by Ivan Danilov via StalkerZone

Hillary Clinton – the “grey cardinal” and failed US President – published a program text in the authoritative American magazine “Foreign Policy”, which can and should be considered a real strategy of the American “deep state” in restoring American world hegemony.

The throne speech of the future zombie president Biden can no longer be listened to or read: Mrs. Clinton formulated everything in the most clear and unambiguous terms, and – given the place of the “Clinton clan” in the real table of ranks of American politics – the chances of this strategy being implemented are very, very high.

The most paradoxical thing about the text of the failed “Madame President” (as she called herself) is that this program is a holistic, large and thorough recognition that Donald Trump was right. Donald Trump, even if he ends his life behind bars (and this is a very likely scenario), can write down an incredible achievement for himself – he broke the historical course of the US, and even those who are most likely to come to power using the votes of American cemeteries are already forced to build their foreign and even domestic policy, focusing, among other things, on those reference points that the eccentric New York billionaire has hammered into the American political discourse.

Despite the ritual (and rather emotional) criticism of the 45th President of the United States, Mrs. Clinton draws attention to the problems that before Democrats preferred not just to ignore, but to deny:

“Administrations of both parties have long underappreciated the security implications of economic policies that weakened strategically important industries and sent vital supply chains overseas. The foreign policy community understandably focused on how new trade agreements would cement alliances and extend American influence in developing countries. Democrats should have been more willing to hit the brakes on new trade agreements when Republicans obstructed efforts to support workers, create jobs, and invest in hard-hit communities at home,” Clinton writes.

If it weren’t for the jab at the Republicans, who were really quite irresponsible about the consequences of economic globalisation, you would think that this passage was written by one of the speechwriters of Donald Trump, who built his entire political career on accusations against both Democrats and Republicans that they deliberately took American jobs and production facilities to China, which led to a situation in which Beijing can compete with Washington in the battle for the status of a leading world power.

Globalisation in the American way has died, because it was killed by Trump, and now even the leading politician of the Democratic Party inserts Trumpian cliches in her program text and points to China as a threat to US national security — not only military, but also (above all) economic.

It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton’s program pays more attention to the fight against China than the fight against Russia, although in many cases the mention of the main enemies of the US in its text is separated by commas. At least, at the level of goal setting, there can be no question of any “concentration of all forces on Russia”. The whole discussion is based on the need to move away from the cold war cliches and find the right way to strangle China first, and Russia — for company.

However, pointing to certain “Trumpian” changes in the democratic political discourse, it is impossible not to note the iron consistency in terms of maintaining a focus only on confrontation — judging by Mrs. Clinton’s text, the idea of peaceful coexistence with China and Russia, not to mention any substantive cooperation or detente, simply does not occur to her. Even diplomacy is perceived by the former head of the State Department primarily as a tool that provides a more convenient opportunity for forceful pressure. For example, when criticising the Trump administration for failing to work with allies, she cites the following example of proper diplomacy:

“A renewed commitment to diplomacy would strengthen the United States’ military position. U.S. alliances are an asset that neither China nor Russia can match, allowing Washington to project force around the world. When I was secretary of state, for example, we secured an agreement to base 2,500 U.S. marines in northern Australia, near the contested sea-lanes of the South China Sea.”

By and large, the world will see a reformatting of the tribute that the US is trying to shake out from its vassals, and if Trump (as a real businessman) preferred payment in the form of money (which is why Clinton accuses him of turning NATO into a “racketeer” business), the more refined approach of the Democratic establishment is that vassals will pay both in money and, so to speak, in kind – in the form of actions that can help the US gain some military advantages over China or Russia.

However, there is good news: at least at the declarative level, the “grey cardinal” of the Biden administration advocates to avoid “accidental”nuclear war with China or Russia, which against the background of the presence in the Biden administration of a certain number of completely crazy “hawks” cannot but rejoice.

Speaking about the need to create new conventional weapons systems, Clinton emphasises that “these capabilities must be accompanied by mechanisms that allow for consultation with China and Russia to reduce the chances that a long-range conventional attack is mistaken for a nuclear strike, which could lead to disastrous escalation”. Of course, it is good that Washington is likely to make efforts to make such a mechanism work, but the fixation of the American establishment (speaking to us in the voice of an former Secretary of State) on promoting its geopolitical interests with the help of missile and bomb attacks (even non-nuclear ones) cannot cause positive emotions.

A return of the American “deep state” to the levers of a American political, military and diplomatic machine will not be a global apocalypse, but there will definitely not be peace on the planet: the US will try to return some production capacity to its territory, and will actively try to pressure geopolitical opponents via military and diplomatic methods. And if there are serious doubts about the ability of the Biden administration to return the US economy to an industrial production orientation, then there can be no doubt that the American military machine will gladly return to the continuation of bloody escapades around the world.

by Gordon Duff, Veterans Today, Senior Editor

The report below is taken from an intelligence dump by Russian sources. As the origin is from an intelligence agency in the form of a “leak,” there are always questions. Thus far, we have found not only is the majority of the material confirmed but several solutions to serious problems involving 9/11 are included.

I have redacted little here. However, this arrived with vast supporting documentation which can, in the future, be uploaded on SCRIBD for access. One key area is that the US had supplied Israel with surplus nuclear weapons. [Editor’s note: We are advised that some of the documentation can never be uploaded or distributed for reasons that will be obvious.]

We have a very solid confirmation on this. Back during the 1980s, Israel showed her inventory of Davy Crockett tactical nuclear warheads to one of our editors, who at the time was a senior NATO intelligence official. These early “micro-nukes” were taken out of US inventory in 1978 and “disappeared.”

Nuclear “Test”

This highly classified report is being published unaltered except for bad machine translation errors being repaired. My personal opinion is that this is NOT a disinformation piece but rather represents a significant breakthrough. I believe that this is a rare glimpse behind the curtain.

I am publishing this for the use of those qualified to understand how little of this is really new. Those things that are new are groundbreaking. For those who find this all a bit over their heads, there is little I can do other than to let you know that this is the world “your elders” really live in and that you finally have a chance to look in mom and dad’s top dresser drawer.

The Dave Crockett

Too Classified to Publish

W48 – 155mm

According to a retired FXX agent specializing in Israeli counter intel: The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.

Chemical analysis done by DOE Sandia was able to identify the chemical/radiation footprint or fingerprint of the warheads based on samples taken after 911 of the fallout at ground zero. (Editor’s note: Nuclear weapon use at ground zero is confirmed from multiple sources)

All plutonium based warheads have a chemical fingerprint that can identify the type of design and where the PU was made and how old it is. This was the 911 blackmail on Bush 1 and 2, the illegal transfer of surplus US nuclear weapons to the Israelis and why the continued cover up, along with the stolen gold and stock fraud that was going on Wall Street etc. According to file ENW57.pdf on page 66. (Editor’s note: Document received and confirmed)

Only a 2 kiloton device was needed to drop the buildings. A 2 kiloton device will produce a fireball of apx 150 to 200 feet in diameter at over 4000 degrees Centigrade. Just large enough to melt the I beams of the central core of the building and drop them in place. The light flash would last less than 1 second and primarily be in the UV light range. Overpressure would only be at 60PSI max and directed upwards with the blast. See underground effect.

Fallout would be minimal and located to within ground zero range only. Radiation would drop to acceptable levels within 72 hrs. after the blast. Most fall out was trapped in the cement dust thus causing all of the recent cancer deaths that we are now seeing in NYC amongst first responders. (Editor’s note: Consistent with site data)

High FluxIsotope Reactor Core – Cross Section

Melted steel and iron oxide or “nano thermite” is a byproduct of the very high gamma ray / Neutron flux induced into the central steel core. The radiation dissolves the steel into iron oxide consuming the carbon and silicone in the steel.

This explains the missing steel columns and the very important clue of the “vaporized’ 20 ton antenna tower atop the south tower. The upward blast of radiation literally vaporized it. Video evidence proves this to be true. (Editor’s note: Tower issue a vital one.)

The total XXOO data file from DOE Sandia on the 911 event is well over 72 MB. P.S. Snowden didn’t have a Q clearance so he missed this one. Carnaberry had a pretty good stash of documents on the subject. (All under the transit stuff.) The entire nuclear nonproliferation story of stolen nuclear material coming from Russia was an Israeli cover story to hide the original source of weapons material coming from the US stock piles. (Editor’s note: Fully confirmed)

Illegal distribution of US nuclear material to foreign allies was not limited to Israel. Virtually all NATO allies were in on this scam too. Dick Cheney was the bad guy on this one. Bush2/Cheney traded nuclear pits to foreign country as IOU’s in order to get what they wanted. Tom Countryman a well-known Israeli operative is curiously now in charge of N.N.P. at the State Department under Obama.(?) He was put there by Ram Emanuel.

Early Israeli core model – Vannunu photo

It appears that the weapon of choice for the Israelis were the W-54 and follow on series of nuclear pits taken from the Amarillo TX storage dump. This was what Carnaberry was working on for Bush senior in Houston.

A total of over 350 pits were transferred to the Israelis over a 10 to 20 year period of time. The W-54 type of pit design were the most desirable due to the 2 point implosion pit design. This is the easiest to re manufacture and modify as compared to other circular pit designs.

The pill shaped design of the W-54 type weapon contains over 1.5 times more plutonium than a standard pit. This would allow enough Plutonium to be recovered that was still of weapons grade use even after 32 plus years of age. Americium build up in the pit over time eventually makes the Pit unusable as a weapon so they have a limited shelf life based on how fast or slow the Plutonium was produce in the reactor at Stanford.

Usually it was about 150 days max. Irradiation time in the reactor during production determines the shelf life of the pit as weapons grade material. All of the micro nukes used by the Israelis are re-manufactured W-54 type series devices.

These devices were used in the Bali bombing and the London bombing and in Japan on their reactors. (Editor’s note: Nuclear weapon use in Bali confirmed) Also used in Damascus, Iraq and Afghanistan by the US. (Editor’s note: Multiple confirmation including site samples.)

These are stored in most Israelite embassies for ease of deployment. The one’s used on 911 were kept at the Israeli consulate in NYC until put in place. After 911 the FBI now checks all diplomatic pouches with a Geiger counter before entering or leaving the US. The South African weapons were also surplus W-54 artillery shells acquired from Israeli and final assembly and testing was done in South Africa with Israel assistance. (Editor’s note: This explains Pelendaba production issues.)

This was done because the Israelis needed a testing ground in order to make sure that there rebuilt weapons would work as designed. (Editor’s note: Testing on Sept. 22, 1979 multiple confirmations.) The North Korean weapons are also of the 155 mm artillery design as provided by Israel.

The true North Korean nuclear weapons program is based on nuclear artillery use and not missiles. The plan is to use a massive artillery barge on South Korea if war breaks out this include the use of small nuclear artillery shells to counter US tanks rockets and artillery.

The Saudi’s also have a stash of W-54’s acquired from the US under Bush2. (Editor’s note: Confirmed) The Israelis have also provided them to India, Brazil, China, Taiwan, Japan, North and South Korea etc. (Editor’s note: All but South Korea confirmed. Canada had been believed to be the source of Brazilian nuclear weapons.) Dimona is a standard 75 megawatt thermal open top reactor as used in France for their plutonium weapons production program, their version of Stanford (Editor’s note: Probably “Hanford”).

Dimona – Israel

Due to over use as a fast breeder reactor by the Israelis, Dimona suffered a “steam explosion” IE a flash over indecent (ed: ‘incident’) due to neutron criticality back in the late 1980’s under Bush 1. This shut down its operation for many years until repairs could be made.

It now only operates at very low power levels due to neutron absorption damage to the containment vessel. Now mainly use for isotope production. This forced the Israelis to turn to stolen nuclear stock piles from the US for the continuation of their nuclear program.
The Israelis knowing that the nuclear material that they had acquire only had a limited shelf life left before it was no longer usable as weapons grade then tried to dump it on the surplus market as fast as possible before it was of no use to them. So they dumped it on unsuspecting nations who would only sit on it and not be able to test it. These were the fizzle tests in North Korea. (Editor’s note: Confirmed, multiple sources)

When everybody caught on to the scam such as Japan and Korea. (IE the Korean sub sinkings etc) they were angry because they paid big bucks for junk. This started a mini cold war with Israel and her old clients. However with micro nukes even as the plutonium ages it will still fissile producing a smaller size detonation well under 2 kiloton in size.

So they can still be used as small dirty bombs or as very small tactical nukes such as the nuclear artillery strikes on Damascus with rocket assisted W-54’s. (Editor’s note: Confirmed strike, May 4, 2013) On the W-54 pit design it is pill shaped and it is only about 4 inches in diameter and weighs about 24 pounds.

Most of the fuel is consumed in the plasma fire ball when detonated so there is very little plutonium fallout left to escape. If it is salted with other materials the fallout can be even reduced to lower levels such as in an enhanced radiation device or the so called neutron bomb. This is what was used on 911.

Falling man – 911

The primary purpose of the nuclear weapon used on 911 was to produce a massive Gama ray / neutron flux that would vaporize about 150 to 300 feet of 6 inch thick steal I beams that constituted the central core of the WTC buildings. This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day. (Editor’s note: Critical information here.)

The flash would be hidden from sight due to the underground detonation. Most of the light was in the non-visible light spectrum any way. Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building as see on TV.

The fallout would be mainly vaporized concrete cement and iron oxide. This is why after 911 they told everyone on TV that the beta radiation burns that people were getting were due to the caustic cement dust and not due to the radiation effects from the radioactive cement fallout. (Editor’s note: Fully confirmed)

The iron oxide found all over the place was what was left of the steel I beams. This was the so called Nano Thermite that was found everywhere. Fallout was limited to a 1 mile area around down town NYC. See charts. (Editor’s note: Received)

Radiation decay was reduced to safe low levels after 72 hrs., (Editor’s note: Fully confirmed) outside of ground zero its self. This is why the area was blocked off from the public for 3 days after the event, in order to let the radiation drop to safe levels.

Luis Arce celebrates with supporters during a press conference following the general election victory of MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) on October 19, 2020 in La Paz, Bolivia © Getty Images / Javier Maman

By Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz

The US-centralized empire functions like a giant blob that absorbs nations and turns them into imperial client states. Once absorbed, it is rare for a country to escape and rejoin other genuinely sovereign nations.

The new president-elect of Bolivia, Luis Arce, has told the Spanish international news agency EFE that he intends to restore the nation’s relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. This reverses the policies of the US-backed coup regime which immediately began closing embassies, kicking out doctors and severing relations with those nations after illegally seizing power last year.

Arce also spoke of warm relations with Russia and China.

“We are going to re-establish all relations,” he told EFE. “This government has acted very ideologically, depriving the Bolivian people of access to Cuban medicine, to Russian medicine, to advances in China. For a purely ideological issue, it has exposed the population in a way that is unnecessary and harmful.”

Arce expressed a willingness to “open the door to all countries, the only requirement is that they respect us and respect our sovereignty, nothing more. All countries, no matter the size, who want a relationship with Bolivia, the only requirement is that we respect each other as equals. If that is so, we have no problem.“

If you know anything about US imperialism and global politics, you will recognize that last bit as brazen heresy against imperial doctrine.

The unofficial doctrine of the empire-like cluster of international allies that is loosely centralized around the United States does not recognize the sovereignty of other nations, much less respect them as equals. This empire takes it as a given that it has every right to determine what every nation in the world does, who their leaders will be, where their resources will go, and what their military posture on the world stage will be. If a government refuses to accept the empire’s right to determine these things, it is targeted, sabotaged, attacked, and eventually replaced with a puppet regime.

The US-centralized empire functions like a giant blob that slowly works to absorb nations which have not yet been converted into imperial client states. It is rare that a nation is able to escape from that blob and rejoin the unabsorbed nations like China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba in their fight for self-sovereignty, and it is encouraging that it was able to do so.

We saw the dynamics of the imperial blob explained quite vividly last year by American political analyst John Mearsheimer at a debate hosted by the Australian think tank Center for Independent Studies. Mearsheimer told his audience that the US is going to do everything it can to halt China’s rise and prevent it from becoming the regional hegemon in the eastern hemisphere, and that Australia should align with the US in that battle or else it would face the wrath of Washington.

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1314204222242484224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1314204625755537408%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_0&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frtmobile%2Fposts%2F504263%2Fhtml%3Fdark_mode%3D0font_scale%3D0.600000indent_left%3D5indent_right%3D5indent_top%3D5hide%3D

“The question that’s on the table is what should Australia’s foreign policy be in light of the rise of China,” Mearsheimer said. “I’ll tell you what I would suggest if I were an Australian.”

Mearsheimer said China is going to continue to grow economically and will convert that economic power into military power to dominate Asia “the way the US dominates the western hemisphere,” and explained why he think the US and its allies have every ability to prevent that from happening.

“Now the question is what does this all mean for Australia?” Mearsheimer said. “Well, you’re in a quandary for sure. Everybody knows what the quandary is. And by the way you’re not the only country in East Asia that’s in this quandary. You trade a lot with China, and that trade is very important for your prosperity, no question about that. Security-wise, you really want to go with us. It makes just a lot more sense, right? And you understand that security is more important than prosperity, because if you don’t survive, you’re not gonna prosper.

“Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “Right, you have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.

“You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”

Nervous laughter from the Australian think tank audience punctuated Mearsheimer’s more incendiary observations. The CIA is known to have made numerous attempts to assassinate Castro.

If you’ve ever wondered how the the US is so successful in getting other nations around the world to align with its interests, this is how. It’s not that the US is a good actor on the world stage or a kind friend to its allies, it’s that it will destroy you if you disobey it.

Australia is not aligned with the US to protect itself from China. Australia is aligned with the US to protect itself from the US. As a Twitter follower recently observed, the US doesn’t have allies, only hostages.

As the recently released Palace Letters illustrated, the CIA staged a coup to oust Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam because he was prioritizing the nation’s self-sovereignty. Journalist John Pilger wrote in 2014 after Whitlam’s death:

Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution.” Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

The primary difference between the coup in Australia and the one in Bolivia was that the Bolivians refused to roll over and take it while we shrugged and said ‘No worries mate.’ We had every option to become a real nation and insist on our own self-sovereignty, but we, unlike the Bolivians, were too thoroughly propagandized and placid. Some hostages escape, some don’t.

The US empire got rid of Whitlam, and then when we elected in 2007 a prime minister who was considered too friendly with China they did it again; in order to facilitate the Obama administration’s “pivot” against Beijing the pro-China Kevin Rudd was replaced by the compliant Julia Gillard. World Socialist Website reports:

Secret US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in December 2010 revealed that “protected sources” of the US embassy were pivotal figures in Gillard’s elevation. For months, key coup plotters, including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union (AWU) chief Paul Howes, secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership…

Rudd had proposed an Asia-Pacific Community, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China, and opposed the formation of a quadrilateral military alliance between the US, India, Japan and Australia, aimed against China.

Gillard, who had cultivated her pro-US credentials through Australia-US and Australia-Israel leadership forums, was literally selected by the US embassy as a reliable replacement to Rudd. In her first public appearance after knifing Rudd, she demonstrated her devotion to Washington by posing for a photo op with the US ambassador, flanked by US and Australian flags. She soon had a phone call with Obama, who had previously twice postponed a planned visit to Australia under Rudd.

The centrality of Australia to the US preparations for war against China became apparent in November 2011, when Obama announced his “pivot to Asia” in the Australian parliament, rather than the White House. During the visit, Gillard and Obama signed an agreement to station American Marines in Darwin and allow greater US access to other military bases, placing the Australian population on the front line of any conflict with China.

Gillard’s government also sanctioned the expansion of the major US spying and weapons-targeting base at Pine Gap, agreed to the US military’s increased use of Australian ports and airbases, and stepped up Australia’s role in the US-led top-level “Five Eyes” global surveillance network, which monitors the communications and online activities of millions of people worldwide.

Rudd’s removal marked a turning point. US imperialism, via the Obama administration, sent a blunt message: There was no longer any room for equivocation by the Australian ruling elite. Regardless of which party was in office, it had to line up unconditionally behind the US conflict with China, no matter what the consequences for the loss of its massive export markets in China.

This is what we’re seeing all around the world now: a slow motion third world war being waged by the US power alliance against the remaining nations which have resisted being absorbed into it. As the most powerful of the unabsorbed nations by far, China is the ultimate target of this war. If the empire succeeds in its ultimate goal of stopping China, it will have attained a de facto planetary government which no population will be able to oppose or dissent from.

I don’t know about you, but I never consented to a world where powerful nuclear-armed forces wave Armageddon weapons at each other while fighting for planetary domination and subverting less powerful nations if they don’t play along with their Cold War games. Detente and peace must be sought and obtained, and we must all work to live together on this planet in collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem.

This omnicidal, ecocidal way of living that the oligarchic empire has laid out for us does not suit our species, and it will drive us to extinction along with God knows how many other species if we do not find a way to end it. Rulers historically do not cede their power willingly, so we ordinary human beings as a collective are going to have to find a way to destroy their propaganda engine, force an end to imperialism, and build a healthy world.

Biden’s rumored favorite for Defense Secretary is a vote for more lost wars, corrupt militarism and terminal decline.

by Medea Benjamin

If the Democrats manage to push Joe Biden over the finish line in November’s election, he will find himself presiding over a decadent, declining empire. He will either continue the policies that have led the American empire to decadence and decline, or seize the moment to move our nation into a new phase: a transition to a peaceful and sustainable post-imperial future.

The foreign policy team Biden assembles will be key, including his choice for Secretary of Defense. But Biden’s rumored favorite, Michele Flournoy, is not the gal for this historic moment. Yes, she would break the glass ceiling as the first female Secretary of Defense, but, as one of the architects of our endless wars and record military budgets, she would only help to steer the American empire farther down its current path of lost wars, corrupt militarism and terminal decline.

In 1976, General John Glubb, the retired British commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, wrote a little booklet titled The Fate of Empires. Glubb observed how each of the world’s empires evolved through six stages, which he called: the Age of Pioneers; the Age of Conquests; the Age of Commerce; the Age of Affluence; the Age of Intellect; and the Age of Decadence and Decline. Despite enormous differences in technology, politics and culture between empires and eras, from the Assyrians (859-612 B.C.) to the British (1700-1950 C.E.), the whole process in each and every case took about 250 years.

Americans can count the years from 1776, and few of us would deny that the American empire is in its Age of Decadence and Decline, riven by the very traits that Glubb identified for this stage, including systemic, normalized corruption, internal political hatreds, and a fascination with celebrity for its own sake.

The decline of an empire is rarely peaceful, but it does not always involve the invasion, destruction or collapse of the imperial heartland, as long as its leaders eventually face up to reality and manage the transition wisely. So it is tragic that the 2020 presidential election offers us a choice between two major party candidates uniquely unqualified to manage America’s post-imperial transition, both making vain promises to restore mythical versions of America’s past, instead of drawing up serious plans for a peaceful, sustainable and broadly prosperous post-imperial future.

Trump and his “Make America Great Again” represent the epitome of imperial hubris, while Biden pushes the time-worn idea that America should be “back at the head of the table” internationally, as if America’s neocolonial empire was still in its prime. With enough pressure from the public, Biden might be persuaded to start cutting the imperial military budget to invest in our real needs, from Medicare For All to a Green New Deal. But that’s unlikely if he picks Michele Flournoy, a die-hard militarist who has played instrumental roles in America’s failed wars and catastrophic imperial adventures since the 1990s.

Let’s look at her record:

As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which laid the ideological foundation for the endless wars that followed. Under “Defense Strategy,” the QDR effectively announced that the United States would no longer be bound by the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, “when the interests at stake are vital, …we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.”

The QDR defined U.S. vital interests to include “preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition” anywhere on Earth and “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.” By framing the unilateral and illegal use of military force all over the world as “defending vital interests,” the QDR presented what international law defines as aggression, the “supreme international crime” according to the judges at Nuremberg, as a form of “defense.”

Flournoy’s career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the Pentagon, consulting firms helping businesses procure Pentagon contracts, and military-industrial think tanks like the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which she co-founded in 2007.

In 2009, she joined the Obama administration as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, where she helped engineer political and humanitarian disasters in Libya and Syria and a new escalation of the endless war in Afghanistan before resigning in 2012. From 2013-2016, she joined Boston Consulting, trading on her Pentagon connections to boost the firm’s military contracts from $1.6 million in 2013 to $32 million in 2016. By 2017, Flournoy herself was raking in $452,000 a year.

In 2017, Flournoy and Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken founded their own corporate consulting business, WestExec Advisors, where Flournoy continued to cash in on her contacts by helping companies successfully navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning enormous Pentagon contracts.

She obviously has no compunction about enriching herself off of taxpayer money, but what about her actual foreign policy positions? Given that her jobs in the Clinton and Obama administrations were behind-the-scenes strategy and policy positions, she is not widely blamed for specific military disasters.

But the articles, papers and reports that Flournoy and CNAS have published for two decades reveal that she suffers from the same chronic malady as the rest of the Washington foreign policy “blob.” She pays lip service to diplomacy and multilateralism, but when she has to recommend a policy for a specific problem, she consistently supports the uses of military force that she set out to politically legitimize in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). When the chips are down, she is one more military-industrial hammer-banger to whom every problem looks like a nail waiting to be whacked by a trillion-dollar, high-tech hammer.

In June 2002, as Bush and his gang threatened aggression against Iraq, Flournoy told the Washington Post that the United States would “need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary’s weapons stockpile” before it “could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.” When Bush unveiled his official “doctrine of preemption” a few months later, Senator Edward Kennedy wisely condemned it as “unilateralism run amok” and “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.”

In 2003, as the ugly reality of “preemptive war” plunged Iraq into intractable violence and chaos, Flournoy and a team of Democratic hawks co-authored a paper titled “Progressive Internationalism” to define a “smarter and better” brand of militarism for the Democratic Party for the 2004 election. While portrayed as a path between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, it asserted that “Democrats will maintain the world’s most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world.”

In January 2005, as the violence and chaos of the hostile military occupation of Iraq spun farther out of control, Flournoy signed onto a letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) asking Congress to “increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.” In 2007, Flournoy supported keeping a “residual force” of 60,000 US troops in Iraq, and in 2008, she co-authored a paper proposing a policy of “Conditional Engagement” in Iraq, which Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress dubbed “an excuse to stay in Iraq” that “poses as an exit strategy.”

As Obama’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, she was a hawkish voice for escalation in Afghanistan and war on Libya. She resigned in February 2012, leaving others to clean up the mess. In February 2013, when Obama brought in Chuck Hagel as a relatively dovish reformer to replace Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary, right-wing figures opposed to his planned reforms, including Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, backed Flournoy as a hawkish alternative.

In 2016, Flournoy was tipped as Hillary Clinton’s choice for Secretary of Defense, and she co-authored a CNAS report titled “Expanding American Power” with a team of hawks that included former Cheney aide Eric Edelman, PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan and Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. The report was seen as a view of how Clinton’s foreign policy would differ from Obama’s, with calls for higher military spending, arms shipments to Ukraine, renewed military threats against Iran, more aggressive military action in Syria and Iraq, and further increases to domestic oil and gas production—all of which Trump has adopted.

In 2019, four years into the catastrophic war in Yemen when Congress was trying to stop US participation and halt weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, Flournoy argued against a weapons ban.

Flournoy’s hawkish views are particularly worrisome when it comes to China. In June 2020, she wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in which she spun an absurd argument that an even more aggressive US military presence in the seas and skies around China would make war less rather than more likely by intimidating China into limiting its military presence in its own backyard. Her article simply recycles the tired old device of framing every US military action as “deterrence” and every enemy action as “aggression.”

Flournoy claims that “Washington has not delivered on its promised ‘pivot’ to Asia,” and that US troop levels in the region remain similar to what they were a decade ago. But this obscures the fact that US troops in East Asia have increased by 9,600 since 2010, from 96,000 to 105,600. Total US troop deployments abroad have shrunk from 450,000 to 224,000 during this time, so the proportion of US overseas forces allocated to East Asia has in fact increased from 21% to 47%.

Flournoy also neglects to mention that Trump has already increased the number of US troops in East Asia by over 23,000 since 2016. So, just as she did in 2004, 2008 and 2016, Flournoy is simply repackaging neoconservative and Republican policies to sell to the Democrats, to ensure that a new Democratic president keeps the United States wedded to war, militarism and endless profits for the military-industrial complex.

So it is no surprise that Flournoy’s solution to what she presents as a growing threat from China is to invest in a new generation of weapons, including hypersonic and long-range precision missiles and more high-tech unmanned systems. She even suggests that the US goal in this budget-busting arms race could be to invent, produce and deploy currently nonexistent weapons to sink China’s entire navy and civilian merchant fleet (a flagrant war crime) in the first 72 hours of a war.

This is only one part of Flournoy’s larger plan for transforming the US military through trillion-dollar long-term investments in new weapons technology, building on Trump’s already huge increase in Pentagon R & D spending.

In a September 10th interview with the Stars and Stripes military website, Joe Biden appeared to have already swallowed heavy doses of Flournoy’s Kool-Aid to wash down Trump’s Cold War. Biden said he does not foresee major reductions in the military budget “as the military refocuses its attention to potential threats from ‘near-peer’ powers such as China and Russia.”

Biden added, “I’ve met with a number of my advisors and some have suggested in certain areas the (military) budget is going to have to be increased.” We would remind Biden that he hired these unnamed advisors to advise him, not to predetermine the decisions of a candidate who still has to convince the American public he is the leader we need at this difficult time in our history.

Picking Michelle Flournoy to lead the Pentagon would be a tragic indication that Biden is truly hell-bent on squandering America’s future on a debilitating arms race with China and Russia and a futile, potentially catastrophic bid to resurrect America’s declining imperial power.

With our economy – and our lives – devastated by a pandemic, with climate chaos and nuclear war threatening the future of human life on this planet, we are in desperate need of real leaders to navigate and guide America through a difficult transition to a peaceful, prosperous post-imperial future. Michele Flournoy is not one of them.

Source: Antiwar.com

by Oleg Adolfovich

NOTE: the title is based on an old Soviet puzzle, where a man kicks a pig with such force that it flies “ahead of the sound of its own squealing”.

The image shows the “Iskander M” tactical nuclear complex deployed in the Kaliningrad region. This is just one of the “surprises” for our NATO and American “partners”, who are eager to limit Russia in its ability to subdue any adversary.

Today we will talk about the START-3 Treaty, which expires on February 5th 2021. And at the same time about why its automatic extension for five years is already unprofitable for Russia and unacceptable for America.

The main reason for this, oddly enough, is again the Chinese. Today, according to various estimates, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is armed with up to 200 nuclear warheads – for example, in the US, there are about 3,800 of them, which are on combat duty and in reserve. 200 warheads is very few, according to the US, but even a quarter of them, breaking through the screen of missile defence, can cause damage that for the Americans is unacceptable – and in the next decade, the Chinese plan to double their number.

The main problem of the Americans today is that they are catastrophically lagging behind in nuclear weapons technologies, electronic warfare, and air defence/missile defence systems. This is the effect of three decades of unconditional hegemony, during which the US lost its engineering school and competencies – today in America they prefer to modify the old “Trident” complexes, but not to create new nuclear weapons.

But the most painful topic for Washington now is not even this – the START-3 Treaty provided for parity between Russia and the US, leaving out the Chinese. If we assume that America’s actions contribute to the maximum rapprochement between Russia and China, then we can no longer talk about any parity – in the event of a real war, a missile attack on America will begin immediately from the two countries.

But a retaliatory strike may not take place. Now this seems almost unthinkable, but American military experts are seriously concerned about the appearance of two anti-missile systems: the S-500 and the A-235 “Nudol”. The characteristics of the first “product” are still “completely” unknown to the world (although it has already gone into production), but there is some information about the second – in particular, the speed of interceptor missiles which can reach 7 kilometres per second.

At such intercept speeds, a nuclear warhead on the A-235 is not necessary, because the kinetic energy of a simple metal block is so monstrous that it can scatter anything from an enemy thermonuclear warhead to US satellites in near space.

In other words, the A-235 is almost 100% guaranteed to intercept a retaliatory strike – while the Americans do not know the range or other main characteristics of this complex. At the same time, the A-235 is only part of a deep-echeloned system, which includes over-the-horizon radars, a satellite grouping of the Aerospace Forces with unknown capabilities, S-400 and S-500 complexes, “Kinzhal“ complexes on upgraded MiG-31 high-altitude interceptors (a “gift” for US satellites, and not only), and on the near approaches – “Pantsir-S2”, “Buk-M3”, and “Tor-M2” complexes.

It is clear that the A-235 is just getting ready for delivery to the troops, but even in its current form, the Russian missile defence system already poses a serious threat to a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike. As for Russia’s new nuclear weapons, they are now a real headache for the Pentagon, since the Americans are not able to intercept the new “Avangard“ complexes on “Sarmat“ carriers in principle – and all of this in addition to the already “traditional” “Topol-M” and other “surprises”.

Yes, the Americans also have promising developments and dull, facile optimism is completely inappropriate here – but the main “hole” of America is that it is a completely different private model of the military-industrial complex, and the liberal economy does not allow to concentrate resources in any strategic direction. It is much more profitable for a private owner to cut the budget and show the state client graphics and beautiful presentations than to debug even a finished “product” – a striking example of this is the situation with the long-suffering and extremely expensive F-35.

The result is a somewhat paradoxical picture: Russia has been developing and commissioning weapons based on new physical principles for at least 12 years, and China, which is “focused”, is rapidly increasing its weapons, starting with the fleet and ending with nuclear missiles.

And against this background, the START-3 Treaty is coming to an end. Yes, it could be extended, but by the end of the timeframe of the Treaty, a third real force has appeared in the world, which is simply impossible to ignore – but to all calls to “sit down and talk”, the Chinese make impenetrable faces and declare that “China will not use nuclear weapons first”.

“The remarks by Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary for nuclear and missile defense policy, are part of a larger push by the Trump administration to talk tough on China, while trying at the same time to get Beijing to participate in three-way talks with Russia on arms control.

On Tuesday, just a day before Soofer’s remarks during a virtual Mitchell Institute event in Washington, a new Pentagon report lamented the ‘ambiguity,’ in Chinese statements about its commitment to no first use. ‘China’s lack of transparency regarding the scope and scale of its nuclear modernization program, however, raises questions regarding its future intent as it fields larger, more capable nuclear forces,’ the report said.”

We can see online what “tough negotiations” with the Chinese lead to – despite all Trump’s intentions to make the “damned communists” keel, the trade deficit in the US’ trade with China continues to only increase. It just so happens that today Americans are not able to produce most of the goods. At least because all the main production facilities were transferred by this “efficient private business” to Southeast Asia, and private companies are not in a hurry to return the factories back to the excellent American jurisdiction and tax system.

“‘Now we’re waiting to see if Russia has the political will now to come and talk to us about it,’ Soofer said, noting he’s been involved in the early discussions in Vienna.”

Yeah, they’re in a hurry. They run and stumble. Especially after the Kremlin clearly saw how easily and effortlessly America withdraws from any agreements that it considers to be unprofitable for itself. For example, from the INF Treaty or the Open Skies Treaty.

Here it should be noted that Russia also benefited from exiting the INF Treaty – why limit ourselves to the silly range of our “Iskander” of 500 kilometres? Russia is now much more interested in controlling all of Europe, including Britain – and replacing short-range missiles in Crimea and the Kaliningrad enclave with medium-range missiles is a matter of one or two years. After that, you can simply forget about a serious European bridgehead – no one has yet learned to intercept “Iskander M” hypersonic missiles. And it is unlikely anyone will learn how to do it in the coming decades.

Today, Washington has a very limited arsenal for “influencing” opponents – sanctions, pressure in trade negotiations, financial, personal, and sectoral restrictions, and a ban on technology supplies. Yes, this would have been indisputable ten years ago, but today it no longer works. Russia is not going to ask the Chinese to join the new START Treaty, because it is not profitable for us or Beijing.

In addition, the Kremlin is actively cooperating with Beijing on an early warning system for a missile strike – and as soon as the Chinese have this system working, Washington’s capabilities will sharply narrow.

And, in the end, what difference does it make whether the number of warheads is limited to 1550, as in START-3, or exceeds this figure by several hundred – today’s arsenal is able to stop any life on the planet.

But the most important thing that makes the Pentagon and Trump nervous is the loss of a strategic advantage. America is showing political weakness, which is absolutely unacceptable for a hegemon – allies stick wrenches into the spokes and opponents stupidly do not pay attention to sanctions. And not only do they not pay attention, but they also have the audacity to directly interfere in political processes inside America – we cannot but believe the most democratic media on the planet, can we?

Every month of internal political crisis brings the US closer to a natural outcome – and even if the collapse of the entire dollar pyramid does not happen now, the world is already morally ready for such an end to hegemony.

After all, what is worse than gold – a transferable ruble, or a crypto-yuan?

Not a nuke but a directed energy laser weapon might have zapped Beirut. Who could have done it?!

Veritas Vincit

“. . . there is a warfighting domain in which there is already activity underway” (Major General Gus McLachlan in a statement to Australian media during the US-Australian Talisman-Sabre military exercises)

A kinetic stage of warfare between the PRC and the US is stated in reports as increasingly probable by various analysts, such assessments recognizing the (non-kinetic) hybrid warfare domain is active and intensifying (involving US destabilization operations [Hong Kong], partition operations [Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc.], trade warfare, commercial sabotage efforts [Huawei, information warfare, etc.]).

Unfortunately restraint shown by the PRC to ongoing provocations is unlikely to significantly de-escalate situations as US-allied confrontational actions are intensifying (consistent with their broader conduct of hybrid warfare operations against successive nations). The similar response (restraint) shown by the Russian Federation to Western bloc actions[1],[2],[3]  have proven to be ineffective in de-escalation efforts (or at changing US-NATO bloc actions that are progressing towards a direct kinetic stage of conflict, the proxy warfare domain being active). Observation of broader developments should also indicate situations of war may result from the escalation and expansion of various active external conflicts. The US sponsored development of offensive capabilities of the Taiwan region, particularly missile strike potential against mainland targets (and the incompatibility of the DPRK enhancing its retaliatory capabilities with US objectives) is similarly increasing the probability the PLA will in time need to respond. Peace is clearly a priority but situations of war are often imposed.

References (Note: these also apply to the situation of the PRC):

[1] “I think everybody understands that an undeclared war against us is underway…..” [Russian State Duma’s Budget and Tax Committee Andrey Makarov] said. (“Undeclared war” forces Russia to boost defense spending — minister, Tass, October 27, 2018)

[2] “Western states are now threatening and slandering Russia with a ferocity that their governments “did not take the liberty” to unleash during the Cold War, [Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vassily] Nebenzia added. “Russia has been inexcusably threatened,” he said. “Do you understand the dangerous threshold to which you are bringing the world?” the Russian envoy asked.

[3] “If data on Russia-NATO power balance at the Western direction is analyzed, as well as military activity build-up rate at our borders, scale of combat equipment deployment, if the grade of Russia’s demonization is estimated, one can say that preparation to a real war is taking place. [Such] acts are usually undertaken at the forefront of a war [and it is evident] the US is preparing for a [potential] nuclear conflict……” [Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the International Centre of Geopolitical Analysis]

Will America be able to unravel the technology of the Russian S-400 “Triumf” system? In a conversation with “Tsargrad”, military expert Aleksey Leonkov stated that based on past experience, it is obvious that the United States cannot understand the tricks of Russian weapons, and not even the principles behind them. “They have a lot of our Soviet air defence systems at the Tonopah air base, in the “Alien” Area 51. They are still trying to figure them out, but nothing is working,” he explained. The Americans still cannot understand some of the features of our technologies.

But the US obviously has a great interest in this. For example, the recent incident in Turkey, where Russian S-400 “Triumf” systems were tested, must have made the United States redouble their efforts to come up with a clever approach to deciphering the secrets. But despite their efforts, the Russian system has been able to “catch” American fighter jets flying 170-200 kilometers from the Turkish base.

In the meantime, the American side hands out ultimatums to the Turks. In response to Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400s, Washington excluded Turkey from the program to build F-35 fighter jets and set conditions for it to purchase the “Patriot” air defence system.

America’s efforts to reverse engineer our weapons face a major obstacle: buyer countries cannot resell our systems, no matter how much NATO might want them.

READ: Turks Called the American F-16 “Junk” After Watching the Russian Su-35 in Action

“When we sell such systems, we always include a clause that prohibits re-sale to third parties. This is a strict requirement so that this type of anti-aircraft defense does not fall into undesirable hands. Because, for example, the MANPADS that the Americans once supplied to the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan] are still in circulation around the world,” he said.

In addition, Turkey itself may well seek to annoy the United States in response to such ultimatums. “Turkey, which participates in the F-35 program, supplied a certain number of components that the F-35 cannot fly without. For this reason it received the aircraft at a discount. But the Americans cut off their participation and the Turks apparently cut off their supplies of components. Therefore, there is a question of how to solve this problem and not lose face,” the military expert said.

Regardless of this Turkish-American issue, Russia probably should not be afraid that the US will eventually be able to obtain our weapons through third parties.

“[What] is the point of selling the S-400 to Turkey if it undermines the security of our country? How about the secrets? We once sold S-300 systems to Greece, and, frankly, the Americans learned about this system. The Greeks, of course, did not sell them anything, as it was Ukraine which gave them its system, but this did not lead to any changes in American’s aviation system. The metal was sold – but you need to understand how this metal works, what technologies were used, etc., and the Americans cannot. They try to be clever, but it doesn’t work. It is clear that we are still secure with these systems, so that if any unauthorised ‘partner’ rummages around there, he will not find anything; everything will fail,” he concluded.