Source – srp-presse.fr
- “…A very illuminating example is the plan for the Allied landing in June 1944. Those who do not blindly believe the official story (of the “liberators” of Europe) know that the plan was not to save Paris but, on the contrary, to bypass the Paris basin to the south and north in order to trap the German army. In this way, the German army would certainly have pounced on Paris,3 which would have had two advantages: it would have bought the Allied armies time to advance on Berlin and, moreover, it would have been easier afterwards to “get a grip” on France, deeply traumatized by the cruel destruction of its capital, through the American political and administrative system, its governors and even its currency. It was de Gaulle’s brilliant maneuvering and strength of character that saved us from this tragedy”
America’s Hidden Aim in Ukraine – Dismembering Europe Forever
Is the war in Ukraine just a confrontation of good and evil? Or does it obey international calculations that are less open and praiseworthy?
Among the various forms of political effort that American Atlanticism1 represents, economics ranks high. The war in Ukraine offers the neoconservatives and the country’s businessmen an extraordinary opportunity, first, to ruin Europe and, second, to skin it.
Assuming that herbivores have some self-image, it is reasonable to assume that they do not perceive themselves primarily as ‘meat’. The problem is that carnivores, for their part, do not see things in the same way. This is the whole question of Europe.
Hubert Védrine has often said that the European experiment suffers from a crucial flaw, namely the fact that it is “a project of herbivores in the midst of carnivores.” And indeed, Europe has been built from the beginning on an ambiguity, a weakness so serious that, like all great weaknesses, it is crucial never to bring it into focus, even when it is visible to all: its own defense.
The “American friendship”: a brief review
This essential prerogative is entrusted to the United States through NATO2. In history, however, there is no example of a country having to permanently guarantee the security of another country or group of countries without perceiving those others as “meat” at some point in time. As the appetite of the protector grows and his charges are at his mercy, there will inevitably come a day when he will “spring into action.”
This is in the nature of things: let us imagine that we hire a “strong man” who is sufficiently armed and also strong in character to protect our family and home. He lives with us and shares every moment with us. Who would prevent that one day, when he feels like it, he will help himself from the refrigerator and then from the household treasury? Then he will threaten us if we protest. He will change the decoration if he doesn’t like it, then he will beat our children, finally he will sleep in our bed, preferably with our wife … And the more dangerous the environment in the neighborhood becomes, the more he will do so. In this case he will think that he can get away with anything. Who should stop him, especially when we have trusted him for decades, despite his assaults, and have never tried to distance ourselves from him or to balance our relations by approaching another protector? Certainly, this moment will come one day. Europe has put itself in this position, and that day, the day of another step into subjugation and humiliation and tomorrow into poverty and misery, has come.
First, it should be noted that when the U.S. wants something, it is not squeamish, even with its friends. A very illuminating example is the plan for the Allied landing in June 1944. Those who do not blindly believe the official story (of the “liberators” of Europe) know that the plan was not to save Paris but, on the contrary, to bypass the Paris basin to the south and north in order to trap the German army. In this way, the German army would certainly have pounced on Paris,3 which would have had two advantages: it would have bought the Allied armies time to advance on Berlin and, moreover, it would have been easier afterwards to “get a grip” on France, deeply traumatized by the cruel destruction of its capital, through the American political and administrative system, its governors and even its currency. It was de Gaulle’s brilliant maneuvering and strength of character that saved us from this tragedy4.
The Americans have acted similarly on many occasions, first betraying and then ruining their own allies:
In Iran at the time of the Shah5, thanks to his friendship with Eisenhower and later with Nixon, the Shah first relied on the United States to seize and then consolidate his power. Later, when he tried to emancipate himself a little by rapprochement with the Soviet Union and China, and later with Europe, the Americans took advantage of precisely the internal resistance to his policies, which were considered too modern, pro-Western and pro-American (that’s the top!). They will push Komeyni to overthrow him. He will end his life cancerous in Egypt. You know where Iran is today, a country where isolation and poverty meet.
Saddam Hussein6 is another example of U.S. “friendship.” One must remember that Iraq was the most developed country in the Middle East at the time, despite or because of the dictator’s methods. These methods did not bother America in any way7. Some claimed that when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait in 1990, he sought prior approval from his “great friends.” As we know, he failed to do so8. Then, history has shown that the second Gulf War in 2003 was not a “pre-emptive war” but a pure predatory operation, certainly masterfully conducted by George W. Bush and his neoconservative entourage9. Today, Iraq is an economic and political shambles. The list could be continued.
An operation meticulously prepared since 2014.
For these American politicians, who are often themselves managers of American oil and military industrial corporations, no opportunity is uninteresting10. For these inveterate hunters, always on the lookout for prey, no game is negligible. If you are convinced of this, after these historical examples, it is easy to imagine how much the Ukraine crisis is a great opportunity for them, an operation carefully prepared since 201411 and triggered at the right time.
First, the beginning coincides very precisely with the rather disastrous end of their “business” in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan last summer12. The beginning of the “operational phase” of the Ukrainian affair, which started in the spring with the “media carpet bombing13 “, is too perfect to be a coincidental effect. NATO has never been “brain dead.” Once the Middle Eastern issues were settled, it was time to open this new chapter of the “peoples’ struggle for freedom,” this time subject to Russian arbitrariness. Have we not heard this song sung before?
Secondly, the war triggered two reflexes in the Westerners, the “herbivores” who are the objects of the next hunt:
The first was to increase arms budgets very sharply. The most spectacular reaction was that of Germany, which immediately allocated 100 billion euros and promised to increase its budget regularly14. And this to buy – it goes without saying – mainly American equipment15. The same procedure applies to all other NATO countries, including France16. So the very beginning of this war is already an extraordinary opportunity for the US military industry. Incidentally, one can assume that one of their sub-objectives in this field is to ruin and plunder the French defense industry as quickly as possible, since in relation to this “new market” in Europe that is opening up to them, it represents a competition that they will quickly consider unacceptable17.
The other European “reflex” was that of sanctions. It was unanimous and very important. It can be assumed that it was guided less by the choice of a method to stop Putin (a few moments of reflection are enough to understand that this will not be the case) than by the need to create a “media backfire” to the images of the misfortune of the Ukrainian people spread by the press. The almost exclusive choice by Western governments of a policy of words, images, and posturing rather than a policy of action makes them extremely vulnerable to the media campaigns of others, something that the Americans, who specialize in this kind of strategy, have understood very well and have exploited without limits before and during this conflict, as well as in the past.
It is also worth noting that the way these sanctions were voted on is particularly indicative of Europe’s weakness. Indeed, according to press reports, the sanctions were drafted directly by the U.S. State Department in conjunction with the European Commission, without the Member States having any say in the matter, and they were notified 24 hours before they were announced. If this is the case, it is particularly worrisome.
Notwithstanding the fact that it will now be necessary to explain to the people – and this will not be an easy task – that their purchasing power has been massively affected for a war that was not directed against them18 , this “delegation” to the Americans19 of a sanctions policy that mainly affects Europe naturally opens the door, for the Biden environment, to options that not only “annoy” the Russians, but also promote the weakening of European industry, with the aim of a future raid on our industries and resources.
Who could prevent our “friends” in the West from wanting to argue this way, since we have indicated from the beginning that we will allow them to do so? Why should they mind “buying” from us when we so readily open the door to them? And why wouldn’t they set about preparing for this future incursion today by choosing the sanctions that hurt the Russians the most, but also hurt us, since we are obviously doing nothing to tell them no? The current issue is really the fact that we are serving as “cannon fodder” in this conflict, since it is we who are on the front line and bear all the risks, economic, military and also nuclear20. Obviously, what will matter in the future is that we are also the “pieces” that will be collected, and at the lowest price. What today suggests that things may be different?
One of the examples that tend to prove that things are indeed moving in this direction is the issue of payment for Russian exports in rubles. Indeed, it is well known that Putin, in order to counteract the devaluation of the ruble caused by the sanctions, has very wisely demanded that exports of his products to “unfriendly” countries be paid for in rubles. In principle, this does not bother the European countries in any way. In fact, what prevents them from buying rubles? The only ones it bothers – and this is a very important point for them – are the U.S. because it tends to challenge the monopoly of the U.S. dollar for international transactions. If tomorrow it becomes commonplace for large international transactions to be paid for in yuan, euros, rubles, or yen, the American advantage will be over. That would be a political weakening of the first order. For this reason, they are holding on to this “dogma” like the apple of their eye.
They have therefore had Germany and France, among others, answer their rejection of this modality. But if tomorrow morning the Russians stop delivering their gas to Europe because we refuse to buy rubles (because the Americans forbid us to do so, although we don’t mind), this will mean bankruptcy for many European companies21. Then a “scrap market” will open for the American funds and “majors”, and they would be stupid not to use it. In such a case, we are clearly the “stupid ones”, and things will continue, because it is clear, as we have shown, that the Russians have an interest in cutting short the conflict when they have achieved what they want (the “Finlandization” of Ukraine), and going home, while the Americans have a main goal of implicating the Russians on the ground and “Vietnamizing” their opponents.22 The U.S. has no interest in ending the conflict until they have achieved their goals.
Another example is the trade blockade enforced by the sanctions. It develops in three directions:
- Buying Russian products: Since we are no longer allowed to buy from Russians because of the sanctions, we are forced to find alternative suppliers. Guessing, as in the case of gas, who will be forced on us first?
- The sale of products to the Russians: Russia has been an important market for us. If we can no longer sell to them, our companies will be very weakened. Again, guess who will be on the front line to buy us out?
- Finally, the trade partnerships with Russia, mainly through our local subsidiaries. This is the worst of the three scenarios because, as we know, the Russian government has already submitted a bill to the Duma aimed at nationalizing foreign companies that stop operating in Russia, even temporarily. In this way, French flagships such as Renault, Total, Auchan and Décathlon are threatened. While Auchan and Décathlon have already declared that they will not cease their Russian activities, the same is not true for Renault, which is pilloried (in its message to French parliamentarians!) by the zealous Zélinsky, who is always ready to pass on U.S. orders.23 In recent years, the U.S. has repeatedly advocated the nationalization of companies. This is particularly dangerous because in this case we would lose both our CA and our capital24. Despite this risk, our own state does not defend us, but allows our companies to be “lynched” by the media if they do not obey American orders. And if they go bankrupt, again, we guess where the funds to “save” them will come from?
Who benefits from the crime?
Who benefits from the crime in all these cases25? And most importantly, who will benefit tomorrow, because it is obvious that this conflict will continue, not because the Russians want it, but because the Americans want it26. Where will our economy be in six months, in one year, in two years, in ten years? And it is clear that the basis on which gullible people can justify to some extent27 the sacrifices and suffering they are enduring and will endure in the future is war. It is the war that can make European states accept their docility, because in the face of the threat “the Americans protect us” and “necessity is the mother of invention. “28 It is the war that must ultimately make it possible to accelerate the overexploitation. In the eyes of American communications strategists, therefore, it will be crucial that the call “It’s war!” and its staging continue as long as possible.
This is all the more serious because, again, this war did not concern us29 … until we agreed of our own accord to enter it by deciding to supply arms and becoming co-regents. It becomes clear why it was crucial for the Americans to push us in this direction. One also understands the masterful mistake we made in not refusing to engage in this field. Why did we not limit ourselves to the humanitarian level? Now we find ourselves with full force in a “logic of war.” In peacetime, we already had the arbitrary enormity of the extraterritoriality of U.S. law. In times of war, a time that justifies everything, where will the demands of our “protectors” end?
It is of no use to propose to repair the dilapidated house on the beach if one does not see the huge tsunami coming, whose crest is already on the horizon. In the face of such mechanics, of a terrifying process that is being set in motion before our eyes and that nothing seems to indicate will stop (since no one denounces it!), nothing less than the planned and willing ruin of Europe and then its sellout30, the Franco-French proposals of all the candidates for the future presidential elections will be of very little importance. The only thing that can really influence the course of events will be our foreign policy. Image EU: Kaonos / Shutterstock
- See “Atlanticism, a French political impensé” in the March 18, 2022 Smart ReadingPress.
- Except for France’s, but only in its nuclear component. Otherwise, France is part ofNATO. Therefore, the Lisbon Treaty applies, stating that NATO remains “the basis of defense and the authority for the implementation” of the CFSP for European defense (see Article 15).
- As it was accustomed to do. This is what had already happened in Warsaw in August1944. After the uprising, the Germans had taken cruel revenge on the city and completely destroyed it. On the other side of the Vistula, the Russians had patiently waited for the martyrdom to end before intervening… (See Wikipedia. The original American plan was to allow the same to happen to Paris).
- See TV5Monde.
- See Wikipedia.6 – See Wikipedia.
- In 1983, neoconservative Donald Rumsfeld sold him the mustard gas he later used togas the Kurds, one of the misdeeds he was accused of. See on this video.
- See Wikipedia.
- In the days following the U.S. invasion, the $7 billion Iraqi Treasury Reserve magicallydisappeared. See Wikipedia.
- In his time, Eisenhower was already complaining about their greed. It should be recalled that the husband of Victoria Nuland, the champion of the Ukraine affair, is none other than Robert Kagan, the leader of the American neoconservatives (see Wikipedia). And the U.S. defense budget has increased from $280 billion to $773 billion between 2001 and 2022. So the industrial and commercial challenges are colossal.
- See “Ukraine: the trap is sprung … on Putin” in Smart Rading Press, February 25, 2022.
- See “Afghanistan: the change of the geopolitical fundamentals” in Smart Reading Press,September 24, 2021.
- Carpet of bombs.
- So as to reach 2 percent of GDP.
- Against this background, how could the French be surprised that they were so “betrayed”? This reaction is either pure staging or incredible naivety!
- Also at least 2% of GDP for all European countries. See touteleurope.eu.
- It is the Germans, it seems, who are entrusted with this “menial work”.
- At least it was not, before it was decided to supply arms to the Ukrainians….
- The Americans are in fact not affected by the sanctions. In fact, they benefit from thesanctions, especially in terms of the rock-mother gas they export, while we have deliberately refrained from doing so. We have maneuvered ourselves into the energy trap. See atlantico.fr.
- See Ukraine: What Now? (Smart Reading Press) and the development about the “U.S.nuclear umbrella.”
- According to economist Charles Gave, if Russia stops delivering, it can hold out fortwo years, but Germany can hold out for four days before its industry grinds to a halt. See Sud Radio.
- See Ukraine: now what? (Smart Reading Press) and the U.S. strategy.
- When a “sponsor” lends $10 billion to a borrower, the borrower does exactly what theother asks of him or he risks a bullet in the head very quickly. Since negotiations between Russians and Ukrainians began on the Belarusian border, two of the Ukrainian negotiators, who must have been a bit overzealous, have been murdered on their return to Kiev….
- Since Renault announced the cessation of its operations in Russia, and without evenwaiting for its activities to be nationalized, its stock has already fallen 25%, and management has announced losses of 2 billion euros for this year. How will the company recover from this?
- See Jean-Frédéric Poisson’s tweet of March 26, 2022.
- See above, NDBP No. 22.
- And hopefully less and less.
- The truth is that they do not protect us. It is we who protect them… by forming the buffer!
- Which doesn’t mean that we don’t have to protect ourselves from the Russians aswell. The rule “si vis pacem, para bellum” must not tolerate exceptions.
- See: Laurent Izard, La France vendue à la découpe, L’Artilleur, 2019.