’s Inauguration Becomes a Time to Protest and Plan». That news-report said: The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Thursday that it had filed its first legal action against Mr. Trump, a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about his potential conflicts of interest, and it released a seven-point plan to challenge every aspect of the incoming president’s agenda.

Mark Strauss, the Editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, headlined on 8 September 2014, «Nukes Are Cannibalizing The U.S. Defense Budget», and he raised the question of why nuclear forces are «cannibalizing the U.S. defense budget» now decades after the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance and its communist dictatorial ideology. No American President […]

It is clear, from the overwhelming opposition to Donald Trump’s taking office on January 20th as the U.S. President, opposition on the part of the entire U.S. Establishment — the aristocrats and their agents in the government and media and think tanks — that any opportunity to replace Trump with the Democratic Party’s Establishment Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, or any other Establishmentarian, would be welcomed by the Establishment. First, there were the efforts to have vote-recounts in the three states where Trump’s victory over Clinton were the narrowest; then, there was the orchestrated campaign to switch to her enough Electoral College electors for her to ‘win’; then, there was the effort to portray Trump’s win as having been engineered in Moscow and thus illegitimate. But now, could come the tactic that actually has the highest likelihood of succeeding, and it would replace Trump with his own Establishment Republican Vice President, Mike Pence. Here’s how it would work:

The Current Status of the U.S. Election: This news-report will be short but important: One major-Party U.S. Presidential candidate is so gross that his answer when the radio host Howard Stern said the individual’s daughter is “a piece of a**” was that she has “always been very voluptuous”; his competitor is so warmongering that she says “I […]

Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia – a plan which had originated with US President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through both by his son George W Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only recently started to […]

The original source of this article is Global Research On Monday, August 22nd, the United States government — which demands the overthrow of the internationally-recognized-as-legal government of Syria — officially announced that America’s military forces in Syria will continue to occupy Syrian land, no matter what the Syrian government says, and will shoot down any […]

The original source of this article is Global Research The results are already in, even before the official campaign-finance final figures will become available after the election. Though a large percentage of the people funding the campaign advertising will never be made public — due to recent Supreme Court decisions allowing “dark money” — data […]

Especially the foreign services and the military of any country are being paid like lawyers are standardly paid: they’re paid to make the case for their employer. They’re ‘mercenaries’ wielding words not (merely) arms, who become the more effective to the extent that they can deceive themselves to believe the propaganda (or, in the military case, the […]

NATO Summit Closes By Condemning Russia: US Soldiers and Weapons to Russia’s Border The issues that were discussed at this year’s NATO Summit were mainly preparations for a possible war against Russia. The two-day Summit in Warsaw Poland ended on Saturday July 9th, with a 139-part “Warsaw Summit Communiqué” which used the word “terrorism” 17 times, “jihad” and “jihadist” and “jihadism” 0 (zero) times, and “Russia” 58 times — never favorably, and often with overt hostility. It also referred to “Ukraine” 34 times, and “Syria” 10 times. Ukraine, during a February 2014 coup (it has been referred to as having been a “coup” both by the leader of the private CIA firm Stratfor, and by the Establishment writer on international relations John Mearsheimer, among others) switched, immediately after the coup, from having been neutral between NATO and Russia, to being suddenly and consistently intensely hostile to Russia, and immediately applied to join NATO; Syria still remains strongly allied with Russia.

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 5.55.59 AM

The Ukrainian government was referred to 100% favorably, and the Syrian government was referred to 100% unfavorably.

In other words: the Communiqué is 100% hostile toward Russia and its ally Syria, and is far more concerned about Russia than it is about terrorism — and not at all concerned about jihadism and jihadists.

The Communiqué is clear about “the crisis in and around Ukraine being, in current circumstances, the first topic on our agenda.” All of its references to that matter are based upon the assumption that this problem is due entirely to Russian “aggression” and that all violations of the Minsk agreements on the Ukrainian conflict are by the pro-Russian separatists, none of the violations are on the Ukrainian government side.

The presumption is that the Ukrainian government side never commits aggression, and that the separatist side is never defending itself against Ukrainian aggression. The Communiqué says, regarding the Special Monitoring Mission that is overseeing implementation of the Minsk agreements:

Impediments to the SMM’s work, which continue to occur overwhelmingly in areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants, represent a violation of the Minsk Agreements and seriously hamper the monitoring function of the SMM.”

The SMM operates in, and issues daily reports from, the separatist region (Donbass, consisting of two parts: Luhansk and Donetsk), and therefore it’s natural that almost all of those reports concern that region, not Ukraine. However, for example, the report dated 7 July 2016 does note that,

“Civilians expressed their anger at continued shelling while other civilians expressed their frustration over water cuts. The SMM facilitated and monitored adherence to the ceasefire to enable repairs to essential infrastructure.”

Though this report was, indeed, as NATO phrases the matter, “in areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants” (i.e., of people who live in the region that rejects the coup-imposed Ukrainian government), the “violation of the Minsk agreements” there consisted actually of shelling that was fired from the Ukrainian government forces, into “areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants.”

Similarly, the Communiqué blames the war in Syria upon the Russian-allied side, which in that case happens to be the Syrian government. For example, it says:

“We call on the Syrian regime to fully comply with the provisions of all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), and to immediately take steps for a genuine political transition in accordance with UNSCR 2254 and the 30 June 2012 Geneva Communiqué.”

That conflict is between jihadists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and the Syrian government. NATO blames the conflict entirely upon the Syrian government.

The Communiqué describes at some length the sharp increase in soldiers and weapons that NATO is pouring onto and near Russia’s borders, especially in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania. The reason that’s given for this surrounding Russia with hostile forces is:

…the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine;

large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture;

and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace. In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.

No mention is made in the Communiqué of the event that sparked all of this, which was Washington’s Ukrainian coup, which Washington had been preparing starting no later than 1 March 2013 in its Ukrainian Embassy to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

When NATO demands, regarding Crimea’s return to Russia shortly after the coup, “we do not and will not recognise and … we call on Russia to reverse”; when NATO demands Russia to abandon the 90+% of Crimeans who wanted to rejoin as being part of Russia — when NATO demands Russia to consign these people to the now failed state of Ukraine (which hates them and wants them dead) — NATO is placing itself in the position of a continuing escalation toward nuclear war against Russia, unless NATO itself disbands or else cancels its demand.

NATO is now in a position where they will either cancel their demand, or else continue their escalation and surrounding-of-Russia to the point where Russia will have no alternative but to unleash (without warning) all-out nuclear war against NATO countries, and against all nations, such as Ukraine, that hate Russians so much that they are trying to join NATO — the anti-Russia club of nations.

Russia is not going to do what NATO demands. The question now is: which side will start the nuclear war — attack first. In any case, the war (assuming that NATO neither retracts its demand nor disbands, and so war results) will probably be over within less than an hour.

There won’t be any winners, but the side that strikes first will be destroyed less than will the side that merely retaliates. And, in that sense, there will be a ‘winner’, even to an all-out nuclear war.

Regardless, though, Vladimir Putin’s responsibility is only to the Russian people, no matter how unacceptable the two choices are that NATO has offered him.

He has tried many times to discuss the matter with Barack Obama, who always refuses to discuss it with him. Obama’s refusal speaks clearer than any mere words, either from him or from (his agent) NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, possibly could.

Investigative historian

On June 16th, Adam Johnson at FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) headlined «‘Allegedly’ Disappears as Russians Blamed for DNC Hack», and he broke an enormously important news story about the Washington Post’s propaganda for the US to go to war against Russia. It concerned the question of whether the Russian government had been, as the Post’s reporter Ellen […]

(NOTE: The following news report was offered on the morning of June 7th as an exclusive, to the following newsmedia, all of whom ignored it; and so it’s now being distributed free-of-charge to all newsmedia, but the following were the newsmedia that had already declined it as an exclusive news report: The Daily Beast, Slate, […]

Says if Putin doesn’t want Russia’s retaliatory forces eliminated, he’ll need to be the one to press the nuclear button first. Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin. On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

On May 18th, two top people at NATO, one being its current Secretary General — the very top person — laid out in preliminary form the case for war against Russia, which presumably will be presented in more detail at the NATO Summit to be held in Poland on 8-9 July this year. As if […]

[Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2016] There are two realistic scenarios for Bernie Sanders to win the U.S. Presidency. One depends upon his receiving the Democratic Party’s nomination. The other doesn’t, but both are realistic. HE STILL MIGHT WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION He still can win the Democratic Party’s nomination, under not just one […]

The use of ‘Crimea’ as an excuse for this restoration of the «Cold War» (which is already a hot war in Ukraine, Syria, and other lands, where the US sees fit to replace leaders that ally with Russia), is just as bogus as is the use of ‘Iranian nuclear weapons’ as an excuse for installing SDI. Any […]

The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books («Whose Sarin?» and «The Red Line and the Rat Line») has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

On April 26th, Reuters headlined from Romania, «‘We’re Not Here to Provoke,’ Say US Pilots on Putin’s Doorstep», and gave as an example: «‘We’re not here to provoke anybody, we’re here to work with our allies,’ says Dan Barina, a 26-year-old pilot on his first trip to a region where tensions have risen markedly since Russia annexed the Crimean […]

Page 1 of 212