Simple, cortita,
y sin vueltas es esta nota de Eric Zuesse para Strategic Culture Foundation de
hoy. El interés del Imperio también incluye debilitar a Europa, tontis: no a
fortalecerla. Razón de más para que resulte difícil de creer la obsecuencia de
los europeos respecto de los delirios mesiánicos de los estadounidenses. Aunque
buscar razones en todo esto ya no viene al caso: es la Edad Oscura, chicos, la
noche negra del alma de Occidente.
Título: U.S. is
Destroying Europe
Texto: In Libya,
Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges of Europe, U.S.
President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of destabilization, and even
of bombings and other military assistance, that drives millions of refugees out
of those peripheral areas and into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the
far-rightwing fires of anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political
destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but even as
far away as in northern Europe.
Shamus Cooke at
Off-Guardian headlines on 3 August 2015, “Obama’s ‘Safe Zone’ in Syria Intended
to Turn It into New Libya,” and he reports that Obama has approved U.S. air
support for Turkey’s previously unenfoceable no-fly zone over Syria. The U.S.
will now shoot down all of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s planes that are
targeting the extremist-Muslim groups, including ISIS, that have taken over
huge swaths of Syrian territory.
Cooke reports:
“Turkey has been
demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been
discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the
intended goal was always the Syrian government. And suddenly the no-fly zone is
happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an
'anti-ISIS' safe zone, instead of its proper name: 'Anti Kurdish and
anti-Syrian government' safe zone.”
The New York
Times reported on July 27th, that, "the plan calls for relatively moderate
Syrian insurgents to take the territory, with the help of American and possibly
Turkish air support.” However, the Times, stenographically reporting (as usual)
from and for their U.S. Government sources (and so propagandizing for the U.S.
Government), fails to define “relatively moderate,” but all of the “relatively
moderate insurgent” groups in Syria cooperate with ISIS and help them to find
and decapitate, or sometimes hold for ransoms, any non-Muslims there. Under
Assad, Syria has been a non-clerical state, and has enjoyed freedom of
religion, but all of the Syrian opposition to Assad’s rule is alien to that.
The U.S. is now, even more clearly than before, anti-Assad, pro-Islamist.
Seymour Hersh
reported in the London Review of Books on 17 April 2014, that the Obama
Administration’s Libyan bombing campaign in 2011 was part of a broader program
to bring sarin gas from Libya to the al-Nusra Front in Syria, in order to help
produce a gas-attack upon civilians, which the U.S. Administration could then
blame upon Assad, as being an excuse to bomb there just as Obama had already so
successfully done in Libya. Both dictators, Gaddafi and Assad, were allied with
Russia, and Assad especially has been important to Russia, as a transit-route
for Russia’s gas supplies, and not for Qatar’s gas supplies — Qatar being the
major potential threat to Russia’s status as the top supplier of gas into
Europe.
Obama’s top goal
in international relations, and throughout his military policies, has been to
defeat Russia, to force a regime-change there that will make Russia part of the
American empire, no longer the major nation that resists control from
Washington.
Prior to the U.S.
bombings of Libya in 2011, Libya was at peace and thriving. Per-capita GDP
(income) in 2010 according to the IMF was $12,357.80, but it plunged to only
$5,839.70 in 2011 — the year we bombed and destroyed the country. (Hillary
Clinton famously bragged, “We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!”) (And, unlike
in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, that per-capita GDP was remarkably evenly
distributed, and both education and health care were socialized and available
to everyone, even to the poor.) More recently, on 15 February 2015, reporter
Leila Fadel of NPR bannered “With Oil Fields Under Attack, Libya’s Economic
Future Looks Bleak.” She announced: “The man in charge looks at production and
knows the future is bleak. 'We cannot produce. We are losing 80 percent of our
production,' says Mustapha Sanallah, the chairman of Libya's National Oil
Corporation.” Under instructions from Washington, the IMF hasn’t been reliably
reporting Libya’s GDP figures after 2011, but instead shows that things there
were immediately restored to normal (even to better than normal: $13,580.55
per-capita GDP) in 2012, but everybody knows that it’s false; even NPR is, in
effect, reporting that it’s not true. The CIA estimates that Libya’s per-capita
GDP was a ridiculous $23,900 in 2012 (they give no figures for the years before
that), and says Libya’s per-capita GDP has declined only slightly thereafter.
None of the official estimates are at all trustworthy, though the Atlantic
Council at least made an effort to explain things honestly, headlining in their
latest systematic report about Libya’s economy, on 23 January 2014, “Libya:
Facing Economic Collapse in 2014.”
Libya has become
Europe’s big problem. Millions of Libyans are fleeing the chaos there. Some of
them are fleeing across the Mediterranean and ending up in refugee camps in
southern Italy; and some are escaping to elsewhere in Europe.
And Syria is now
yet another nation that’s being destroyed in order to conquer Russia. Even the
reliably propagandistic New York Times is acknowledging, in its ‘news’
reporting, that, "both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating
President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority.” So: U.S. bombers
will be enforcing a no-fly-zone over parts of Syria in order to bring down
Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad and replace his secular government by an Islamic
government — and the 'anti-ISIS' thing is just for show; it’s PR, propaganda.
The public cares far more about defeating ISIS than about defeating Russia; but
that’s not the way America’s aristocracy views things. Their objective is
extending America’s empire — extending their own empire.
Similarly, Obama
overthrew the neutralist government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February
2014, but that was under the fake cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, instead
of under the fake cover of ‘opposing Islamic terrorism’ or whatever other
phrases that the U.S. Government uses to fool suckers about America’s installation
of, and support to, a rabidly anti-Russia, racist-fascist, or nazi, government
next door to Russia, in Ukraine. Just as Libya had been at peace before the
U.S. invaded and destroyed it, and just as Syria had been at peace before the
U.S and Turkey invaded and destroyed it, Ukraine too was at peace before the
U.S. perpetrated its coup there and installed nazis and an ethnic cleansing
campaign there, and destroyed Ukraine too.
Like with Libya
before the overthrow of Gaddafi there, or Syria before the current effort to
overthrow Assad there, or the more recent successful overthrow of Ukraine’s
democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, it’s all aimed to defeat
Russia.
The fact that all
of Europe is sharing in the devastation that Obama and other American
conservatives — imperialists, even — impose, is of little if any concern to the
powers-that-be in Washington DC, but, if it matters at all to them, then
perhaps it’s another appealing aspect of this broader operation: By weakening
European nations, and not only nations in the Middle East, Obama’s war against
Russia is yet further establishing America to be “the last man standing,” at
the end of the chaos and destruction that America causes.
Consequently, for
example, in terms of U.S. international strategy, the fact that the economic
sanctions against Russia are enormously harming the economies of European
nations is good, not bad.
There are two
ways to win, at any game: One is by improving one’s own performance. The other
is by weakening the performances by all of one’s competitors. The United States
is now relying almost entirely upon the latter type of strategy.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario