Col. Lawrence Wilkerson confirms some of the things I’ve written, but he is still too naive. Another person who subscribes to the ‘Division of Labor’ theory is Paul Craig Roberts.

In this interview with a friend of The Duran Glenn Diesen, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson confirmed some of the points I’ve previously written about. However, he also revealed that he is still too naive when it comes to understanding the motives of the empire. This is somewhat surprising, given his proximity to official power circles, but on the other hand, it might also explain why he remains naive – being so close to the system may have limited his ability to see its true nature.

Let’s first address the issue of ISIS, which I’ve written about extensively. I realized a long time ago that ISIS was created by the West – especially by the United States. It was a CIA project. I’ve explained the reasons behind its creation before, but to put it simply: the U.S. couldn’t openly steal oil from Iraq. What they could do, however, was create a terrorist organization, allow it to take control of Iraq’s oil fields, and then extract oil through them. This allowed Western corporations to buy oil illegally from ISIS, at significantly reduced prices – say, 50% of the market rate. This increased profits for those corporations and, in essence, allowed them to steal 50% of the value of Iraq’s oil. This was something they couldn’t do officially without facing condemnation from the global community.

Creating ISIS was a way for the West to steal Iraqi oil without direct blame. Officially, it wasn’t the West stealing – it was the terrorist organization (which they created) doing the stealing, and the West was simply buying the oil (illegally and covertly) without any “official” involvement. If the U.S. had demanded that Iraq sell its oil at half price as compensation for the war, it would have triggered global outrage. So by using ISIS as a proxy, they achieved the same goal while avoiding condemnation.

Often, people argue that the U.S. spent more on military intervention than the Iraqi oil was worth. What they fail to understand is that military spending is covered by taxpayers – by every American. Meanwhile, profits from the military-industrial complex and cheap oil go to private companies. In other words, this was a transfer of wealth. The debt for military spending was placed on all Americans, while the profits went to a small oligarchic elite. The more that was spent, the greater the wealth transfer from the general public to the elite. So it didn’t matter if the costs outweighed the oil’s value. What mattered was that both the revenue from discounted oil and the profits from military spending went to the oligarchy – at everyone else’s expense.

This, in my view, is the true story behind ISIS and the reasoning behind its creation. Now let’s hear what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson had to say.

26:30

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: The one reason they did it, Glenn, was because they knew what we were doing to build ISIS. We made ISIS. We made Daesh. We took out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We took him out. He was the main man. What flowed into his death was uh Iraqi Sunni leadership, mostly from the Iraqi Republican Guard, who knew about artillery, knew about armored warfare, knew about how to coordinate air power. They were military, and they were pretty competent military. They were made incompetent in many respects by the leadership of Saddam Hussein and how he orchestrated and kept them on a leash all the time. But they weren’t that bad a military, and they had good Soviet equipment. But what they did was make a deal with the CIA and with these remnants of, well, it was everything from al-Qaeda to you name it. It was a throw-together group of terrorists that Zarqawi had put together. Zarqawi was a poison maker up in the mountains, and suddenly he came down. I think he was a Kurd, if I remember right. Anyway, he came down, and Saddam Hussein didn’t even like him. He was so bad. I learned all of this when I was getting Powell ready for the UN presentation, and they put together this organization that was going to, when the US got out of Iraq, uh, in a way that they could, going to take Syria, going to take northern Iraq, going to, you know, everything, the caliphate, you know, they wanted a caliphate. Well, that that was not what this, the Republican Guard members wanted. When you saw these guys firing accurate artillery rounds, when you saw them maneuvering tanks and everything, those weren’t people who’d come from al-Qaeda or some other terrorist; those were Republican Guard members from Iraq. So we created, the CIA helped create that entity and flowed them into Syria so that we could destabilize Assad. We got a shock when the insurgency started in Iraq. The full plan was to go on to Syria, and that we thought, the military thought that Assad would back down immediately. All we’d have to do would be roll a few a few tanks across the border, and he’d back down because he’d seen what happened to Saddam Hussein. Well, the insurgencies developed so fast Rumsfeld had to nix that. So we didn’t go on to Syria. West Clark will tell you that we’re going to Syria and then to Iran and maybe some places else too. But I all I ever heard was the briefing on Syria. And I also heard the briefing when we sat, when we stood down. We weren’t going into Syria because, and part of that was because Tommy Franks had not listened to Colin when Colin had told him you need at least 250,000 troops, and and if you’re going to do all this, you need at least 250,000 troops, and you know, had the experience of the first Gulf War where we had 600,000 plus a lot of other people played in that one, including the Syrians and the French and Saudis. Um, and Tommy finally got angry at Colin, and he said back to him, “listen, Rumsfeld was going to give me 50,000 total, I’m glad I got 160,000.” And then Rumsfeld left that division hanging out there in the ocean for so long, 16,000 men that was going to come down through Turkey, but the Turks balked at the last minute and said, “No, you can’t do that. You can’t come in from the north.” So we had to ship them around. And they stayed at sea for a long time. Rumsfeld wouldn’t let him come ashore because he wanted to be seen as the man who’d done Saddam Hussein with as few troops as possible and then do Bashar Assad too, because it was all shocking, all didn’t work. And so there we were, you know, thumb and mouth and no Syria going, and we developed an insurgency with the CIA. Long story short, we had to go back and fight our own developments. We, It was so bad, Glenn, that we actually had Marines shooting at CIA officers and CIA officers shooting at Marines in Syria because the one didn’t know the other one was doing what they were doing, And the CIA was working with al-Qaeda.

Glenn Diesen: When did they get out of control, though? Because I, I can see, yeah, the American intelligence agencies building up the, uh, yeah, these jihadist groups as an instrument in a proxy war. But, uh, when, when did the US, well, I guess, lose control over them and begin to, uh, attack them?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Well, when we had to come back and they, they looked like they were going to make some significant progress, and we didn’t think Petraeus had really, David Petraeus had told the president again and again and again that his training, remember he started out as a two-star as the head of MNSTC-I, the training command in Iraq, and he was telling the president on secure video teleconferences almost every week that everything was copacetic, that all these people were getting really well-trained and they were going, going to be capable of not only internal security but also external security for Iraq. This in progress to our leaving eventually. Well, I was getting reports from my spy on the ground in Iraq that the AWOL rate in these battalions was sometimes as high as 30%. And I was getting other reports that said they couldn’t shoot straight and they weren’t all that good of soldiers. Well, Petraeus was giving glowing reports back to the president. So we thought that the military Petraeus had been largely responsible for training and given such glowing reports to the president about was going to be able to handle whatever was left of any insurgency or whatever. And I’m not even sure the conventional military, the right hand, knew what the CIA, the left hand, was doing completely. So we had to go back because they became uh ground-taking and ground-holding units. And so we had to, Obama had no choice. He had to send forces back into Iraq because the Iraqi army couldn’t handle it. And they begged him to come back, which was really kind of rare. Um, they wanted us out and, and then to beg us to come back. That meant that they really did understand that their military was not competent to handle that. I mean, you’re talking about a bunch of people who got together, trained a little bit, Republican Guard behind them and helping them, lots of equipment, lots of ammunition, lots of artillery and everything, but still Iraq had the equivalent, but they were frightened. And so they called us back in again, and we’ve been there pretty much ever since. It’s a nightmare. It’s a nightmare. And it’s partly a nightmare because the empire doesn’t know what it’s doing from day one to day two. It’s got so many people involved in the soup that it doesn’t have any time to eat the soup.

This part confirms what I’ve long believed about ISIS and its creation by the CIA. However, there is still a degree of naivety in Col. Lawrence Wilkerson’s thinking, which stems from his incomplete understanding of the true nature of the Empire. I wish someone would show him my posts – especially my most recent one:

Radical Islam is our self-made, imaginary enemy — the myth of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and the War on Terror is really a war on you!

Maybe then he would begin to grasp the full genesis of Islamic terrorism and the truth about 9/11. His reference to "the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing" reflects a failure to accept the reality that the Western Empire has no issue with sacrificing its own people. If he were to accept that over 3,000 of their own citizens were killed during 9/11, he might realize that it’s not just a matter of confusion or lack of coordination. The left hand - the military - may indeed be unaware of the full picture, but the right hand - the CIA - knows exactly what it’s doing. And it has no moral qualms about killing its own citizens if it serves a greater imperial objective.

This is what Wilkerson fails to understand: he still cannot grasp the full extent of the Empire’s ruthlessness. His lack of insight into the origins of Islamic terrorism or events like 9/11 leads him to attribute these actions to mere incompetence. As I’ve written many times, "incompetence" is often used as a convenient cover for deliberate and calculated actions.

His comment about using ISIS to destroy Syria is particularly interesting. It could very well reflect an internal narrative within parts of the official government. But if he truly believes that ISIS’s attack on Iraq was a mistake and that the Western Empire did not intend for it to happen, then he is, frankly, being naive.

I will refer again to fragments from Zeitgeist to expand on this point.

1:41:16

It's time to wake up. The people in power go out of their way to make sure you are perpetually misled and manipulated. The majority's perception of reality, especially in the political arena, is not their own. It is shrewdly imposed upon them, without them even knowing it. For example, the public at large now believes the invasions of Iraq and the Middle East, along with the resulting instability, are the consequences of political and military mistakes. What the public fails to see, of course, is that the destabilization of the Middle East is exactly what the Western interests want. This war is to be sustained so the region can be divided up, domination of the oil maintained, continual profits reaped for defense contractors, and most obviously, permanent military bases established to be used as launching pads against other oil-bearing, non-conforming countries, such as Iran. For further implication that the Middle East destabilization is purely intentional, in 2005, two elite British SAS officers were arrested by Iraqi police after being caught driving around in their car shooting at civilians while dressed up as Arabs. After being arrested and taken to a jail in Basra, the British army immediately demanded the release of these men. When the Basra government refused, British tanks came in and physically broke out the men from the Basra prison.

I would like to point out one thing: the phrase “permanent military bases established.” I don’t understand how people like Col. Lawrence Wilkerson can be so naive as to believe that America and the Western Empire genuinely wanted to leave Iraq. The West faced a problem: the Iraqi people wanted U.S. forces out of their country. But the West didn’t want to leave - they wanted permanent military bases in Iraq. That’s why they ordered ISIS, a group they themselves had created, to attack Iraq. This, in turn, forced the Iraqi government to request that American troops return - which was the goal all along.

Col. Wilkerson naively believes that the U.S. wanted to leave Iraq, and that ISIS’s unexpected attack forced them to come back. In reality, that was the plan. This fundamental misunderstanding by so many geopolitical analysts truly disappoints me.

People don’t grasp the concept of “Forever Wars” - something I really need to write a full post about. I’ve touched on it before, but let me put it simply: the prolonged wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not failures. They were intentional. They were designed to be forever wars. Too often I hear analysts say the U.S. failed in those conflicts, which only reveals their naivety and lack of understanding about how the world actually works.

For those who think what I’m saying is just conspiracy nonsense, I refer them to the Trump interview with Joe Rogan - which I’ve quoted many times. That interview confirms much of what I’ve been saying. Trump, being naive himself, genuinely believed the U.S. was fighting ISIS. The generals at the Pentagon told him defeating ISIS would take five more years - longer than his presidency - because they didn’t actually want to defeat ISIS. They understood that ISIS served their strategic goals.

But Trump, trusting the official narrative, flew to Iraq without consulting anyone and spoke directly to generals on the ground. They told him ISIS could be defeated in a matter of weeks - which shocked him. It didn’t shock me. Trump then gave the order, and ISIS was wiped out in around four weeks.

Do you really believe the generals at the Pentagon didn’t know the American military could destroy ISIS in a few weeks? Are people really that naive? I’ve written before that ISIS was funded by oil they extracted from Iraq and sold at discounted rates to Western corporations. This allowed those corporations to profit from stolen Iraqi oil.

ISIS had no air force or air defense. Meanwhile, the U.S. military controlled Iraq’s entire airspace. They could have easily bombed the oil extraction sites that were funding ISIS, cutting off their financial lifeline and leading to their collapse. But they didn’t. Instead, they allowed ISIS to keep extracting oil and selling it - because it enriched Western corporations.

I truly don’t understand how so many geopolitical analysts - many of whom I respect - fail to grasp the concept of Forever Wars and continue to believe Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were military failures. I guess it comes down to this: if you don’t understand the truth about Islamic terrorism and 9/11, then you can’t accept the fact that the Western Empire is willing to kill its own citizens to achieve its goals.

39:14

We knew that, and we started major efforts. They're still ongoing in countries like... When did it start, and how was this done, these efforts? It started in 2002. It started in my administration, and it started with a vengeance with Jen Stoltenberg. We wanted Jen Stoltenberg to be the new secretary general of NATO, and we were absolutely committed to that. Why? Because we knew he was our man. We knew he was going to do what we wanted him to do. We knew he was in line with us about NATO expansion. We're talking about eventually, probably every country that we would say is geographically in Europe, no matter how small, no matter how criminal, no matter how undemocratic, every single country in Europe was going to be a member of NATO.

And we needed a whole new game with regard to those who were holdouts, either for neutrality or just simply didn't have a population that wanted to be a member of NATO. So we started doing what we do in what we call color revolutions. They were orchestrated within the countries. Each country had its package, and that package consisted of everything from non-governmental organizations to QUANGOs, you know, quasi-governmental organizations, to government organizations, political visits from senators and representatives—that was a big part of the campaign. And they focused all of these things clandestinely and openly, like the visits by Senate and House delegations, focused on those people within the country that wanted to comply with our wishes, wanted their country to be a member of NATO, no matter how long they'd been neutral, perhaps like in the case of some of the Scandinavians, wanted their country to be a vassal of the United States in order to get the stars on their shoulders and the tanks and the F-35s and all the other stuff. And it was very successful. We only failed, in my view, we only failed with one or two countries that we had on the top of the target list, principally because—and this is my guess on it—principally because the communist legacy was not like it was in other countries that had been behind the Iron Curtain, nor was it something that scared the Scandinavians or other countries that hadn't been behind the Iron Curtain. Um, in one or two countries, it did that, and you got a real welcome for NATO membership. In other countries, it didn't. I, I would say Viktor Orbán in Hungary and maybe Slovakia were two of those countries where there wasn't this feeling that, uh, "we've been under the yoke of the Soviet Union, we now don't want to be under the yoke of the Russians because they're no different, they just call themselves differently." And so we don't, we don't want that. And that made Poland, for example, and others want to be members of NATO, desperately want to be members of NATO, want to be dominant members of NATO. Some of these other countries didn't. Um, so we lost on a couple that we tried this in, but we tried it in every one of them.

It worked famously in Montenegro. It worked famously in Albania. I, I said to Pal, "Why do we want criminal states in NATO? Albania is, it's a criminal state. Montenegro steals more automobiles than are stolen in the United States. What the hell are we doing? How can they pass NATO's credentials for membership?" I don't know, he said. Uh, but we did. We brought them in, and we orchestrated these campaigns to get what I call tyrannies of the minority. We found the political minority, not the political majority, that wanted NATO membership, desperately wanted NATO membership, and we backed it to the hilt. We bought newspapers, we bought magazines, we bought articles, we bought—same thing we did in Italy in 1948 when we didn't want the communists to be elected, we bought the Italian government. Uh, we bought the Iranian government in 1953. We bought the government in, uh, where was it, Guatemala in 1954, and on and on and on. Well, this was much more sophisticated. This is not CIA agents per se doing this. This is CIA-orchestrated campaigns that are run by non-governmental organizations, sometimes wittingly and sometimes unwittingly. It's what we used for Georgia, for example. It's what we're using right now in Georgia, trying to get the current government eased into its political leadership. Then we're trying to get them kicked out, and we're trying to get the government that was there before back in because they're the ones who want to, uh, you know, stand up to Russia, be a member of NATO, and so forth. But this government that's in right now is very balanced. They, they, they want a good relationship with the EU, a good relationship with Washington, a good relationship with NATO, and a good relationship with Moscow. We don't like that. So we're trying to get them overthrown. That's how we do business today. We don't do business with direct action. We do business with direct action through NGOs and others who, as I said, are sometimes witting and sometimes unwitting. The ones associated with the Republican Institute are most often witting. And I guess the National Endowment for Democracy would be one of these key NGOs. That's a big one. That's a big one. Yeah. And you got others too that you don't even think are doing this sort of thing, like FDD, and they're doing it, of course, on behalf of not just the United States but also on behalf of Israel because this is all kind of locked in to where, uh, you get, you know, you get multiple parties participating in the planning and the propagandizing. For example, Mossad and the CIA together. You better believe Mossad's in Ukraine.

59:46

We really worked on Europe. I mean, we worked on Europe. When people ask me why Europe is so heavily invested in this Ukraine business, I say, "Well, we got them that way." This is a war between Washington and Moscow, not Kyiv and Moscow. Kyiv is the instrument of our war.

This part, on the other hand, highlights something I’ve also addressed in my posts. I’ve explained how Europe originally wanted to cooperate with Russia. Europeans did not support the invasion of Iraq. The best example of this was Angela Merkel, who, at the time, represented Europe’s deep state - a faction that aimed to foster close ties with Russia and develop cooperation with China. This growing alignment between Europe, Russia, and China posed a threat to American dominance over the West.

As a result, the European deep state had to be dismantled and replaced with American-aligned neocons imported into Europe. That’s why Merkel was spied on by the NSA - she had to be compromised and ultimately replaced with an American puppet who would end cooperation with Russia and China, weaken Europe, and ensure its subservience to the United States.

All the current hostility toward Russia is not genuinely European - it is the result of an American war against the European deep state. The anti-Russian European neocons we see today are, in fact, American puppets installed by the American deep state - something many people fail to recognize. This animosity toward Russia did not originate in Europe; it was imported from the United States. People need to stop assuming that European hatred of Russia is organic or homegrown.

I’ve shared examples of Merkel complaining to Washington about its poor treatment of Putin and Russia, as well as instances where Putin publicly thanked Merkel-led Germany for its support of Russia. Europe was, in essence, pro-Russian. But this pro-Russian stance threatened American supremacy in the West. A Europe aligned with Russia - and even China - would have been more powerful than the United States alone. Therefore, that version of Europe had to be undermined and replaced with American, anti-Russian neocons to maintain U.S. dominance in Europe.

This situation is best summarized by a quote from George Friedman, which I’ve often cited because it captures exactly what’s been happening.

So, the primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars—the First, Second, and Cold War—has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united, they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States.

The issue to which we don't have the answer is: what will Germany do? The real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire—not in Ukraine, but to the West—and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage Ukrainians out, we don't know the German position.

Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. As I mentioned before, the Germans themselves don't know what to do. They must export; the Russians can't take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, German technology, and German capital. That combination has, for centuries, scared the hell out of the United States.

 

How Does This Play Out?

Well, the U.S. has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. And he goes on to say in his next line that Russia's cards on the table are that they need a Ukraine that is not pro-Western, that it's at least neutral.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

7:42

Look, John Helmer, I think you've had him on your program. Um, you know, he and Dr. Row don't see eye to eye about things. I like to see what both of them have to say. Um, but John Helmer, uh, recently pointed out, uh, he may be on your program, but he certainly pointed out that the latest article in Foreign Affairs was written by the assistant secretary of defense in Trump's first term. And this, uh, assistant secretary, uh, former assistant secretary's name is Wes Mitchell, and he is a business partner of Colby, who is currently the third-ranked man in the Pentagon, the undersecretary of defense for policy. And in this Foreign Affairs article, which came out just a few days ago, I read it. Uh, Mitchell says the policy of the Trump administration is to sequence the wars we're going to have with Russia and China. He says, "We can't fight them both at the same time; they're too strong. Um, maybe we could have previously, but no longer." And so we have to go at them one at a time. And Mitchell reasons that Putin, or Russia, that Russia is the weakest of the two powers, China and Russia, and so the plan is to sequence Russia out of the way so the US can deal with China. And the way they do that is we, we make them think they've got some kind of agreement, and we withdraw, but we substitute in our place, uh, France and, and Poland and Britain and Germany, and we will make money on both wars because we will sell the weapons to the French and the Poles and the Germans and the British that they will use, uh, with Ukraine fighting Russia. And while they do that, we will then be free to go deal with China, and then after we deal with China, then we'll come back and finish off Russia. Well, this is the way he describes the Trump policy. Now, is it Trump's policy? Trump hasn't said that that's his policy. He's given a totally different policy. But if you look at it the way he's going about it, it is sort of sequencing the wars. It is sort of moving Russia over into the European problem area. And the way Trump is going about this agreement, it gives him an excuse to say, "Well, look, I tried, and nobody would cooperate, and I'm washing my hands of it." Well, so we're out of it, but there's Europe to carry on. So is Helmer right? I don't know.

He also says, uh, and the reason, uh, that I'm referring to him is that he has for so many years reported on, on events, Russian events. He used to be in Moscow, I think. Uh, the Russian foreign ministry kicked him out, but he still has aides there, and he still has all his sources. So I think I at least consider what he has to say. I don't necessarily believe it or, or, or even think, uh, that it's right, but he also says that the Russians know this, and the way, and the reason they're prepared to accept an agreement is that they know that a war is being prepared against them, and they have three years to prepare for it, and they don't want to be wasting their time in a minor conflict in Ukraine when they need to be ramping up for a major war that's expected to break out in three years when Europe feels that it's ready. And we keep hearing the European countries talking about, "we have to get ready for war with Russia." They've been saying this for some time now. Well, Russia hasn't threatened them. So quite clearly, this does fit, um, the West Mitchell analysis in Foreign Affairs, and it fits John Helmer's interpretation of that and also his interpretation of why the Russians might accept an agreement that's really not any good because they know what's coming, and they want to be prepared and not wasting their time on a minor conflict in Ukraine. So these are the kinds of alternative explanations to the official ones that we keep getting, uh, from the media and from, uh, Trump administration spokespersons. And, uh, I myself, um, uh, originally, uh, was confident that Trump did want peace because he can't pursue his domestic agenda if he's involved in wars. Wars have a way of being all-consuming, and, and, uh, everything else gets put on the back burner. So I thought that Trump was determined to get some sort of peace. On the other hand, uh, the real evidence seems to be is that the American establishment is intent on making money from wars. It's been doing this now for, uh, a quarter of a century. They're addicted to it. It is how they make the money. And so they want the war going on in Ukraine, they want a war with China, maybe they even want one with Iran. So if we look at it from that standpoint, then who's really in charge, or is Trump just a part of it?

When you look at, uh, how the American system works, presidents usually are not calling all the shots. The establishment calls the shots. The establishment, uh, puts its people in by who can get, uh, approved. Um, if it doesn't like them when they're in there, they start scandals and drive them out. Um, so can a president, uh, like Trump really, uh, step in and knock out the establishment and prevail over all the institutionalized interests that have been there for decades, generations? That's, uh, probably not possible. So I think, uh, we don't really know what's going to go on. Uh, but these explanations I've given you, uh, should broaden the prospects, it should broaden the, uh, avenues that we investigate and, and discuss, uh, and it seems to be things going on that are different from what the media tells us and from what Trump administration spokespersons tell.

18:09

I think it's, um, um, they're creating a hoax. Europe are American puppets, all of them. They're puppets. They don't have any independent foreign policy. And so, from what, um, Helmer pointed out, from what Wes Mitchell wrote in Foreign Affairs a few days ago, and and from my conversations yesterday with, uh, Russian foreign affairs journalists, what may really be going on is an act. Uh, why all of a sudden are American puppets standing up to America? What's going to happen to their bagfuls of money? Uh, they're not. It's the sequencing of the wars that is happening. We're pulling out from the Ukraine conflict, and we're sticking in the Europeans, and, uh, we are intending to, uh, make Russia think, "Okay, we're out of, they're, they're out of it now, it's over with," and, and then we can go beat up on China, and then when we're through beating up on China, we can come back and help the Europeans finish off Russia. So if you look at it that way, now, I can't say that that is actually what's going on, but it's what Wes Mitchell's Foreign Affairs article says is going on, and it's what Helmer says is going on. And if that's the case, it's an act. It's designed to fool the Russians, uh, to make them think they've got an agreement and we're leaving them alone, now we're going to take off the sanctions or whatever, and then, uh, so they're separated out of this power conflict, and we focus on China. So that would be, that would be an answer that makes more sense because otherwise, how do we explain how suddenly, just from one hour to the next, America's puppets for decades, American puppets who have never had an independent foreign policy—the last independent foreign policy was under de Gaulle in the '60s—suddenly they're at odds with America? How did that happen? Why? It was America's war. We started the war in Ukraine, not Europe. Why all of a sudden are they more keen on America's war in Europe than the Americans? It makes no sense. And so, but it does make sense if you look at it in terms of this analysis that our policy is to sequence the wars, split off Russia from China, deal, we leave the Russian scene, go to China, leave it in the hands of Europe, and then we come back later and rejoin it. Well, if that's what, that's the only thing that really makes sense. I mean, how can anyone explain how Europe's a puppet one minute, the next minute they're not? How did that happen? We can say, "Oh, they didn't like, they don't like Trump or Trump's a dictator or whatever." But all these Europeans are dictators. The EU is a dictatorship. There's no representation in it; it's fake representation. So if you look at it this way, um, what's going on is just the operation of Machiavelli, and they put out a narrative to hide the story. So I think, uh, we have to watch it from that standpoint and see, is that really what we're watching? I can't say for sure it is, but I can, I can say that, uh, West, why did West Mitchell write something like that in Foreign Affairs? And, uh, Trump hasn't disavowed it. Uh, Wes Mitchell is known to be, uh, close with Colby, the undersecretary of defense. So, uh, if you look at it beyond the official narratives, beyond the news reports, which I find increasingly to be wrong, then we see a different, uh, process unfolding.

25:11

It's just nonsense. Look, he's pretending, Rubio is pretending that this is a Ukraine-Russian conflict. That's a lie. It's an American-Russian conflict. We started it. We're the ones who built up the Ukrainian army for eight years while we deceived Putin about the Minsk agreement. We're the ones who absolutely refused any consideration of a mutual defense treaty with Russia. They tried, they did everything they could, we refused it, forced the Russian intervention in Donbas. It's our war. Uh, a week or two ago, the New York Times ran a very long article, I'm convinced written by the CIA, which said it was our war, that we had controlled every aspect of it, every decision, every battlefield deployment, that Ukrainians were simply puppets. They were the, they were the people taking the casualties that we were moving around. Well, this was in the New York Times, all right? It got almost no attention. Nobody says anything. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

So it's not that Trump is trying to get the Russians and the Ukrainians together. As I've said for the longest time, Trump can stop the war simply by stopping sending weapons and money and diplomatic support to Ukraine. The war will be over. That's all he has to do. He can stop the war by telling the Europeans, "Okay, the strategy's changed. We're not going to, uh, pull off our trick anymore. Just shut up, we're pulling out of Ukraine. The war will be over." That's all they have to do. Stop the war. And what is the idiot woman, that news woman? I mean, she's completely stupid, whoever she is. Her view is, "Oh, Trump's not doing enough to, to stop the war because he's not putting more sanctions on Russia." Well, if you put more sanctions on Russia, how are they going to trust you in any kind of agreement? You know, it's absurd. So here's the media claiming Trump's failing because he's, and won't put more sanctions, and then Rubio is saying, "Oh, Trump's the only one that can bring the two warring partners together." Well, we are the warring partner. It can't be ended except by Putin accepting a military victory or by Putin and Trump agreeing on what the settlement is. It doesn't matter what Zelensky thinks or agrees to; he has zero say in the situation. He has no power.

So the whole way they talk about it is nonsensical. So why is it nonsensical? Is it because they're just all completely stupid, or are they running a show, a narrative? Are they running a narrative? They're, they're trying to create an oppression of something that's not really what's happening.

Well, if you go read West Mitchell's article in Foreign Affairs, and you listen to what John Helmer says about that article, it looks like the real policy is totally different from what Rubio just described. Real policy is sequencing two wars, and we're going to make money off both of them, and making money off wars is what we're really about. That's what this, this is really about. It's not about peace or anything else, about making money off wars. So that is an alternative explanation, and it certainly should attract our attention and thought, or we are just deceived again. They just pulled into another, you know, how many times can we be deceived and never wake up? Uh, remember, uh, Colin Powell, uh, at the UN, his ground-up, uh, chalk, a wallboard anthrax, anthrax, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, baloney. You know, how many times do you know, Assad used chemical weapons, Libya did this, that, and the other, Iran has nuclear weapons? It's just one stupid lie after another, and, and we fall for it time after time after time after time. Well, how does democracy function if the people endlessly fall for us?

So I think, Nemo, that we should quit talking about the official narratives or who says what, or because it has nothing to do with what's going on. It really doesn't have anything to do with what's going on. And, um, I, um, I hope to, uh, soon have, um, uh, a contribution from Russian foreign affairs experts that I can publish on my site that actually shows what the Russians think about it all, and it's not what we're told. No.

So it, it's very, uh, easy to get caught up in a narrative, and so even important programs like yours can't get free of the narrative to deal with what the real process is, what is really going on. And so I say, let's just stop talking in terms of the narrative because it's fake. I don't know of any narrative in the 21st century that we've been fed that came anywhere close to being true.

This is another person subscribing to the "Division of Labor" theory, just like Brian Berletic and John Helmer, which I discussed in my recent posts:

The US-EU “Division of Labor” to Continue Confronting Russia and China: My Views on Ukraine and Addressing the Narrative Created from Lies and Blind Optimism

Another person who ascribes to the “Division of Labor” theory is John Helmer, along with the concept of “Trump as Brzeziński/Kissinger.” Don’t look at puppets; they are only shadows

The only point on which I disagree with Paul Craig Roberts is his claim that Europe has not had an independent foreign policy since the 1960s and Charles de Gaulle. As I mentioned earlier in this post - and elaborated on in my previous ones—this is simply not true. Just consider the case of Angela Merkel, which I discussed earlier, or the fact that in 2003, France and Germany refused to participate in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Even earlier than that, the United States opposed the construction of Nord Stream 1, which Europe built anyway despite U.S. objections.

If Europe really had no independent foreign policy, then how could they have built Nord Stream 1 against the wishes of the U.S.? Why didn’t they join the invasion of Iraq? How could they openly criticize the U.S. treatment of Russia and Putin?

I’ve written before about the conflict between the European deep state and the American deep state. And to be honest, I’m still shocked that someone like me - a simple warehouse worker from Poland - seems to understand geopolitics better than people like Paul Craig Roberts, Lawrence Wilkerson, Ray McGovern, and many others who’ve served in the military, in government, or in academia - people who, unlike me, have real credentials and significant accomplishments.

Sometimes, it’s disheartening to think about the state of the world and how little understanding some of these prominent figures have of its deeper truths. What does it say about our world that someone like me, with no formal education or elite background, can see things more clearly than people at the top?

At least I find some comfort in knowing that more and more people are slowly waking up to the reality of the world - a world I’ve seen clearly for a very long time.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always… 

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“Unlike the masses, intellectuals have a taste for rationality and interest in facts. Their critical habit of mind makes them resistant to the kind of propaganda that works so well on the majority.”

― Aldous Huxley

"The problem is not so much to see what nobody has yet seen, as to think what nobody has yet thought concerning that which everybody sees."

― Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's one thing to question your mind. It's another to question your eyes and ears. But then again: Isn't it all the same, our senses just mediocre inputs for our brain? Sure, we rely on them, trust they accurately portray the real world around us, but what if the haunting truth is, they can't? That what we perceive isn't the real world at all but just our mind's best guess?"

― Elliot Alderson

What's your mind's best guess?