Anyone who doubts that Obama has brought the world to the brink on
thermonuclear war, must read this report on the warnings coming from the highest
levels of the Russian leadership. Mike Billington.
This article appears in the October 26, 2012 issue
of Executive Intelligence Review.
[PDF version of this article]
Oct. 21—The Kremlin announced yesterday the conclusion of the most comprehensive testing of Russia's nuclear triad since the collapse of the Soviet Union, an exercise commanded personally by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The testing of Russia's air-, land-, and sea-based strategic nuclear weapons' command and control came in the context of a new round of warnings from top Russian officials that the Obama Administration's policies of promoting regime change, and deploying a unilateral missile defense system in Europe and the Middle East, are driving the world towards a global showdown.
Russian prime-time TV highlighted the exercises, showing footage of the three different modes of launch: the land-based mobile Topol-M ICBM from Plesetsk in the north to a target in Kamchatka, the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) fired from the Sea of Okhotsk, and cruise missiles fired from strategic bombers. This demonstration followed early September command staff exercises, involving scenarios for "nuclear deterrence in the setting of a threatened armed conflict with Russia's participation, or during such a conflict."
While the strategic triad exercises were underway, and following the U.S.-announced deployment of four Aegis destroyers into the Spanish port of Rota, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, the former Russian ambassador to NATO, told a visiting delegation of NATO parliamentarians on Oct. 18 that the continued deployment of U.S. ballistic-missile defense systems all along the southern tier of Russia was driving Russia to take "technical" actions to preserve its strategic deterrents.
Rogozin noted that the Rota-based American destroyers, equipped with the advanced Aegis ABM system, posed a direct threat to the global nuclear balance. Those destroyers, he charged, could be easily moved to the North Atlantic in proximity to Russian territory, to intercept Russian strategic missiles armed with thermonuclear weapons launched in retaliation for a U.S. first strike. This, he warned, alters the entire system of strategic deterrents and poses an existential threat to Russia—a threat that will not go unchallenged.
Combined with the escalation by London and the Obama Administration for military intervention against the Syrian government, the strategic impasse between Russia and the United States puts the question of a thermonuclear war directly on the world agenda—although most leading political figures are trying to deny it.
Starting with the Anglo-American backing for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Fyodorov went on to the present: "The next act in the script is launching a global fire, unleashing a world war, in a sense combining all the local conflicts into a single system of instability. For this purpose, there is a dramatic increase in funding for terrorism. Currently, the U.S.A. has dramatically increased funding for terrorism worldwide. The Americans will now act indiscriminately, that is, without consideration of whether they are giving to allies or not allies, friends or not friends."
Fyodorov is clear on the process, but he is not explicit on the true orchestrator, the British Empire. The British monarchy, and its Saudi junior partners, are the creators of the jihadi terrorists Fyodorov is referencing, but the crucial aspect of the British-Saudi game is to have Washington as the frontman for the confrontation. And the British are counting on their control over Obama to further their strategic objective of preserving their bankrupt empire, in a world rapidly depopulated either by their anti-human Green agenda, or, as some extremists around the royal family are willing to risk, by thermonuclear war.
Leave it to the mouthpiece of the British financial establishment, the London Economist, to make the British sponsorship explicit. In its Oct. 22 issue, the Economist called for NATO, led by the United States, to directly intervene in the border conflict between Syria and Turkey by establishing a no-fly zone over northern Syria, thus creating a safe haven from which anti-Assad rebels can operate freely. And what of the Russian (and Chinese) opposition at the United Nations Security Council? "But an American-led coalition could invoke the world's responsibility to protect citizens against their own abusive governments through a vote in the UN General Assembly—which would provide diplomatic cover, if not legal cover."
Such an intervention, of course, would greatly escalate NATO tensions with Russia, as shown by the fact that Russia has begun deploying new batteries of the S-400 advanced anti-aircraft system to the southern border—pointed at Turkey. Meanwhile, over the past week, cross-border exchanges of artillery fire have resumed between Turkey and Syria, with Turkish heavy artillery blasting Syrian military positions.
The Economist's call for the U.S. to immediately impose a no-fly zone over northern Syria was seconded by Washington Post syndicated columnist David Ignatius last week, who called for the United States to intervene to end the Assad regime, before extremist jihadis fully hijack the anti-Assad "revolution."
For the time being, Team Obama is focusing on plans to stage an "October Surprise" attack on targets in Libya who were behind the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Christoper Stevens and three other Americans. A senior U.S. intelligence official told EIR on Oct. 20 that the Obama "kill team," chaired by the President himself, has already selected a target for retaliation. The only thing standing in the way of military action is the concern that such a flagrantly political action on the eve of the election might cause a blow-back that would prove more damaging than beneficial to the President. The source expects that the President and his top aides at the White House and at campaign headquarters will make a decision on the Libya strike within a matter of days, or a week at the most.
Civil libertarian columnist Glenn Greenwald, writing for the London Guardian, warned in a column Oct. 20, that the President is prepared to kill "without a whiff of due process" to benefit his re-election chances.
Russians Reiterate Danger of World War III
by Jeffrey Steinberg[PDF version of this article]
Oct. 21—The Kremlin announced yesterday the conclusion of the most comprehensive testing of Russia's nuclear triad since the collapse of the Soviet Union, an exercise commanded personally by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The testing of Russia's air-, land-, and sea-based strategic nuclear weapons' command and control came in the context of a new round of warnings from top Russian officials that the Obama Administration's policies of promoting regime change, and deploying a unilateral missile defense system in Europe and the Middle East, are driving the world towards a global showdown.
Russian prime-time TV highlighted the exercises, showing footage of the three different modes of launch: the land-based mobile Topol-M ICBM from Plesetsk in the north to a target in Kamchatka, the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) fired from the Sea of Okhotsk, and cruise missiles fired from strategic bombers. This demonstration followed early September command staff exercises, involving scenarios for "nuclear deterrence in the setting of a threatened armed conflict with Russia's participation, or during such a conflict."
While the strategic triad exercises were underway, and following the U.S.-announced deployment of four Aegis destroyers into the Spanish port of Rota, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, the former Russian ambassador to NATO, told a visiting delegation of NATO parliamentarians on Oct. 18 that the continued deployment of U.S. ballistic-missile defense systems all along the southern tier of Russia was driving Russia to take "technical" actions to preserve its strategic deterrents.
Rogozin noted that the Rota-based American destroyers, equipped with the advanced Aegis ABM system, posed a direct threat to the global nuclear balance. Those destroyers, he charged, could be easily moved to the North Atlantic in proximity to Russian territory, to intercept Russian strategic missiles armed with thermonuclear weapons launched in retaliation for a U.S. first strike. This, he warned, alters the entire system of strategic deterrents and poses an existential threat to Russia—a threat that will not go unchallenged.
Combined with the escalation by London and the Obama Administration for military intervention against the Syrian government, the strategic impasse between Russia and the United States puts the question of a thermonuclear war directly on the world agenda—although most leading political figures are trying to deny it.
'A Global Fire, Unleashing a World War'
A leading member of the Russian State Duma from Putin's party, Yevgeny Fyodorov, issued a stark warning in early October—which is now being picked up in a range of Russia media—that the U.S. policy of promoting wars of regime change around the world is leading toward a world war. He accused the Obama Administration of pursuing policies leading the world to "slide into a complete destabilization that will inevitably end in a World War."Starting with the Anglo-American backing for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Fyodorov went on to the present: "The next act in the script is launching a global fire, unleashing a world war, in a sense combining all the local conflicts into a single system of instability. For this purpose, there is a dramatic increase in funding for terrorism. Currently, the U.S.A. has dramatically increased funding for terrorism worldwide. The Americans will now act indiscriminately, that is, without consideration of whether they are giving to allies or not allies, friends or not friends."
Fyodorov is clear on the process, but he is not explicit on the true orchestrator, the British Empire. The British monarchy, and its Saudi junior partners, are the creators of the jihadi terrorists Fyodorov is referencing, but the crucial aspect of the British-Saudi game is to have Washington as the frontman for the confrontation. And the British are counting on their control over Obama to further their strategic objective of preserving their bankrupt empire, in a world rapidly depopulated either by their anti-human Green agenda, or, as some extremists around the royal family are willing to risk, by thermonuclear war.
Leave it to the mouthpiece of the British financial establishment, the London Economist, to make the British sponsorship explicit. In its Oct. 22 issue, the Economist called for NATO, led by the United States, to directly intervene in the border conflict between Syria and Turkey by establishing a no-fly zone over northern Syria, thus creating a safe haven from which anti-Assad rebels can operate freely. And what of the Russian (and Chinese) opposition at the United Nations Security Council? "But an American-led coalition could invoke the world's responsibility to protect citizens against their own abusive governments through a vote in the UN General Assembly—which would provide diplomatic cover, if not legal cover."
Such an intervention, of course, would greatly escalate NATO tensions with Russia, as shown by the fact that Russia has begun deploying new batteries of the S-400 advanced anti-aircraft system to the southern border—pointed at Turkey. Meanwhile, over the past week, cross-border exchanges of artillery fire have resumed between Turkey and Syria, with Turkish heavy artillery blasting Syrian military positions.
The Economist's call for the U.S. to immediately impose a no-fly zone over northern Syria was seconded by Washington Post syndicated columnist David Ignatius last week, who called for the United States to intervene to end the Assad regime, before extremist jihadis fully hijack the anti-Assad "revolution."
October Surprise?
So far, with the intensive opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Obama Administration has refrained from escalating the Syria surrogate war into a second Libya invasion for regime change. However, President Obama has made clear to close advisors that if he is reelected on Nov. 6, he will rapidly move to escalate the confrontation over Syria, regardless of the larger strategic consequences.For the time being, Team Obama is focusing on plans to stage an "October Surprise" attack on targets in Libya who were behind the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Christoper Stevens and three other Americans. A senior U.S. intelligence official told EIR on Oct. 20 that the Obama "kill team," chaired by the President himself, has already selected a target for retaliation. The only thing standing in the way of military action is the concern that such a flagrantly political action on the eve of the election might cause a blow-back that would prove more damaging than beneficial to the President. The source expects that the President and his top aides at the White House and at campaign headquarters will make a decision on the Libya strike within a matter of days, or a week at the most.
Civil libertarian columnist Glenn Greenwald, writing for the London Guardian, warned in a column Oct. 20, that the President is prepared to kill "without a whiff of due process" to benefit his re-election chances.
No comments:
Post a Comment