Eric Zuesse
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Jeffrey Sachs, in an interview on June 14th by The Duran, presented the history behind the war in Ukraine, and described how this issue of preventing American missiles in Ukraine from being directed five minutes away at Moscow, is for Russia what in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis the same as what preventing Soviet missiles in Cuba from being directed 30 minutes away at Washington DC was (an uncompromisable national-security “red line” and thus not even possibly permissible to cross), and he described there how opposite U.S. President Biden is from what both JFK and Khrushchev were in the 1962 version. He blamed Biden 100% for the war in Ukraine (exactly the opposite of what both Kennedy and Khrushchev were), and he described (100% accurately) the history to prove that this terrifying picture of Biden is actually the case.
However, he especially damned the mainstream news media in both the U.S. and the UK as being blatant war-mongering liars. He singled out most especially (because these two newspapers are so unjustifiably honored and trusted by so many people in The West) Britains’s Guardian, and America’s New York Times. Here, then, is from the video’s transcript:
“Security guarantees w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)”
The Duran, 14 June 2023
——
15:16 [completely relevant for what we have today.] First of all, Kennedy knew both
15:22 sides had led to the war, both sides had led to the near global destruction, both
15:31 sides needed to back off, both sides wanted peace, and
15:36 this is where we are today, exactly the same thing except we have this drum beat,
15:43 crazy drumbeat in the media, which you two so wisely talk about every day and
15:49 report on, which is insane — by the way led by the British. I, I respect the British,
15:55 who speak English so much better than we do, it’s yours — but this Russophobia in
16:01 Britain is so deep, it’s about 200 years old, it’s so simple-minded.
16:08 I used to even read the Guardian by the way, now I can’t even go to the website it’s unbelievable. By the way, that’s how
16:15 our New York Times is. It’s it’s unreadable, it’s phony, it’s propaganda,
16:21 from morning till night it’s so completely one-sided, and no one tells
16:26 the history of anything, and I tried to publish that piece in the
16:31 New York Times, well they rejected it in 10 seconds, uh and more more than that, I tried to publish anything in the New
16:38 York Times and they said no. What they want[ed me] to say is, it’s an unprovoked invasion, and we’re facing a madman, and
16:46 there’s no one to talk to, and war is the only way, and NATO enlargement is the
16:51 only way, and diplomacy can’t work. And every lesson of history is ignored — that’s where we are, that’s where we are.
——
NOTE: The present reporter has not asked the Guardian and the New York Times for a response, because they — like all of the war-mongering (or “neoconservative”) ‘news’-media — are, themselves, large ‘news’-organizations, and moreover are controlled by billionaires; so, they possess, on their own, plenty of opportunities and facilities to respond to what Professor Sachs said about them; and, if they want to respond to it, should say it directly to him, and publish it and his response to it to the world, if they want to respond to it, at all (which I don’t expect either of them to do, because their custom in such matters is not to respond publicly to accusations that they routinely and systematically lie, since they don’t want to call to the public’s attention any such accusations: they want to keep their subscribers, not shun them away by publishing such accusations and engaging in any honest public debates about what, and who, and why, they are, and what they actually have done, and have been doing, especially if that might be honestly characterizable as selling propaganda to the public, instead of as journalism).
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
One should not focus on the missile distance from Ukraine to Moscow. The Baltic nations and Finland are nearly as close and the USA can launch from subs in the Baltic sea. NATO boosters point this out to shoot down the idea that Ukraine in NATO is a new threat. But look at a map of Russian nuclear launch sites. I’d post a link but the post gets blocked, so just google for it. The USA cannot quickly hit the sites in Central Russia within five minutes in a surprise first strike, so those might get launched. Ukraine and Georgia… Read more »
Beheading central command, the brain-center, is what is at issue here. Not protecting Chicago or “Central Russia.” Those others aren’t even NEARLY as geostrategic. Do you REALLY think that Kennedy was worried more about a Soviet missile destroying Miami than about a Soviet missile destroying Washington DC? Isn’t that like saying “amputating a foot is as bad as amputating a head”? Putin himself has mentioned his fear that The Kremlin might become subjected to a blitz five-minute missile strike. ONLY Ukraine is a mere 300 miles away from The Kremlin. No other land or body of water poses a similarly… Read more »
The key sales pitch for a nuclear first strike that the Russians will not be able to launch any nukes at the USA. They certainly have a fail safe system so that if Moscow is destroyed before orders are given distant bases can launch. One idea is a facility with sensors in Moscow that if destroyed automatically signals other bases to launch. This has been discussed for decades, even mentioned in the movie Dr. Strangelove. The Doomsday machine. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but is it worth the risk?
You say “They certainly have a fail-safe system.” I am not speculating, in this article or anywhere else, regarding whether the “dead-hand” system in Russia is “fail-safe.” That’s not a question I’m competent to answer, except by asking: How do you know it is “fail-safe”? but even if a way can be found to test out such a system, I don’t see how that question is even relevant to this article. So, I don’t see the relevancy even if you CAN document that Russia has a “fail-safe” dead-hand system. If you CAN document it, please write and post an article… Read more »
The Russians don’t share their top secrets with me or anyone else. Logic says they probably have a system and it might work. This is the dilema for anyone telling our President we must launch a first strike. They can’t guarantee that an automatic launch system does exist or will not work, because they don’t know. They might make a case that all Russian launch platforms can be destroyed before they can launch. Taking out their nuclear launchers in central Russia within five minutes is not possible at this time, the distance is too great. The US Navy and Army… Read more »
Russia’s nuclear deterrent is not wholly silo based like the US it is mobile too.. You nuke Moscow and believe me, somewhere in Russia the Russian nukes will be launched towards Washington.Russia is a huge country and there is no way to stop the retaliation. That is a fact.
I replied with a link forgetting these never get approved. If not, search Youtube for:
Turgidson Strangelove
Everybody knows that Kubrick movie. Again: it’s not relevant to the subject of this article. It isn’t evidence that relates to this article. But it’s a great movie.