in

Will Russia take all of Ukraine?

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

A key statement in Vladimir Putin’s February 21st State-of-the-Union Speech (called “Presidential Address to Federal Assembly”) was a mere sentence-fragment buried late in that nearly two-hour-long encyclopedic speech to the nation, in which fragment he said “the longer the range of the Western systems that will be supplied to Ukraine, the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders. This is obvious.” He left the matter at that, because the sentence-fragment that “the longer the range of the Western systems that will be supplied to Ukraine, the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders” wasn’t intended by him to be pondered (or even necessarily even noticed) by Russians (who might be alarmed to think much about its implications), but instead by Russia’s enemies, especially in the U.S. White House, which for months now has been considering whether to use Ukraine’s troops in order to launch American bombs against Russian cities instead of (as now) against Russian forces that are inside Ukraine. Putin is telling Biden: If you do that, we will take all of Ukraine, so that that nation, which borders the closest to The Kremlin of any nation’s borders — only around 300 miles away from The Kremlin — and for which reason America had grabbed Ukraine in its successful February 2014 coup and installed a rabidly anti-Russian government there then, in order ultimately to checkmate Russia by placing your missiles only five minutes away from The Kremlin — then we will move that border so that it will be around 800 miles away from us (in Moldova) instead of any longer in Ukraine. Putin always, in public, plays down the flight-distance-to-Moscow issue, but it’s central to planners at the Pentagon and White House, and has been ever since 25 July 1945, when the U.S. Government decided to conquer Russia.

Daniel Ellsberg, of “Pentagon Papers” fame, has written that during his time at the U.S. Government’s Rand Corporation, as a planner for nuclear war, the only way to get ahead in the business (America’s Military-Industrial Complex, or war-business) was to support the idea that no matter how many millions or billions of people would be killed and how total the devastation from the usage of nuclear weapons would be, it would be a good nuclear war, a U.S. “victory,” if even more deaths and destruction would be done to the Soviet Union and to China than would be done to America and its allies. Basically, this means that the U.S. Government never actually did believe in or accept its publicly endorsed concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” of “M.A.D,” that a war between the U.S. and its ‘enemies’ would be lost by BOTH sides and that therefore the only reason for nuclear weapons is to PREVENT a World War III. Even back in the 1960s, the view instead was what after 2006 became labelled “Nuclear Primacy”, that America ought to blitz-invade Russia so fast and so totally as to disable Russia’s retaliatory capability. But until around 2006, America was espousing the “Mutually Assufred Destruction” (M.A.D.) nuclear meta-strategy, that these weapons existed only in order to prevent them from ever being used.

The American empire is and has been bent upon the single overriding goal of total global conquest. Usually it uses subversions, sanctions, coups, and proxy soldiers (such as Al Qaeda in Syria, and nazis in Ukraine), but all of it is predicated ultimately upon the final ‘victory’ being by means of a blitz nuclear invasion and annihilation of both Russia and China. This is the U.S.-and-allied “Deep State.” It consists, actually, of the controlling owners of the weapons-firms such as Lockheed Martin, and of the ‘news’-media such as the Washington Post, and of the extraction firms such as ExxonMobil: it consists of America’s billionaires, the people for whom this is an astoundingly profitable business. America’s taxpayers constantly subsidize them vastly more than is ever being publicized, and in vastly more ways than is generally known, because the entire Deep State censors it out, so that America’s voters vote on the basis of ignorance and misunderstanding, in order to keep the dictatorship functioning and in power.

In fact: all of this U.S. imperialism has been enormously profitable for America’s billionaires, and especially for the ones who have been investing the most heavily in ‘defense’ industries. This has been most clearly and most blatantly so after the ‘ideological’ ‘justification’ for the Truman-and-Eisenhower start, in 1945, of the Cold War, finally ended in 1991. Beginning at around 1990 — the very same period when G.H.W. Bush started secretly instructing America’s ‘allies’ that the Cold War would continue on the U.S. side even after the Soviet Uinion would break up and end its communism, and end its side of the Cold War — the “Cumulative Returns, Indexed to 1951,” for the total stock “Market” vs. for “Industrials” vs. for “Defense,” which three segments had previously moved in tandem with each other, sharply diverged after 1990, so that “Defense” has since been soaring, it’s rising much faster than the other two sectors, both of which other two sectors (“Market and “Industrials”) continued after 1990 rising in tandem with each other. That — 1990 — was the time when market valuations on America’s armaments producers suddenly took off and left the rest of the economy ever-increasingly behind. It’s all shown right there in that chart. This means that the decision by George Herbert Walker Bush to go for blood, instead of to serve the needs of the American people, has been vastly profitable for America’s aristocracy. Interesting, too, is that the period after 1990 has been when the U.S. Government became increasingly involved in invading the Middle East. The arms-markets there were growing by leaps and bounds. However, after 2020, the U.S.-and-allied regimes seem to be refocusing again on “great power competition”, which they now openly equate with economic “competition,” not religious or any other type of ideological competition. They openly presume that the military ought to serve their billionaires and no longer “national” (meaning public) defense. They openly presume that imperialism is right, and that it’s okay for nations to fight each other in order to further enrich their respective aristocracies. More than ever, the U.N. is just an international platform for each nation’s PR. FDR’s vision is dead and gone. The imperialists — Churchill, Hitler, etc. — won.

On 27 October 2022, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists headlined “The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review: Arms Control Subdued By Military Rivalry”, and reported that “the Biden administration finally released an unclassified version of its long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).” That’s the official U.S. policy now on use of nuclear weapons, and it adheres to the “Nuclear Primacy” view that America’s nuclear weapons exist in order to conquer Russia, and not in order to prevent nuclear war with Russia:

Although Joe Biden during his presidential election campaign spoke strongly in favor of adopting no-first-use and sole-purpose policies, the NPR explicitly rejects both for now.  From an arms control and risk reduction perspective, the NPR is a disappointment. Previous efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and the role that nuclear weapons play have been subdued by renewed strategic competition abroad and opposition from defense hawks at home. … The public version of the NPR doesn’t explain why a no-first-use policy against nuclear attack is not possible.

“First-use” is the euphemism for “aggressive” (which is the “Nuclear Primacy” aim), as opposed to “defensive” (which was the M.A.D. aim — which continues on the Russian side). “Nuclear Primacy” aims for a blitz nuclear invasion that destroys the Kremlin so fast as to decapitate Russia’s central command far too quickly for Russia’s retaliatory weapons to be able to be launched. Already, on 1 March 2017, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had reported that the changes America was making to its missiles were “exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”

So, on 24 June 2022, I headlined “Biden forces Russia to retake all of Ukraine” and I closed by saying — and will also close here: “In order for the U.S. to win this conflict, the entire world will have to accept rule by America’s Government (i.e., being a U.S. ‘ally’). In order for Russia to win this conflict, the U.S. Government would have to change what has been its overriding objective ever since, actually, 25 July 1945: hegemony.

—————

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.

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?

30 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

23 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

Will Russia take all of Ukraine?

Obviously not, but I am sure any future Ukraine will be landlocked, as they will loose all access to the Black Sea, and it serves them right, for not negotiating in good faith, when they had the chance. 

Last edited 3 years ago by The Holy Roman Führer.
The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

“the longer the range of the Western systems that will be supplied to Ukraine, the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders. This is obvious.” -Vladimir Putin.  “Putin is telling Biden: If you do that, we will take all of Ukraine...” You are putting words into Putin’s mouth, as he never said any such thing. He is simply saying that he will attack any Nato weapons systems based anywhere in Ukraine, if they have the range to attack Russian territory.  The Russians can use their Iskander and Kinzhal missiles to take out any Nato weapon… Read more »

Joe
Joe
Reply to  The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

Sure bud. In the meantime Donetsk is getting blitzed daily by Ukraine. It is not as simple as you make out. What Putin said is what he means. If the US gives Ukraine missiles with 300km range then Russia will take a 300km buffer from Ukraine. That is why he said, ‘the further we will have to move the threat away from our borders’.

The Holy Roman Führer.
Reply to  Joe
February 23, 2023

Inside Artillery range (which is about 20 kilometers) is the key. The Ukrainians now rely on the US M777 howitzers which has a range of about 20 km, as they ran out of their Soviet era artillery rounds that used 122mm and 152mm calibre round. The Nato 155mm artillery round is reactively inexpensive and very deadly. Long range tactical missile systems are expensive, and NATO simply has not got enough of them, to make an impact on the battlefield, but they could be used tactically to create terror within Russian towns and cities, bordering Ukraine. Russia does not need a… Read more »

Last edited 3 years ago by The Holy Roman Führer.
Carolyn L Zaremba
Carolyn L Zaremba
Reply to  The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

According to Scott Ritter, the Ukrainians are going to run out of ammunition soon and Russia will just keep on pounding everything Ukraine brings to the front. Ukraine has already used up everything NATO has sent.

InnerCynic
InnerCynic
Reply to  The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

Based on your “logic” there was no tactical need to launch the SMO either.

The Holy Roman Führer.
Reply to  InnerCynic
February 23, 2023

As I pointed out to Joe, Russia needed ground troops to make a buffer against NATO 155mm Artillery rounds, which have a range of 20km, and are very deadly. 

The Russo-Nato conflict in Ukraine is an Artillery/Trench War, like the Great War on 1914-18.

Last edited 3 years ago by The Holy Roman Führer.
Loam
February 23, 2023

Once the snake is exhausted, all you have to do is grab it by the head.

Orion
Orion
February 23, 2023

Russia might as well take all of Ukraine just to prove to the west that the gloves are off since none of its enemies are willing to discuss any notion of a negotiated solution to this conflict. As for the vulnerability of Russia in a first-use nuclear attack, then Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Lithuania should also be forced into neutrality before its too late.Russia obviously has very serious concerns with NATO members on its door step, but should this conflict escalate to a fight with the west Russia can and will inflict heavy damage to its enemies. Unfortunately it very… Read more »

The Holy Roman Führer.
Reply to  Orion
February 23, 2023

“Russia might as well take all of Ukraine just to prove to the west that the gloves are off…” 

If they did such a thing, they would also have to ethnically cleanse the hostile natives of central and western Ukraine, as the Russian troops would be seen as occupiers and targeted in terrorist attacks. 

Maybe Russia could ethnically cleanse the Ukrainian civilians to October Revolution Island and Bolshevik Island in the Russian Arctic and the whole of Europe could be rid of the Ukrainian problem. 

Last edited 3 years ago by The Holy Roman Führer.
penrose
penrose
February 23, 2023

Odessa would be nice, but beyond that I don’t see why they would want to go farther West.

Joe
Joe
Reply to  penrose
February 23, 2023

They will take Odessa.

Vladislav B. Sotirovic
February 23, 2023

About Ukraine is still not clear situation. However, concerning Mexico it is as US annexed 60% of Mexico’s state territory in the 19th and 20th cenuries. What is Mexico today it is just 40% left after US annexed the rest.

InnerCynic
InnerCynic
Reply to  Vladislav B. Sotirovic
February 23, 2023

The American attitude has been, as long as I’ve been alive, “Do as I say and not as I do”

The Holy Roman Führer.
Reply to  Vladislav B. Sotirovic
February 23, 2023

What’s Mexico got to do with the price of fish?  The Russian empress Catherine the Great founded Odessa, by giving an order to build it in 1795, after a Russian conquest from the Turks. Odessa was still a Russian city 1905, which was the scene of the first Bolshevik revolution, when sailors from the battleship Potemkin, attacked the Russian city of Odessa.  Odessa never had a Ukrainian majority and it never belonged to Ukraine before 1919. But after the Jewish Bolshevik coup d’état of 1917, the Bolsheviks outrageously created the Ukrainian Soviet republic, which included Odessa. In 1991, after the… Read more »

Carolyn L Zaremba
Carolyn L Zaremba
Reply to  The Holy Roman Führer.
February 23, 2023

Your anti-communism and anti-semitism are unfortunate, since the first part of your comment is true.

The Holy Roman Führer.
Reply to  Carolyn L Zaremba
February 24, 2023

I see! It is now anti-Semitic to point out that the Bolsheviks were predominately Jewish.

We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But without Jews there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth.” -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Julian
Julian
February 23, 2023

Eric – very interesting stuff. America’s ascent to power began with the signing of the Dawes Plan in August 1924 – that was the point at which America became the World’s most powerful country – we are coming up on the Centenary next year. What was the Dawes Plan? It beggared Europe to America – and specifically Wall Street banks. Wall Street banks lent money to Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy etc – all the most powerful countries in Europe exhausted by the ‘Great War’ – and essentially controlled all these major European powers from that point on –… Read more »

Commit
Commit
February 23, 2023

Again. America has not built a new nuclear weapon in 40 years or so. When controlled opposition figures Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg talk about nuclear superiority it is part of deceptive propaganda. It is allowed to say America bad, but not allowed to say America weak.

waine
waine
February 23, 2023

Things have changed since WW2, Russia has the means to turn the US to dust, the Pacific/ Atlantic are no longer the wall behind which the US can hide, it is just a pity that the US public where not better informed about what will happen should the mad men in America get their way, needless to say “NO ONE WINS”.

Carolyn L Zaremba
Carolyn L Zaremba
February 23, 2023
Rate this article :
     

I don’t believe that Russia wants all of Ukraine. Not for a minute. They just want the Donbass and Crimea back and the Nazis eliminated from power Ukraine and for NATO to get the F out of Ukraine. They are fighting a defensive war, not an imperialist war.

Terry
Terry
Reply to  Carolyn L Zaremba
February 24, 2023

I think the world situation of Russia and the EU, operating as the political/economic front of NATO, is such that Russia needs to recover the entire Black Sea coast up to Moldova to prevent NATO from using Odessa or other Ukrainian ports as naval bases. However, there is a good reason to leave a rump Ukraine in the Galicia/Lvov region. Ukraine has accumulated enormous debts in the past decade, and if Russia takes all of Ukraine they also inherit that debt. On the other hand, if a nominal “Ukrainian” state continues centred around Lvov, it continues to be responsible for… Read more »

The Dragon’s Feast: China Reshaping the Global Economy One Deal at a Time

NETWORK, Sidney Lumet, 1976 – The Tube Lies. That tube is a narrative, I write about those history books and that culture.