ERIC ZUESSE -- Biden Administration Seeking to Provoke China to War

 Biden Administration Seeking to Provoke China to War

Eric Zuesse, February 22, 2021

The United States now routinely violates a fundamental agreement that had been reached between Russia and the U.S. at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. FDR and Stalin agreed together that though every major power has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations in its “neighborhood” insofar as is necessary in order to block such a nearby nation’s alliance with any hostile major power (an example is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, in which Kennedy had a right to block Cuba from receiving Soviet missiles), no such right to intervene in a foreign country’s purely internal or domestic affairs (such as “human rights”) exists: i.e., the international right to intervene exists ONLY to protect that given major power’s own national security, but not to intervene into that nearby nation’s internal affairs for any other reason. Nor to post forces nearby that other major power. This was FDR’s view, and it was Stalin’s view. They both agreed to disagree together against Churchill’s view, his view that a major power should be allowed to intervene outside of its own neighborhood, or to “have an empire.” Whereas Churchill insisted upon Britain’s continuing to own India, Burma, and other regions that weren’t in Britain’s neighborhood, FDR and Stalin refused to recognize any such right, of any nation. 

This was the fundamental disagreement that FDR and Stalin together had against Churchill. It is likewise today the position of Russia and of China but no longer the position of the U.S. Government, which — almost as soon as FDR died on 12 April 1945 — adopted Churchill’s view, the view that empires are okay.

F. William Engdahl -- O plano destrutivo por trás da agenda de Biden com foco na Rússia

 Federação Russa

O plano destrutivo por trás da agenda de Biden com foco na Rússia

02.02.2021

 

O plano destrutivo por trás da agenda de Biden com foco na Rússia

Por F. William Engdahl

31 de janeiro de 2021 " Câmara de Compensação de Informações " - Desde o primeiro dia, a nova administração Biden deixou claro que adotará uma política hostil e agressiva contra a Federação Russa de Vladimir Putin. A política por trás dessa postura não tem nada a ver com quaisquer atos infames que a Rússia de Putin possa ou não ter cometido contra o Ocidente. Não tem nada a ver com alegações absurdas de que Putin envenenou o dissidente pró-EUA Alexei Navalny com o agente nervoso Novichok ultra-mortal. Isso tem a ver com uma agenda muito mais profunda dos poderes globalistas que existem. Essa agenda é o que está sendo avançado agora.

Como candidato, Joe Biden afirmou isso com frequência. Suas principais escolhas de política externa ressaltam que o foco com o governo Biden, independentemente de quão apto o próprio Biden seja, mudará das ameaças da China para a Rússia de Putin. O chefe da CIA de Biden, Bill Burns, é ex-embaixador em Moscou e foi secretário de Estado adjunto durante o golpe de Estado de Obama na CIA na Ucrânia em 2014. Notavelmente, quando Burns deixou o Estado em novembro de 2014, foi sucedido por Tony Blinken, agora secretário do Estado. Blinken supostamente formulou a resposta do Departamento de Estado dos EUA à anexação da Crimeia pela Rússia.As escolhas do Gabinete de Joe Biden revelam muito. Suas principais escolhas de política externa - Tony Blinken como Secretário de Estado e Victoria Nuland como Subsecretária de Estado para Assuntos Políticos; Bill Burns como chefe da CIA; Jake Sullivan como Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional; Avril Haines como Diretora de Inteligência Nacional - todos são do governo Obama-Biden e todos trabalharam juntos. Da mesma forma, todos veem a Rússia, não a China, como a principal ameaça à segurança para a hegemonia global dos Estados Unidos.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- How The Bush Family Is Finally Defeating Donald Trump -- October 01, 2020

 

How The Bush Family Is Finally Defeating Donald Trump

 

Eric Zuesse – October 01, 2020

 

Perhaps more than anyone else, Jeb Bush organized the ‘electoral’ defeat of Donald Trump this year, and the installation of Joe Biden into the White House in 2021. 

 

Jeb had been the Florida Governor who engineered the “Brooks Brothers riot” that, with the help of Antonin Scalia on 9 December 2000, defeated Al Gore’s U.S. Presidential campaign, and installed George W. Bush into the U.S. Presidency on 20 January 2001. It was a carefully pre-organized ‘riot’ led by out-of-state Republicans who were being paid by the Republican National Committee — there was nothing spontaneous or even locally Floridian about it, except that the Governor and his subordinate who oversaw it, Kathleen Harris, were Florida officials. Perhaps more than anything else, this astroturf ‘grassroots Republican’ rebellion against the Florida vote-recount, and the follow-through of it by the Republican Supreme Court judges, made today’s USA what it now is. 

 

Jeb Bush holds a grudge that is obsessive, and he can’t forgive Trump for having wiped him out in the Republican U.S. Presidential primaries during 2016. He’s getting back at Trump, today, with another dark-money ‘grassroots Republican’ operation. (Republican billionaires, such as the Kochs, have been far more successful at funding Republican astroturf ‘grassroots’ organizations than Democratic ones have been.)

 

This is the dark-money-financed campaign ad for Joe Biden that Jeb, working behind the scenes, created via the dark-money group “Republican Voters Against Trump”, and which is now flooding onto TV, in the key battleground states, so as to make Joe Biden not just the man of America’s defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, but also the man of (and in debt to) the Bush family, in particular:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFXBJR2yIDg

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- U.S. Empire: Biden and Kerry Gave Orders to Ukraine’s President

U.S. Empire: Biden and Kerry Gave Orders to Ukraine’s President

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture

On May 19th, an implicit international political warning was issued, but it wasn’t issued between countries; it was issued between allied versus opposed factions within each of two countries: U.S. and Ukraine. In the United States, it’s a Republican Party warning to the Democratic Party: a warning by Trump, against Biden and against Obama. It’s saying: “We’ve got the goods on you, and we’re not releasing it yet. But here’s a sample. So, let’s deal.” 

It’s a warning that comes from the current President of Ukraine, Volodmyr Zelenskiy, and that places into an exceptionally bad light his immediate predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, as having been a mere vassal of Trump’s immediate predecessor, Obama.

Eric Zuesse -- America’s Political Crisis

America’s Political Crisis

Eric Zuesse

America’s two political Parties have produced Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee — the voters are offered by the American system only those two as the possible next President and Commander-in-Chief.

Here is some of the verbal evidence against each, indicating rather clearly his psychopathy; and the crisis is that both are clearly psychopaths:

TRUMP:

"People said to me, 'Why are you staying in Syria,'" Trump said Tuesday. "Because I kept the oil, which frankly we should have done in Iraq," he added, to cheers and applause from the audience.

“We’re keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil."

Feb. 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.” 

March 11: “I think we’re going to get through it very well.”

May 5: “I’m viewing our great citizens of this country to a certain extent and to a large extent as warriors. They’re warriors. We can’t keep our country closed. We have to open our country.”

May 13 (about Trump, from a close acquaintance): “Says George Conway, a Republican lawyer who is married to Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s senior counsellor: ‘In my view he is a sociopath and a malignant narcissist.’”

BIDEN:

ERIC ZUESSE -- Ukraine, Trump, Biden — The Real Story Behind “Ukrainegate”

Ukraine, Trump, Biden — The Real Story Behind “Ukrainegate”

IN FOUR PARTS

by Eric Zuesse

Eric Zuesse

PART ONE: TRUMP’S 25 JULY 2019 PHONE-CALL TO ZELENSKY

Since this news-report is going to be especially harsh regarding today’s Democratic Party in the United States, readers should be aware that until that Party nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016, this writer was, and consistently voted as, a Democrat, and that I have never been, and never could be, a Republican. In no way does this article reflect a Republican viewpoint. It is not partisan — not favoring one person’s viewpoint over any other’s. (Though it does favor trustworthy evidence over untrustworthy hearsay and witnesses, etc.) This article is written by a consistent progressive, which means a person whose top value is truth, nothing else than 100% honesty and reflecting only personally verified sources, real facts. Intense care has therefore been taken in checking and cross-checking and validating information before accepting here anything as constituting information instead of as being disinformation (which is sadly rampant). The following article is written only because it reports what my own independent researches have found to be the actual case regarding what is now commonly called “Ukrainegate” (the focus of the impeachment-proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump).

—

The ‘news’-media and the Democrats have been grossly misrepresenting what the “Ukrainegate” narrative and the impeachment proceedings against the current U.S. President are all about; and, as a result of this widespread misinformation, ABC News headlined on November 18th, “70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL”, and reported that “32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone-call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.” This poll found that 100% of the 506 scientifically sampled respondents had heard at least some of the impeachment hearings, and that 51% of them agreed with the statement, “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate,” while 6% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate.” 25% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were NOT wrong.”

However, far more was actually involved in this phone-call than allegations against the Bidens; and those allegations regarding the Bidens have themselves been grossly misrepresented in the press, as this article will show, and will document in its links to the actual and most trustworthy evidence in the case. (Of course, the very best evidence is the call itself, and that will therefore be the first thing linked to and discussed here.)

Furthermore, the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on which to impeach Trump — and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America’s President — Trump’s having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. Now the Democrats’ ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence, is that in Trump’s 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine’s new President Volodmyr Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.

One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story — changes to a new and different reason for ‘justifying’ his actions (in this case, impeachment) — and this clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the ‘news’-media, in order to replace President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond the mere surface — much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the reader’s direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so that the reader may see, on one’s own, what the ‘news’-media do not report.

25 September 2019 was when a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island’s Providence Journal; and here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times, in fact — the only three times that the word “Biden” appears in the entire transcript):

Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch], was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr] would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

What “prosecution,” of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they aren’t simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be documented.

Eric Zuesse -- How Most Americans Favor Corruption

How Most Americans Favor Corruption

Eric Zuesse  

October 6, 2019

© Photo: PxHere

Americans don’t do it voluntarily, but mainly because they don’t understand the way the US system works. Part of that is the nation’s legal system; part of it isn’t, but is instead international.

Regardless of whether or not today’s United States is a democracy, our legal system possesses two features that make corruption especially difficult to prosecute to conviction, and this difficulty is extreme and makes such convictions extremely rare at the top, amongst members of Congress, and Presidents, and former federal officials, and billionaires, so that people at that level need to be extremely stupid in order to be convictable for whatever corruption they might do. (And such extreme stupidity is virtually non-existent amongst that elite, most powerful, group. So, they get away with it. There is absolutely nothing to stop them.) Consequently, corruption is rampant at the top in America.

Both of these two domestic, US, features apply also to some lesser extent in every other country; and, at the end, I’ll describe the exacerbating factor that makes the situation especially bad in the United States — the international factor, which intensifies America’s corruption-problem.

Reason Number One why Americans favor corruption is that (especially at the top) corruption is, to a large extent — and very unlike lower-class crimes of direct violence — a judgment-call, largely political, and therefore specifically a partisan matter to judge. Anything that’s “partisan” is especially difficult to produce a unanimous verdict, which is what would be required for a conviction. Consequently, an individual of high status within the elite will be granted by his group or “party” every benefit of every possible doubt. This is likely to protect any elite person from being convicted.

Take, for example, the latest “CBS News poll: Majority of Americans and Democrats approve of Trump impeachment inquiry”. On the question of impeachment, 87% of Democrats approve, while 77% of Republicans disapprove. There’s nothing even approaching unanimity. However, since impeachment is not entirely an issue which is based solely on the possibility of there having been corruption, a better indicator here is the poll’s other main question, of whether Trump deserves to be impeached over Ukraine. That question concerns not only the possibility that Trump might have acted corruptly in this matter, but also the questions of whether Hunter Biden did, and of whether his father Joe Biden did. Consequently, it measures only on corruption (abuse-of-office), not at all on other impeachment-issues; so, this is an ideal measure, for our purpose. Of course, Trump is a Republican but the latter two are Democrats, and Joe aims to replace Trump if Trump doesn’t become impeached by the House and then convicted in the Senate, and Joe aims to replace Mike Pence if Trump does become convicted in the Senate and replaced there by his Vice President. Though corruption is the issue on both sides (Republicans versus Democrats), it is an extremely partisan issue and therefore plays extremely to each side’s political prejudices. 75% of Democrats believe that Trump deserves to be impeached over the issue of Ukraine, and 8% believe that he doesn’t. 70% of Republicans think that he doesn’t deserve to be impeached over Ukraine, and 16% believe that he does. Consequently, the single issue of Ukraine accounts for almost all of the beliefs on both sides regarding whether or not Trump deserves to be impeached, and this issue of Ukraine is virtually 100% an issue about corruption.

In a court of law, whenever a particular issue is politically charged, unanimous verdicts are virtually impossible to attain. Neither impeachment nor removal from office requires anything even close to any such unanimity as judgment in a court-case does, because neither the House nor the Senate would be voting anything like jurors do in a courtroom, and the rules are extremely different; and, so, any corruption trial that’s in a court of law  faces an almost impossible barrier against conviction (because the standards of evidence and the other rules in a court-case are far stricter). So, this is one way in which most Americans favor corruption. (Like everywhere, Americans are prejudiced — i.e., partisan.)

Reason Number Two for this almost invulnerability at the top in America is that America’s elite, even more than in other countries, normally possess the financial wherewithal to hire enough lawyers of enough excellence in order to crush the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, there are a multitude of fine points in our laws that were written precisely in order to enable almost any of these people to be able to avoid being convicted. That’s one of the main things they buy politicians for — to get those types of “fine points” into the laws. It’s how the American system functions.