The Economist: Nuclear Confrontation Is Difficult, but Necessary

The Economist has again proven itself a loyal spokesman for the Empire, this time insisting that a nuclear confrontation with Russia “is difficult, but it has to be done.”

The cover of the Feb. 22-28 issue is a picture of the burning tires in the Maidan, with the title “Putin’s Inferno.” The lead editorial, certainly written by international editor Edward Lucas, who has been campaigning against Russia in The Economist for many years (including the infamous 2007 article predicting that Obama would threaten Russia with nuclear war over Ukraine in the second decade of this century), says: “Immediate responsibility for this mayhem lies with Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s thuggish president. But its ultimate architect sits in the Kremlin: Vladimir Putin.” It has a picture of Putin and Yanukovych shaking hands, with the caption: “Ukraine’s ruler, and Viktor Yanukovich.”

But the cute stuff is not the point—rather, it is the open threat of nuclear war. The article concludes: “It is time for the West to stand up to this gangsterism. Confronting a country that has the spoiling power of a seat on the UN Security Council, huge hydrocarbon reserves and lots of nuclear weapons is difficult, but it has to be done. At a minimum, the diplomatic pretense that Russia is a law-abiding democracy should end. It should be ejected from the G8.”

U.S. Analysts Warn of Ukraine Nazis and Danger of Nuclear War

A faction of U.S. political analysts is warning of the danger of a nuclear confrontation with Russia because of the fascist coup in Ukraine:

  • Libertarian blogger Sheldon Richman, vice-president of The Future of Freedom warns on its website: “Obama Should Steer Clear of Ukraine.” Richman writes, “The sorry fact is that America’s rulers did much more than spike the football when the Soviet Union peacefully disintegrated. In every conceivable way, they exploited the occasion to assure that the United States would maintain its status as sole superpower and global hegemon. They humiliated Russia’s leadership, apparently not caring that it would never passively accept the insult … Now demonstrations in the streets — even mob rule featuring neo-Nazis — have resulted in turmoil and death … The Obama administration should not only forswear direct and covert intervention, it should also shut up. American presidents must learn to mind their own business, even where Russia is concerned. The potential for a nuclear confrontation is nothing to take lightly.”
  • Max Blumenthal writes on Alternet on Feb. 24, “Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?” It leads, “As the Euromaidan protests in the Ukrainian capitol of Kiev culminated this week, displays of open fascism and neo-Nazi extremism became too glaring to ignore.” He reports Sen. John McCain having stood at Svoboda leader Tyahnybok’s side at a Maidan rally; Nuland’s meeting with Tyahnybok this month; and Nuland’s scheming phone call with the U.S. Ambassador. Blumenthal reports that “Tyahnybok’s deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is fond of quoting Joseph Goebbels and Stepan Bandera.”
  • On Feb. 25, Paul Craig Roberts writes again on “The Crisis In Ukraine,” beginning: “In 2004 Hungary joined the EU, expecting streets of gold. Instead, four years later in 2008 Hungary became indebted to the IMF,” linking to the band Mouksa Underground’s song, “Instead of wealth we have poverty, unrestrained exploitation…” Had the Kiev students listened to this song instead of to Washington’s NGOs, “Ukraine would not be in turmoil and headed toward destruction.”Says Roberts, “There is no doubt whatsoever that the coup is a strategic move by Washington to weaken Russia. Washington tried to capture Ukraine in 2004 with the Washington-funded ‘Orange Revolution,’ but failed… The loss of Ukraine to the EU and NATO would mean the loss of Russia’s naval base on the Black Sea and the loss of many military industries. If Russia were to accept such strategic defeat, it would mean that Russia had submitted to Washington’s hegemony.”

    Did Washington miscalculate and lose control of the coup to the neo-Nazis, or have “the Washington neocons been working with the neo-nazis for years,” Roberts poses. “If Washington has lost control of the coup and is unable to restore control to the moderates whom it has aligned with the EU and NATO, war would seem to be unavoidable. There is no doubt that the Russian provinces would seek and be granted Russia’s protection. Whether Russia would go further and overthrow the neo-nazis in western Ukraine is unknown. Whether Washington, which seems to have positioned military forces in the region, would provide the military might for the moderates to defeat the neo-nazis is also an open question, as is Russia’s response. The entire world should be alarmed at the reckless and irresponsible interference by Washington in Ukraine. By bringing a direct strategic threat to Russia, the crazed Washington hegemon has engineered a Great Power confrontation and created the risk of world destruction.”

This entry was posted in Empire, Stopping WW III, Ukraine and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.