Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Destroy Russia
By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, September 01, 2016
Strategic Culture Foundation
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-plan-to-destroy-russia/5543429
Hillary Clinton
Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia — a plan which had originated with U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through both by his son George W. Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only recently started to become documented by leaked publications of personal communications amongst the key operatives who were the insiders running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.
This operation came out into public view only briefly when the news site Zero Hedge headlined on 6 October 2015 “Saudi Clerics Call For Jihad Against Russia, Iran” and linked to a number of sources, including to a Wall Street Journal report the day before, which simply ignored the Saudi involvement and headlined “U.S. Sees Russian Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria”, as if this matter were merely a U.S.-v.-Russia issue, not an issue involving the Saud family at all. By contrast, the zerohedge article closed with “‘This is a real war on Sunnis, their countries and their identities,’ said the statement [by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which is based in Qatar, whose ruling family, the Thanis, work closely with the Saud family].
It urged the rebels to join a ‘jihad against the enemy of God and your enemy, and Muslims will back you every way they can.’” As a British news-site for jihadists put the matter, “According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war.”
(That joint U.S.-Saudi operation, which was assisted by the Pakistani military and by Pakistan’s heavily-Saudi-influenced Islamic clergy, was the brainchild of Saudi Prince Bandar and of the born Polish aristocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, and its success at breaking up the Soviet Union is an enduring topic of pride for today’s jihadists.)
On 5 October 2015, the British mainstream ‘news’ site Reuters had called these “Saudi opposition clerics”, and alleged that they “are not affiliated with the government,” but Reuters’s statement (especially that these were “Saudi opposition clerics”) was simply false, and even ridiculously false, likely an outright lie, because Saudi laws don’t allow any “opposition clerics,” especially not Islamic ones, since those would be executed for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the country’s rule by the royal Saud family, which is what an “opposition cleric” in Saudi Arabia would, by definition, be doing, if any of them existed there and hadn’t been executed yet.
The pretense, by Reuters, that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an insult to their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow the West can be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself ‘democratic’ and allied only with ‘democratic’ governments, not with some of the world’s worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs (such as to acknowledge that some of the world’s worst regimes are our government’s allies) is fine, but it can’t include lying to one’s own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the voters on the basis of which any actualdemocracy receives its very legitimacy as being a democracy, which seems less and less what countries such as the U.S. and UK are, at least after 9/11. A “democracy” and a “deceived public” cannot coexist in the same country — and, at least in the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of the many deceiving ‘news’ media).
The Saud family are always among the top ten foreign buyers of American weapons. On 26 May 2015, David Sirota and Andrew Perez headlined in International Business Times, “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department”, and reported that
“In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Then, Secretary of State Clinton approved a $29 billion sale of U.S. weapons to the Saud family, which enables the Sauds to mass-murder Shiites in neighboring Yemen, and (via the Sauds’ surrogate jihadists) in Syria.
Moreover,
“The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.”
Other than to fundamentalist-Sunni Saudi Arabia, this burgeoning of military exports included weapons to the Sauds’ fellow-fundamentalist-Sunni royal friends who own and run Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, all of whom had donated to the Clinton Foundation and likewise gained Clinton’s clearance to buy America’s weapons, even as the State Department verbally condemned their countries for corruption, tyranny, and funding jihadists around the world.
These fundamentalist-Sunni monarchies compete against both Russia and Iran in international oil and gas markets, and appreciate a U.S. government that slaps economic sanctions against, and that militarily threatens, their main economic competitors: both Russia and Iran. During Hillary’s time at State, military sales to the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia doubled, to the royals who own Qatar increased 14-fold, to the royals who own UAE increased ten-fold, and to the royals who own Bahrain increased nearly three-fold. Other top donors to the Clinton Foundation included the top U.S. military suppliers: Boeing, GE, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies. This is a charitable operation — but certainly not to Russia, nor to the operation’s other victims.
At http://www.whois.com/whois/clintonemail.com, one learns that “Creation Date: 2009-01-13T05:00:00Z”, meaning Hillary Clinton had set up her privatized State Department email operation on January 13th of 2009, six days prior to becoming the U.S. Secretary of State.
Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance:
The first two exhibits are:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28723
SAUD
From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2011-02-20 08:36 Subject: SAUD
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778064 Date: 09/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D) From: Feltman, Jeffrey D
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28733
SAUD
From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Jake Sullivan Date: 2011-02-20 08:38 Subject: SAUD
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778115 Date: 09/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D) From: Feltman, Jeffrey D
These were two of the emails that the State Department marked “Confidential” after Hillary’s blatantly illegal (but not even investigated by the FBI) privatized State Department email operation became public, and both emails were then rated by the State Department as being appropriate to declassify only on 19 February 2036. Both of them demonstrate that while Hillary was Secretary of State, her husband, “Bill,” was very actively assisting her “diplomacy.” Both notes are from Jeffrey Feltman, who subsequently became prominently mentioned by the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland when Nuland told the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, on 4 February 2014, just 18 days prior to her coup that overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine, and 22 days prior to installation of the Russia-hating Arseniy Yatsenyuk to lead the U.S. interim dictatorship there, the following:
Exhibit #3:
Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the — What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Victoria Nuland: My understanding from that call — but you tell me — was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think — I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK, one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [who had, in 2011, been in Hillary’s State Department, but was now the U.N.’s Under Secretary-General — immediately under Ban ki-Moon — for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning? …
Video below
In other words: Feltman, who had been central in the operation to overthrow one leader who was friendly toward Russia, Assad (to replace him there by jihadists); was now prominently involved also in the operation to overthrow another leader friendly toward Russia, Yanukovych (to replace him there by nazis) (and Russia, of course, cannot tolerate either jihadists or nazis, so it tries to eliminate both).
(And, on 21 November 2014, the U.S. was one of only 3 countries at the U.N. voting against a resolution to condemn resurgent nazism and holocaust-denial. The new, nazi, Americanized, Ukraine, was another of the three internationally pro-nazi regimes.)
In exhibits 1&2, Feltman’s counsel has been sought by Hillary regarding whether she should receive Bill’s assistance in setting up a discussion with “Saud,” who might have been King Saud, or else it was his #2, the Crown Prince, whom Bill personally knew.
It’s important to note that Exhibits 1&2 are from 20 February 2011, which was right before the demonstrations started against the Syrian secular regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Wikipedia’s article “Syrian Civil War” says “The protests began on 15 March 2011,” and so those two exhibits, both dated 20 February 2011, predated the “protests” in Syria by exactly 23 days.
Exhibit #4:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/21376
QATAR
From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Jake Sullivan Date: 2010-09-08 13:06 Subject: QATAR
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05772230 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B5 From: Feltman, Jeffrey D
The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are the main funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular Assad and to replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves. Feltman here, on 9 September 2010, was informing Hillary (and her chief counselor, Jake Sullivan), that a meeting had been set up, concerning Qatar, which is a key funder of the tens of thousands of jihadists who have since entered Syria to overthrow and replace Assad.
On 3 September 2010, Hillary had sent an email to Jake Sullivan, whose subject-line was “Emir of Qatar” (Qatar’s king) and it said only “Let’s discuss when I get in.” Then, on 14 September 2010, Hillary received an email whose subject line was “SHEIKHA MOSA OF QATAR” (that’s the Emir’s wife) and it was a note from Cheri Blair (Tony Blair’s wife, a friend of both Hillary and her) saying, “She is available to see you on 24 September either morning or afternoon? Alternatively 28thor 29thSeptember Does that work for you?” The main subject of the conversation was to be the drought in the Arabic countries. That drought was especially intense in Syria.
The background behind those public demonstrations against the Assad regime is important. As Grist reported, regarding the record drought in Syria, on 16 January 2010:
Prices are soaring and supplies are becoming scarce – not merely because of international demand, but because of drought and agricultural water scarcity triggered by global climate change. The same climate-driven pressures are affecting the survival of the Halaby pepper and its traditional farmers near Aleppo, Syria. In the past three years, 160 Syrian farming villages have been abandoned near Aleppo as crop failures have forced over 200,000 rural Syrians to leave for the cities. This news is distressing enough, but when put into a long-term perspective, its implications are staggering: many of these villages have been continuously farmed for 8000 years. As one expert puts it, this may be the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.
A wikileaked U.S. State Department cable, which was dated “11/25/2018” but without the typo was actually originated on 25 November 2008 (near the end of the G.W. Bush Presidency), had been sent from the U.S. Embassy in Syria, to the U.S. Secretary of State and to several U.S. Embassies, and it conveyed the Syrian government’s urgent appeal for drought-assistance:
Exhibit #5:
Representative Abdullah Bin Yehia is seeking USG commitment to the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2008 Drought Appeal. Yehia proposes to use money from the appeal to provide seed and technical assistance to 15,000 small-holding farmers in northeast Syria in an effort to preserve the social and economic fabric of this rural, agricultural community.
The U.S. did not respond. This appeal fell to U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to respond to, and she (and her Department) ignored it.
They knew that Syria was in perhaps the most likely condition ever, to undergo massive civilian protests, even if the rest of the Arabic lands were not quite so much. What, then, was, to the Syrian government, a global appeal for help, was, to the U.S. government, an opportunity to topple and replace, with imported U.S. and Saudi and Thani backed jihadists, the existing, non-sectarian, ideologically secular, Syrian government, to replace it with jihadists who would be grateful to the Sauds and Thanis and the U.S. aristocrats, for installing them into power there.
Then, the U.S. and its fundamentalist-Sunni royal allies, could fulfill on their goal, ever since 1949, to replace Syria’s secular government with a sectarian, specifically fundamentalist-Sunni, one, which would allow the U.S. and its oil companies to pipeline Saudi oil and Thani gas into the world’s largest energy-market, Europe, displacing Europe’s current biggest supplier, Russia.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has, on at least two different occasions, lied and said that the initial insertion of jihadists into Afghanistan started after the Soviets had “invaded Afghanistan” — something that actually happened on 24 December 1979, after the U.S.-Saudi-Pakistani operation had already been officially authorized by U.S. President Jimmy Carter on 3 July 1979, following the advice of Brzezinski, who won out over the advice of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Here’s Brzezinski speaking about that, in 1998 (long before both of Hillary’s televised lies to the contrary about this, while she was the U.S. Secretary of State):
Exhibit #6:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
And here is Brzezinski himself, in Pakistan, in 1979, recruiting jihadists to start the modern jihadist wave — the wave he’s proud of, notwithstanding the 1993 jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center, which had already resulted from it. (Then, on 11 September 2001, the Saud family’s “9/11” operation, with assistance from George W. Bush and his close aides, was carried out.)
Of course, Brzezinski and President Carter in 1979, were fighting to end the Soviet Union; that’s very different than what has happened at the top level of the U.S. government after the USSR ended in 1991, because all since 1991 is psychopathic aggression against Russia, and has no ideological justification whatsoever. Brzezinski is still part of that operation, but only as a cheerleader for it. The Bushes, Clintons, and Obama, are the operative culprits in this psychopathic aggression, first to surround Russian with hostile forces, and then to strangle Russia’s economy, and then to blame Russia for ‘aggression’ when it takes essential defensive action against the West’s aggression — such as NATO’s expansion right up to Russia’s very borders.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment