You successfully added to your cart! You can either continue shopping, or checkout now if you'd like.
Note: If you'd like to continue shopping, you can always access your cart from the icon at the upper-right of every page.
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan, gives an analysis of the US government’s policy that has caused the crisis in Ukraine.
The Obama regime, wallowing in hubris and arrogance, has recklessly escalated the Ukrainian crisis into a crisis with Russia. Whether intentionally or stupidly, Washington’s propagandistic lies are driving the crisis to war. Unwilling to listen to any more of Washington’s senseless threats, Moscow no longer accepts telephone calls from Obama and US top officials….
As Washington and NATO are not positioned at this time to move significant military forces into Ukraine with which to confront the Russian military, why is the Obama regime trying to provoke action by the Russian military? A possible answer is that Washington’s plan to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base having gone awry, Washington’s fallback plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to a Russian invasion so that Washington can demonize Russia and force a large increase in NATO military spending and deployments.
In other words, the fallback prize is a new cold war and trillions of dollars more in profits for Washington’s military/security complex.
First let me say that President Obama is not the driving force of this Ukrainian crisis, but is only doing what the money power hired him to do. We have not had an independent president since Kennedy tried to be independent back in 1963.
Second, after the Reagan administration succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s through currency manipulations, the US government had an opportunity to turn the new Russia into a friend. The US government wants friends, but only if they remain weak enough to be under the hegemony of the US government. Russia’s sheer size has always ensured their potential as a world power. So the US government treated them as a future rival, rather than as a friend.
I often wonder what the world would look like today if the US had expressed its appreciation at Putin’s assistance and support for the “war on terror” going back to the year 2001. Russia’s friendship, however, was not reciprocated. Instead of incorporating Russia into NATO, the US broke its agreements and began to incorporate the eastern European nations into NATO in order to surround Russia with missiles.
Remember the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960's? Russia tried to put missiles in Cuba virtually on our southern border. The result was that America felt it had the right to violate Cuba's sovereignty with a naval blockade. It nearly resulted in a world war. Now America is trying to do the same thing on Russia's southern border, and Putin feels that he has the right to prevent this. If America objects to Russia's right of self-protection, they are violating the principle of equal weights and measures (Matthew 7:2).
When the US government moved to set up a NATO base in the Republic of Georgia--on Russia's southern border--Russia’s patience ended and they invaded to protect themselves. Now we see the same situation in the Ukraine. When US interests were threatened in the Persian Gulf, our government invaded and openly stated that it was to protect American interests in the region. Yet they deny Russia the same right. This double standard irritates Putin. It is no wonder that he has stopped taking Obama’s telephone calls.