Some of the Major Contradictions in Outlaw US Empire's War on the World

Yesterday within the Outlaw US Empire the Memorial Day holiday was observed, sort of, by laying wreaths at the site of mass murder shootings at Uvalde and Buffalo instead of at military cemeteries while reflecting on the issues of War and Peace. In response to several media articles, I attacked several seemingly unseen massive contradictions existing within the Outlaw US Empire's war to retain its global hegemony and finally attain Full Spectrum Dominance. The first illuminates what US WW2 vet Joseph Heller wrote about in his famous Catch-22 that established the title as a term for the contradiction inherent within the Outlaw US Empire's political-economy when it comes to the issue of war and defense spending and other issues one confronts in life having the same characteristics that were previously described as Damned if you do; damned if you don't. The following first appeared as commentary at the Moon of Alabama Geopolitical blog:

Interesting discourse today. First, I want to expound upon the massive Catch-22 overlooked by the Outlaw US Empire's Neoliberal Parasite planners: In order to make Europe, particularly Germany, geoeconomically dependent on its hydrocarbons, LNG especially, instead of Russia's, Russia's hydrocarbons are essential requirements for the building of the infrastructure that would enable that to occur. Cut Germany/EU off from Russian gas, and no infrastructure will be built to allow Outlaw US Empire LNG to win the geoeconomic game. IMO, that qualifies as a gigantic OOPS! If the gas is allowed to flow to build what must be built, Europeans will certainly ask why? We're wasting billions of euros building something we don't need whatsoever.

The above gaff is now being seen by more than just me. IMO, it appeared at Davos, along with numerous other doubts about the overall plot. And now we have Alastair Crooke writing an article that exposes more than just the one we know about Kissinger--"Disquiet at Davos and the Unsaid Fear of Failure – The First Shoots of a U.S. Ukraine Shift." And here we encounter another Catch-22:

"Klaus Schwab, passionate for Ukraine, essentially configured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to showcase Zelensky and to leverage the argument that Russia should be kicked out of the civilised world. Schwab’s target was the assembled crème de la crème of the world’s business leaders assembled there. Zelensky pitched big: 'We want more sanctions and more weapons'; 'All trade with the aggressor should be stopped'; 'All foreign business should leave Russia so that your brands are not associated with war crimes', he said. Sanctions must be all encompassing; values must matter.

"Disquiet ran through the Davos set: The WEF is high-octane globalist, right? Yet this Schwab line suggests a de-coupling ‘on stilts’. It precisely reverses interconnectedness. Plus, the western generals in charge are saying that this conflict may last not just years, but decades. What will this signify for their markets in parts of the world that refuse action against Russia, the moneymen were wondering?" [My Emphasis]

OOPS! Prior to Kissinger's words that got him sanctioned by Zelensky, we had a NYT op/ed and Congressional politico opine in similar veins:

The Davos ‘greater disquiet’ emerged however, from an unexpected quarter. Just before the WEF began, the NY Times had run a piece from the editorial team urging Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. It argued that such engagement implied making painful territorial sacrifices. The piece attracted indignant and angry push-back in Europe and the West, possibly because – albeit couched as advice to Kiev – its target was evidently Washington and London (the arch belligerents).

Eric Cantor, a former whip in the U.S. House of Representatives (a legislator well versed on Iran sanctions), also at Davos, questioned whether the West would be able to maintain a united front in pursuit of such maximalist aims as Zelensky and his Military Intelligence Chief have demanded. “We may not get the next vote”, Cantor opined (in wake of the $40 bn vote ostensibly earmarked for Ukraine).

Cantor said excluding Russia entirely would require secondary sanctions against other countries. This would place the West into a head on clash with China, India, and the almost 60 states which had refused to back a UN resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion. He warned that the U.S. may be in danger of overplaying its hand. [My Emphasis]

That's OOPS! #3. Add Kissinger's remarks, and that makes 4; yet, there are even more. And here I can say that the MoA online community was able to predict what's now happening while big shots making millions of dollars to plan the actions we've witnessed have created a massive FUBAR (Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition) far worse than Afghanistan. I know lots of MoA readers are unable to access Crooke's article at Strategic Culture, so I'm going to copy/paste his description of the other OOPS! for their benefit:

Eric Cantor, and other Americans at WEF may frame their disquiet over western objectives in ‘polite company’ as simply articulating their uncertainties over America’s grand strategy – whether the U.S. is trying to punish Russia for its aggression, or whether the goal is a subtler use of policy that gives the Kremlin a ‘route out of sanctions’, were it to change course. But behind the narrative lies a darker fear. The unsaid fear of failure.

What does this mean? It means that the West’s ultimate war aims in Ukraine have so far been able to stay opaque and undefined, the details swept aside in the mood of the moment.

Paradoxically, this opacity has been preserved despite the public failure of the West’s first statement of aims – which was that the seizure of Russia’s offshore foreign reserves; the Russian bank expulsions from SWIFT; the sanctioning of the Central Bank; and the broadside of sanctions would, in and of itself alone, turn the rouble to rubble; cause a run on the domestic banking system; collapse the Russian economy; and provoke a political crisis that Putin might not survive.

In short, ‘victory’ would be quick – if not immediate. We know this, because U.S. officials and the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire bragged about it publicly.

So confident in a quick financial-war success were these western officials that there seemed little need to invest deep strategic reflection on the aims or the course of the secondary Ukrainian military thrust. After all, a Russia already economically collapsed, with its currency ruined and its morale broken, would likely put up little or no fight as the Ukrainian army swept across Donbas and into Crimea.

Well, the sanctions have proved a bust and Russia’s currency and oil revenues are bountiful.

And now, western politicians are being warned in the media, and by their own military, that Russia is ‘close to a major victory’ in Donbas.

This is the unspoken fear disquieting Davos attendees – fear of another débacle, following that of Afghanistan. One made all the worse as the ‘war’ on Russia boomerangs into an economic collapse in Europe, and with NATO’s eight-year investment in building-up a successful proxy-army to NATO standards turning to dust.

This is what Kissinger’s comments – decoded – urge: ‘Don’t procrastinate’; get a quick deal (even an unfavourable one), but one that can be dressed up, and somehow spun as a ‘win’. But don’t wait, and let events lead the U.S. into yet another unmistakable, undeniable débacle. [My Emphasis]

Utterly amazing isn't it?! Clearly the Exceptional ones have proven themselves to be just that, except their exceptionality is merely criminal and will perhaps be determined to be the biggest Fuck-Up of all time, where they must be held accountable for every single death going back to the first gunshots at Maidan.

One of the bigger problems existing within the non-NATO analyst community is the inability to understand that Russia doesn't quibble, and it's a rare occasion when it repeats a policy decision--Putin, Lavrov, Patrushev, Medvedev, et al, say something just once, although Lavrov because of his position is constantly explaining things to the media over and over again. Two examples of this are December's Security Proposals and the Special Military Operation's (SMO) declared goals. Part of the problem is too much influence from NATO's constant moving of goal posts and corresponding assumption that Russia does the same when it doesn't do that. So, when Patrushev says in an interview that Russia will attain its SMO's goals--demilitarization and denazification--he means exactly that. This preamble sets the context for the next short comment that combines the SMO with Russia's fundamental security red lines that were stated last December:

First, Belarus (a friend was confusing Belarus with Poland, so I'm correcting him) is a partner and now essentially a part of Russia via the Union State marriage; so, it will never be a NATO member. The Baltic Three, Poland and Romania are, however, and being NATO members make them a direct threat to Russia since being in NATO and/or EU means you no longer have sovereign control over policy--your nation is occupied just as surely as if thousands of troops and their weapons were present. FZappa @172 provides us with the verbiage used by Russia, but since then NATO has shown itself to have the qualities/abilities I just described:

Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states.

The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray.

We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

Given Outlaw US Empire behavior, no NATO member can enjoy indivisible security because of the threat the Empire presents. So, even rolling NATO back to 1997 won't solve the European security issue. For all European nations to enjoy the indivisible security promised by the UN Charter, NATO must be scrapped. Then there's the problems faced by Canada and Mexico having the Outlaw US Empire as a neighbor that clearly threatens their security. And that issue points to the issue lying at the bottom of it all:

For the UN Charter to be upheld as it was envisioned, the world's nations--all of them--must disarm to the point where only basic local security forces exist. Then and ONLY THEN will all nations be able to enjoy the fruits of indivisible security--where NO NATION poses a threat to any other nation.

That's the ultimate goal of Russia's SMO and Xi's vision of a shared future for humanity. To attain those goals, a small portion of humanity and their nations must be pacified. Of course, there's more to security than protection from invasion and war. There's the need for security from Want and Fear. But they can't be attained without first dealing with war--and the reasons behind using war as a tool, the primary one being the pursuit of Zero-sum supremacy and its complement the wringing of wealth from all of humanity.

Will humanity mature and resolve the above issues by Century's end in 78 years? Only if humanity starts talking about it very seriously and very soon before the crazies running the Outlaw US Empire commit any further insidious crimes with their WMDs, particularly the bioweapons they're obviously pursuing.

Yes, idealistic, but also pragmatic. And many nations and billions of people share that POV. In 1944, those participating in the negotiations that eventually led to the UN's formation and the adoption of the UN Charter knew that the problem of armed camps having differing ideologies existed yet were able to envision a time when they would no longer exist. The same idealism was pushed by Eleanor Roosevelt to get the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted, although her own nation refused to ratify it, a stance it continues while it weaponizes Human Rights.

I've written this before and I'll continue to write that the current situation provides the best opportunity since WW2 to overturn the Might-Makes-Right Global Order that's stifled and violated the UN Charter and its own laws in its pursuit of Zero-sum Dominance. Today's world no longer accepts the current arrangement and yearns for what I've described. And IMO, that reality is possible; it's just not instantaneous or easy and demands both sacrifices and courage.

For every future Memorial Day, I want memories of Peace to be first and foremost, while memories of War fade until they truly become a thing of the past. We look out at the Universe and see life is very rare to the point where life ought to be venerated and maximized, not wasted in war.

Relative to this entire goal is the seemingly odd question posed by this interesting RT op/ed title: "Fyodor Lukyanov: Biden talks the talk, but is the US committed to meeting its international security obligations?" [My Emphasis]

Now, we might just ponder a moment to ask ourselves what are those "obligations." First and foremost, the USA isn't supposed to be an Outlaw Empire that violates the UN Charter daily. Instead, as a UNSC member, it ought to be providing absolutely perfect behavior when it comes to conducting international relations, which means obeying International Law as set forth in/by the UN Charter. As for security, ideally, it must NOT threaten ANY nation as such a threat attacks that nation's sovereignty, which is a violation of the UN Charter. Ideally, the USA would uphold and defend the UN Charter from states that behave like itself. I don't see any reason to continue as the question is clearly answered in the negative. But this also reveals the author's naivete for Biden isn't talking the talk whatsoever as he continues to violate the UN Charter and US Constitution daily, and any talk otherwise is a lie.

The greatest contradiction of all is the policy pursued by the Outlaw US Empire versus the policy the USA under Franklin Roosevelt formed and pursued during its prosecution of WW2. The 180 degree U-Turn in policy witnessed after his death on 12 April 1945 that turned America from the Land of the Free to the #1 War Criminal and Terrorist Enslaver of the World has caused decades of puzzlement for humanity. The reason for the change is easy to understand once it's admitted that Truman and his new crew had no intention of fulfilling the destiny envisioned by Roosevelt--making the Four Freedoms reality for humanity. At first the change was masked by the Cold War and particularly by its propaganda. But it soon became clear to those closely watching that Fascism merely shifted its center of gravity from Europe to the USA. In the intervening years between then and now, humanity was too weak and divided to confront this greatest of contradictions, but those liabilities have melted away with the rise of the Multipolar World Roosevelt and Wallace envisioned and that the UN was designed to uphold.

When seriously examined, Russia's security proposals and the demands of humanity place Russia's SMO and the Outlaw US Empire's response to it into different perspectives. For Russia, this has become its Second Great Patriotic War. For humanity, it's become the War to Defend the UN Charter and implementation of the vision shared by FDR, Wallace, and their allies who fought to establish the Four Freedoms. And for the Outlaw US Empire, its NATO and other vassals, this has become the Hybrid Third World War. The breakdown is 7/8ths of humanity versus 1/8th of humanity; and even that ratio is misleading as most of that 1/8th see themselves as members with the 7/8ths. What the ratios reveal is something far more fundamental that is at the foundation of our current struggle, and that is the fact that this war is an extension of the 4,000+ year-old Class War between Debtors--the masses--versus Creditors--the elites as represented by those at Davos, Wall Street, City of London, and the Globalists of Neoliberal Finance Capitalism.

Putin and company through no fault of their own are now in the vanguard for leading humanity's struggle for its sovereign freedom. Russia is again in a war for its existence against Global Fascism led by the Outlaw US Empire. Fortunately for Russia and humanity, the Fascists are grossly incompetent, while Russia and its friends are more than capable and superior in several vital capabilities. Russia and its friends know what they must do. Humanity needs to understand that it too has an important role to play--to support Russia and denounce the Fascist forces, particularly those within Europe controlled by the Outlaw US Empire.