in

U.S. Game-Plan to Conquer Russia & China Is Clarified

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.

Eric Zuesse

On 27 September 21, the brilliant geostrategic analyst Brian Berletic headlined “US War Plans with China Taking Shape”. He linked to and analyzed the then-latest draft of the U.S. Government’s detailed plans to conquer China. (The plan had been drawn-up in 2016, but sounds like today.) The objective of these plans is for the U.S. Government to continue into the indefinite future the U.S. Government’s dominance over the entire world, and to do this by conquering first Russia, and then China — conquering both of the now-rising superpowers — thereby not only extending its presently existing global dominance, but even increasing that, with the ultimate goal being for the U.S. to become the world’s first-ever all-encompassing global empire (by crippling both Russia and China). 

I have personally checked and verified each one of Berletic’s linked-to sources there. All of them are authentic, and reflect accurately the U.S. Government’s actual decisions and actions, right up until today, which fact (the U.S. Government’s doing all of these things) suggests that those are the U.S. Government’s operative plans, until the present moment. These are the U.S. Government’s plans for China. Berletic excerpted from the draft-plan its most crucial passages, and all of them have been U.S. foreign policies ever since 27 September 2021 (actually, even since 2016): they accurately represent U.S. foreign policies toward, in fact, both Russia and China, as-of today. They describe the ways in which the U.S. Government is hiring proxy-forces throughout the world, in order to destroy China’s Belt & Road Initiative before it can even become operative, and also the U.S. Government’s employing proxy forces and agents in order to defeat Russia in the opening battlefield of World War III, which is Ukraine. It’s the function which Ukraine is serving for the U.S. Government. Berletic makes clear that he does not believe that the U.S. Government expects things to extend so far as getting into a direct nuclear conflict between the U.S. and either Russia or China; however, I have published elsewhere evidence that at least ever since 2006, the U.S. Government has abandoned the prior (mutually shared, both U.S. and Russia) “Mutually Assured Destruction” or “M.A.D.” meta-strategy, which formerly had guided both countries’ nuclear-weapons strategy and designs. M.A.D. was the meta-strategy in order to prevent such a nuclear war from ever occurring. In America, it has been replaced by what is unofficially called “Nuclear Primacy”, or the design and deployment of nuclear weapons so as to win a nuclear war against Russia and/or China: aiming for all-out nuclear-war victory by the U.S. Government. Such ‘victory’ would be defined as consisting of the United States being destroyed less than any of its nuclear-war opponents would be destroyed (thereby maintaining, or even increasing, its existing control over the entire planet). They say that “the benefits of nuclear primacy may exceed the risks” (the destruction to the American side), and that among the possible “benefits” mentioned would be to “stave off the emergence of a peer competitor,” and to be “forcibly exporting democracy.” The U.S. Government’s “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy says that there are ‘acceptable’ levels of destruction of America in a nuclear war against Russia and/or China, so long as America ‘comes out on top’ globally, at the end. Berletic unfortunately just assumes that the U.S. Government remains committed to the M.A.D. meta-strategy. To me, that is instead an open question. In fact, existing evidence (such as I have linked to) indicates that the U.S. Government is now guided by the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy: arming to win a nuclear WW III, not to prevent one.

On 19 July 2022, Russia’s RT News bannered “Julia Melnikova: World War Three is off – why NATO can’t afford to have Russia as its main enemy”, and basically seconded Berletic’s viewpoint (that America probably wouldn’t go all the way to nuclear war), without even mentioning Berletic’s article. Her commentary alleged that the U.S. Government had only recently been intending to conquer post-communist Russia (and so might peaceably accept again — as-if it did during the 1990s — what others call a “multi-polar world,” or at least a world that the U.S. Government wasn’t coercing):

Naturally, NATO’s new strategic document differs from previous entries in the series. The 1991 concept noted a reduction in the security threat due to the change in the balance of power in Europe, but also noted the need to take the legacy of the Soviet Union’s military potential into account. The 1999 edition characterized Russia, Ukraine, and the Republic of Moldova as partners for dialogue. The installment from 2010 finally attached strategic importance to relations with Russia and was aimed at deepening them on issues of mutual interest.

That “partners for dialogue” and “deepening … issues of mutual interest” never has reflected the U.S. Government’s real attitude toward Russia after the Soviet Union ended in 1991. 

I have documented that the plan by America’s Government was instead to fool Russia’s Government to believe that America ended the Cold War on our side at the same time when Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, but that the U.S. Government was actually planning instead to surround Russia by increasing NATO, right up to Russia’s borders, and doing it in such a way so that by the time Russia recognized that this was the case, it would already be too late for Russia to be able to defend itself against the fait accompli, and so Russia would then become swallowed-up by the U.S. Government. That RT analysis remains deceived by the U.S. plan, which didn’t even start to become disclosed, even to America’s vassal-nations (such as the EU), until 24 February 1990. Russia’s Government shouldn’t continue to publish affirmations of lies that America’s Government had privately admitted to its own vassal nations are lies, as early as 24 February 1990. Why does it do that? Does it make any sense continuing to do that?

Consequently: the U.S. game-plan is, as Berletic documented, to defeat Russia before defeating China; and this is the reason why the U.S. Government is so determined to win the opening battle of WW III, which is on the battlefields of Ukraine. (The U.S. Government was, in fact, so bold in the planning of their 2014 coup that took Ukraine, that it had even included their replacing Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and still is) in Crimea ever since 1783, and to turn it into another U.S. naval base, but that part of the plan failed.)

If Russia wins its objectives in Ukraine, while the U.S. fails to win its objectives there (which are simply to defeat Russia there — so that this is a zero-sum “game”), this would, in and of itself, end the U.S. empire that had started on 25 July 1945, when U.S. President Harry S. Truman decided (on the basis of the advice that he had received from his hero, Dwight Eisenhower), that if the U.S. wouldn’t take over control of the world, then the Soviet Union would; so, America must take over control of the world. It was either “us” or “them,” Truman was told; and he decided that it WOULDN’T be “them” that will win this zero-sum game. And President GHW Bush secretly informed America’s ‘allies’, starting on 24 February 1990, that it STILL wouldn’t be “them” to continue equally with “us” in peace, meaning now Russia to be a “partner” except as being a continuing adversary, because “To hell with that!” (meaning real peace with Russia); “We prevailed, they didn’t” (and “they” still need to be totally and humiliatingly defeated, by “us”; “they” need to become conquered). That is the reality (the U.S. Government’s pure zero-sum-game mentality), which Brian Berletic’s article documents to be the case regarding the U.S. Government’s plan regarding China; and (as I have documented) it applies ALSO regarding Russia. (Yet, Berletic seems to believe that it’s not being applied in U.S. thinking about the conflict in Ukraine.) The Governments of both nations (Russia and China) would do well to publicize that it applies throughout the U.S. Government’s international-affairs policies, instead of continuing to promote the U.S. Government’s lies to the contrary.

This is the reality. No myth. America’s foreign policies are laser-focused on crippling, if not destroying, all possible competitors.

Especially, all nations in Europe need to know this, and to reverse course because of it. Because, if they don’t, then Europe’s economies will be crushed this coming winter, in order to keep up the U.S. Government’s lies. It’s their choice. Either continuing as American vassal-nations, or else making a fundamental turn, toward freedom and justice — the breakup of the U.S. empire, and emergence of a real democracy and equal rights, in the relations among the world’s nations. It’s their choice, to make, one way or the other. Thus far, Europe’s leaders have been virtually suiciding their nations. How, and how well, is the U.S. Government bribing them to do that, to their nations? Or, are they actually that stupid, to be ignorant of what they are doing, or why, or whom the beneficiaries of it are? Of course, the press has also played a role, but it’s serving the same group of ultimate masters. How can European publics ever wake up? Before it’s too late?

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s 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.

Report

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.

What do you think?

17 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
penrose
penrose
July 20, 2022

One aspect of the nuclear standoff which I don’t see discussed much is the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons to keep convetional hot spots under control. Or, backing up one step, the threat of such use to cool off hot spots. For example, suppose the Russians, instead of doing what they did, told the Ukraine that either they ceased all shelling and threats to the Donbass or Kiev would join the “Hiroshima Club.” How would the Ukrainians respond? Assume the Russians were bluffing and continue as before? What if they were not bluffing? If you were living in Kiev,… Read more »

Eddy
Eddy
Reply to  penrose
July 21, 2022

A similar threat could easily be made using conventional weapons. So far Russia has refrained from doing so, to keep the civilian casualties as minimal as possible. BUT, clearly, the folks around Kiev will never surrender or bend the knee to the Russians, will persue every avenue open to them, to do the West’s bidding to achieve their objective. Which at this stage of the game, everyone should already know., This being the case, the only solution open to Russia, is to arrange an American “SHOCK and AWE” event, straight out of the play book of the U.S. military, and… Read more »

Zelensky Orders Ukraine Troops to Hold Siversk Despite Heavy Losses, Purges More Officials; Putin Arrives in Tehran

Russia Turns Off the Gas? Let the Chaos Begin