Our Friday News Analysis | In Search of a Nation's Soul (Part 8)

For more than 4,500 million years, our planet has spun on its axis,
come rain, or come shine.

When a meteor struck the Earth 65 million years ago
with an impact equal to 10 billion nuclear bombs,
our planet remained spinning on its axis,
albeit jolted by a significant hiccup that wiped out the dinosaurs,
reported by ABC News New York.

Should we worry about a mere 9,000 nuclear bombs that might detonate one minute before midnight?

          ¹² You will go out in joy
               and be led forth in peace;
          the mountains and hills
               will burst into song before you,
          and all the trees of the field
               Will clap their hands.

          __ Isaiah 55:12

Pursue a journey in search of beauty.

Do you hear the singing of the trees?

Do you see the sun and stars as your brothers and sisters?

Clap with the trees and dance with the mountains?

Listen to heaven and nature sing.

Drink deeply from the well of creation.

Are you a part of God's work to redeem the whole of creation?

Adapted from Nouwen, Henri J. M. Discernment (p. 64). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive?

By Abraham A. van Kempen, featuring 'Can Europe Afford to Turn a Blind Eye to Evidence of a US Role in Pipeline Blasts?' by British Journalist Jonathan Cook based in Bethlehem.

Cape Canaveral, 28 October 2022 | If you know of any story that is decisive, tell the world. We're still searching.

               "Politics is sometimes called the 'art of the possible.'

               Sacrifice the ideal for the sake of the tolerable and achievable.

               When are such compromises honorable and when dishonorable?"

 Watch the video here

Push them Back, Push them Back, Way Back! Where to? Why?

Mr. President, if we agree that 1 + 1 = 2, we can reason together. Even if you fall asleep during an interview, I appreciate your candor.

               Is President Vladimir Putin scheming to reshape Russia to the former glory of the Soviet Union?

               It doesn’t jive with Mr. Putin’s desire to strengthen the Russian economy by working closely with Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States.

               The Russian people can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t expect to trade with Europe – to buy and sell products and services to make money – while concurrently exercising an imperialist drift to hoist the Russian flag throughout the Continent.

Russia’s sole objective is to expand its sphere of influence worldwide to buy and sell products and services for all to make and save more money. To facilitate international trade, land-locked Russia must have secure access to the Black Sea to control its shipping lanes with seaports located in Ukraine. Once there was mutual trust — trust is the thrust — between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. After 2014, the trust was lost, compromised by the EU-US/NATO Axis.

The Russian Federation, the largest country on Earth, does not need more real estate. Why should Russia want to expand its lebensraum? Russia needs and wants and has every interest in expanding its market share by selling Russian oil and gas and other products demanded by Europe and countries worldwide. Conversely, Russia wishes to increase its imports of European products and services. A few weeks ago, a farmer in Eastern Europe told me he was ready to export tons of freshly picked cherries to Russia until the sanctions blocked the opportunity. Aeroflot had scheduled and then canceled direct flights to Skopje, Macedonia, that could have brought significant tourism capital from Russia.

How did you, Mr. President, convince many Americans, especially members of your political party, that the President of the Russian Federation is an imperialist, a wolf in sheep’s clothing? No, Mr. Biden. Mr. Putin wants to strengthen the Russian economy by working closely with Europe. Russia is in Europe, a European nation, the largest and most powerful country in Europe. Without Russia, Europe is not Europe. Most Americans have no idea that Russia sacrificed 27 million Russians to liberate Europe from NAZI Germany.

What’s happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with Russian imperialism. It is more about the EU-US/NATO imperialism. Russia executes self-defense against the EU-US/NATO persistence in arming Ukraine with NATO weaponry since 2014, culminating in late 2021 and early 2022. In Europe and around the world, the average Joe asks: “What are the clowns in Brussels and their stooges in Washington smoking? It’s not the peace pipe.”

As early as 2008, the Russian Federation proscribed the EU-US/NATO in no uncertain terms from adding Ukraine to NATO as its 31st NATO member state. From Russia’s perspective, that’s too close for comfort. Russia proposed that Ukraine remain a neutral buffer zone between East and West. You, Mr. Biden, and those dummies in Brussels rejected Russia’s proposal to uphold the status quo. Instead, you equipped Ukraine with sophisticated artillery, i.e., armaments, missiles, howitzers, and military advisors, to teach them how to maximize the kill. You even indiscriminately armed a small number of neo-Nazis, referred to as ‘Ukrainazis.’

Russia’s response, as stated by Vladimir Putin on 9 May 2022

               “In December 2021, Russia called on the West to engage in honest discussion to find fair compromises which accounted for each other’s interests. All of this was in vain! They didn’t want to listen to us. And this means they had entirely different plans, and we have seen this.

               Preparations for another punitive operation in the Donbas went on in the open: an invasion of lands that have historically been ours, including Crimea. In Kyiv, they made announcements about potentially acquiring nuclear weapons. NATO began the active military assimilation of territories along our borders – which, for us, became an unacceptable threat directly at our borders.

               This indicated that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites – on which the USA and its smaller companions relied – would be unavoidable.

               Let me repeat. We saw all this military infrastructure being set up.

               We saw hundreds of foreign advisors beginning to work and the regular deliveries of the most modern weaponry from NATO countries. The danger grew with each passing day.

               So, Russia launched a preemptive attack against this aggression. It was necessary, timely, and the only choice—the decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country.”

Read more: Vladimir Putin’s Victory Speech, 9 May 2022

Ukraine has been in a civil war against itself since 2014. With NATO support, the radical nationalists in the West intend to drive the Ukrainians of Russian ancestry to the East. Instead, the Ukrainians of Russian origin voted en masse to become part of Mother Russia. Russia has saved Ukrainians of Russian descent from further Ukrainian atrocities.

Mr. Biden, stop equipping the Ukrainian nationalists in West Ukraine with an EU-US/NATO arsenal! You, Mr. Biden, reduce the people of Ukraine to cannon fodder and human shields to fight your war as proxies against the Russian Federation. You kill more Ukrainians by supplying Ukraine with the means, methods, and mechanisms for many to maim and massacre. Your policy to Kill, Get Killed violates the principle of 'Live, Let Live.'

Europeans and everyone else on Earth don’t understand what you’re up to. Explain! What about NATO? Why does NATO need 30 European nations to point their NATO nuclear arsenal at Russia? I don’t know of one European country that wants Russia to retaliate by grinding an atomic crater in their backyards. Most Americans believe that all those European countries freely became NATO members by choice to defend against Russian aggression. Wrong! The EU Member Candidate must first agree to become a NATO member to become an EU Member State. Why? Easy money! NATO earns a two (2) percent tax from each country’s GDP. These EU candidates are desperate. They’re dying to become an EU Member State. They’ll do almost anything to become part of the European Union, even if they must prostitute themselves.

So, Mr. President, Stop pushing them back; push them back, way back! This is not a high school football match. Don’t play Russian Roulette with our lives! Use common sense!

               Sir, if you want to earn your stripes as Leader of the Free World, help fix the broken pipelines, the lifelines of Europe! That’s what matters most.

The people of the world prefer peaceful coexistence. The alternative is nuclear war.

To remind you, Mr. President, Mr. Putin is on record since his first day as President of the Russian Federation as wanting to build bridges with the EU, US, and the rest of the world. In 2000, you served in Washington, DC.

               It is September 25, 2001, a few weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Putin spoke to more than 650 members of the Bundestag in Berlin.

               He started in Russian and then went into perfect German, wrapped his politician audience around his finger, flirted, and earned applause. He called the MPs his "dear friends" and talked about expanding the German-Russian partnership into a joint "European house," explaining: "The Cold War is over."

               His presentation ended in applause that lasted for a few minutes. The entire Bundestag heaved itself out of its armchairs for the almost 50-year-old Putin. Analysis of his speeches clarified how quickly his political priorities had shifted. It showed how Putin's distrust of the West evolved.

               Putin was elected President in March 2000. Three months later, he delivered his first State of the Union address. He presented his vision of a cooperative, peaceful, integrated Russia:

               "Not strong against the international community, not against other strong nations, but together with them."

               At his first Kremlin press conference as President in July 2001, Putin, like his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, proposed Russia's accession to NATO - the defense organization established in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat.

The US did not respond directly to Putin's proposal, but the NATO-Russia Council was formed a year later. In June 2001, then-US President George W. Bush "looked Putin in the eye" and said:

               "I found President Putin to be very direct and trustworthy … I could get a feel for his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."

               Putin, however, compared Bush's warm words in stark contrast to the expansion of NATO:

                "It is a military organization. Yes, military! Yes, moving towards our border! Why?"

Washington, DC, 25 October 2022 | And it is not only on the right that there is criticism of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy. The Washington Post reported in ‘Liberals Urge Biden to Rethink Ukraine Strategy.’ The Democratic lawmakers' letter calls for direct US talks with Russia.

The letter called on the Biden administration to make a ‘proactive diplomatic effort’ to bring the war to a negotiated end.

               It is the first time that the president's approach to war has been openly criticized from its ranks.

               The White House wasn't ready for ‘self-criticism.’

               Spokesman John Kirby responded that Biden ‘appreciates their well-thought-out concerns,’ a polite ‘shut up.’

Mr. President do you have what it takes to steer the conflict away from World War III, to avoid a nuclear holocaust? How do you propose to reach the quest to peacefully coexist with the Russian Federation and its allies? The time is several minutes before midnight. Humanity is holding its breath. Your Presidency and the lives of millions depend on your actions.

Mr. Biden, I assure you the Russian Federation will remain on course. As you read this article, Mr. Biden, the balance of power is being recalibrated. Russia’s allies will not abandon Russia. They don’t want to be next on the EU-US/NATO chopping board.

The nations of the world can no longer condone one global sheriff. Why? Power corrupts! Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

CAN EUROPE AFFORD TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO EVIDENCE OF A US ROLE IN PIPELINE BLASTS?

Source: Mintpressnews
https://www.mintpressnews.com/evidence-united-states-role-nord-stream-pipeline-blasts/282149/

By JONATHAN COOK
Published October 6, 2022

Police officers accompany a demonstration against sanctions on Russia while a banner with the inscription “Open Nordstream 2 immediately” is held on September 05, 2022. Sebastian Willnow | DPA via AP

The sabotage of the two Nord Stream pipelines left Europeans sure to be much poorer and colder this winter. It was an act of international vandalism on an almost unimaginable scale. The attacks severed Russian gas supplies to Europe and caused the release of enormous quantities of methane gas, the prime offender in global warming.

This is why no one will take responsibility for the crime – and most likely, no one will ever be found definitively culpable.

Nonetheless, the level of difficulty and sophistication in setting off blasts at three separate locations on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines overwhelmingly suggests a state actor, or actors, was behind it.

Western coverage of the attacks has been decidedly muted, given that this vicious assault on the globe’s energy infrastructure is unprecedented – overshadowing even the 9/11 attacks.

There appears to be so little enthusiasm to explore this catastrophic event in detail – beyond pointing a finger in Russia’s direction – it is not difficult to deduce.

It is hard to think of a single reason why Moscow would wish to destroy its energy pipelines, valued at $20 billion, or allow in seawater, possibly corroding them irreversibly.

The attacks deprive Russia of its main gas supply lines to Europe – and with it, vital future revenues – while leaving the field open to competitors.

Moscow loses its only significant leverage over Germany, its primary buyer in Europe and at the heart of the European project, when it needs such influence most, as it faces down concerted efforts by the United States and Europe to drive Russian soldiers out of Ukraine.

Even any possible temporary advantage Moscow might have gained by demonstrating its ruthlessness and might to Europe have been achieved just as effectively by simply turning off the spigot to stop supplies.

MEDIA TABOO

This week, distinguished economist Jeffrey Sachs was invited to discuss pipeline attacks on Bloomberg TV. He broke a taboo among Western elites by citing evidence suggesting that the US, rather than Russia, was the prime suspect.

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F0ddette%2Fstatus%2F1576916509766451200&widget=Tweet

Western media like the Associated Press have tried to foreclose such a line of thinking by calling it a “baseless conspiracy theory” and Russian “disinformation.” But, as Sachs pointed out, there are good reasons to suspect the US above Russia.

There is, for example, the threat to Russia by US President Joe Biden in early February that “there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2” were Ukraine to be invaded. Questioned by a reporter about how that would be possible, Biden asserted: “I promise you, we will be able to do that.”

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FPartisangirl%2Fstatus%2F1574685985115607040&widget=Tweet

Biden was not speaking out of turn or off the cuff. At the same time, Victoria Nuland, a senior diplomat in the Biden administration, issued Russia much the same warning, telling reporters: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1574912267434409984

That is the same Nuland who was intimately involved back in 2014 in behind-the-scenes maneuvers by the US to help overthrow an elected Ukrainian government that led to the installation of one hostile to Moscow. That coup triggered an explosive mix of outcomes – Kyiv’s increasing flirtation with NATO and a civil war in the East between Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and ethnic Russian communities – that provided the chief rationale for President Vladimir Putin’s preemptive strike.

And for those still puzzled by what motive the US might have for perpetrating such an outrage, Nuland’s boss helpfully offered an answer last Friday. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken described the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the consequent environmental catastrophe as providing “tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.”

Blinken set out a little to the “cui bono” – “who profits?” – argument, suggesting that Biden and Nuland’s earlier remarks were not just empty, pre-invasion posturing by the White House.

Blinken celebrated that Europe would be deprived of Russian gas for the foreseeable future and, with it, Putin’s leverage over Germany and other European states. Before the blasts, the danger for Washington had been that Moscow might be able to advance favorable negotiations over Ukraine rather than perpetuate a war Biden’s defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has already stated is designed to “weaken” Russia at least as much as liberate Ukraine. Or, as Blinken phrased it, the attacks were “a tremendous opportunity once and for all to remove the dependence on Russian energy, and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”

Though Blinken did not mention it, it was also a “tremendous opportunity” to make Europe far more dependent on the US for its gas supplies, shipped by sea at a much greater cost to Europe than through Russia’s pipelines. American energy firms may well be the biggest beneficiaries of the explosions.

MEDDLING IN UKRAINE

US hostility towards Russian economic ties with Europe is not new. Before Russia’s invasion, Washington had openly sought ways to block the Nord Stream pipelines.

One of Blinken’s recent predecessors, Condoleezza Rice, expressed the Washington consensus way back in 2014 – at the same time as Nuland was recorded secretly meddling in Ukraine, discussing who should be installed as president in place of the elected Ukrainian government was about to be ousted in a coup.

Speaking to German TV, Rice said the Russian economy was vulnerable to sanctions because 80% of its exports were energy-related. Proving how wrong-headed American foreign policy predictions often are, she asserted confidently: “People say the Europeans will run out of energy. The Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy.” In Rice's words, breaking Europe’s reliance on Russian energy was “one of the few instruments we have… Over the long term, you want to change the structure of energy dependence.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF0uYIjaTNE

She added: “You [Germany] want to depend more on the North American energy platform, the tremendous bounty of oil and gas we’re finding in North America. You want pipelines that don’t go through Ukraine and Russia.”

Now, the sabotage of Nord Streams 1 and 2 has achieved a primary US foreign-policy goal overnight.

It has also preempted the pressure building in Germany, through mass protests and mounting business opposition, that might have seen Berlin reverse course on European sanctions on Russia and revive gas supplies. This shift would have undermined Washington’s goal of “weakening” Putin. Now, the protests are redundant. German politicians cannot cave into popular demands when there is no pipeline through which they can supply their population with Russian gas.

‘THANK YOU, USA’

One can hardly be surprised that European leaders publicly blame Russia for the pipeline attacks. After all, Europe falls under the US security umbrella, and Washington has designated Russia as the Official Enemy No 1.

But almost certainly, major European capitals are drawing different conclusions in private. Like Sachs, their officials are examining the circumstantial evidence, considering the statements of self-incrimination from Biden and other officials, and weighing the “cui bono” arguments.

And like Sachs, they are most likely inferring that the prime suspect, in this case, is the U.S. – or, at the very least, that Washington authorized an ally to act on its behalf. Just as no European leader would dare to publicly accuse the US of carrying out the attacks, none would dare stage such an attack without first getting the nod from Washington.

That was the view of Radek Sikorski, the former foreign and defense minister of Poland, who tweeted a “Thank you, USA” with an image of the bubbling seas where one pipeline was ruptured.

Sikorski, it should be noted, is as well-connected in Washington as he is in Poland, a European state bitterly hostile to Moscow and its pipelines. His wife, Anne Applebaum, is a staff writer at The Atlantic magazine and an influential figure in US policy circles who has long advocated for NATO and EU expansion into Eastern Europe and Ukraine.

Sikorski hurriedly took down the tweet after it went viral.

But if Washington is the chief suspect in blowing up the pipelines, how should Europe read its relations with the US in the light of that deduction? And what does such sabotage indicate to Europe’s leaders about how Washington might perceive the stakes in Europe? The answers are not pretty.

DEMAND FOR FEALTY (LOYALTY)

If the US was behind the attacks, it suggests that Washington is taking the Ukraine war into new, more dangerous territory, ready to risk drawing Moscow into a round of tit-for-tat that could quickly escalate into a nuclear confrontation. It also suggests that ties between the US and Europe have entered a decisive new stage.

Or, put another way, Washington would have done more than move out of the shadows, turning its proxy war in Ukraine into a more direct, hot war with Russia. It would indicate that the US is willing to turn the whole of Europe into a battlefield, and bully, betray and potentially sacrifice the Continent’s population as cruelly as it has traditionally treated weak allies in the Global South.

In that regard, the pipeline ruptures are most likely interpreted by European leaders as a signal: they should not dare to consider formulating their independent foreign policy or contemplate defying Washington. The attacks indicate that the US requires absolute loyalty and that Europe must prostrate itself before Washington and accept whatever dictates it imposes.

That would amount to a dramatic reversal of the Marshall Plan, Washington’s ambitious funding of rebuilding Western Europe after the Second World War, chiefly as a way to restore the market for rapidly expanding US industries.

By contrast, this sabotage strangles Europe economically, driving it into recession, deepening its debt, and making it a slave to US energy supplies. Effectively, the Biden administration would have moved from offering European elites juicy carrots to wielding a large stick at them.

PITILESS AGGRESSION

For those reasons, European leaders may be unwilling to contemplate that their ally across the Atlantic could behave in such a cruel manner against them. The implications are more than unsettling.

The conclusion European leaders would be left to draw is that the only justification for such pitiless aggression is that the US is maneuvering to avoid the collapse of its post-war global dominance and the end of its military and economic empire.

The destruction of the pipelines would have to be understood as an act of desperation: a last-ditch preemption by Washington of the loss of its hegemony as Russia, China, and others find common cause to challenge the American behemoth and a ferocious blow against Europe to hammer home the message that it must not stray from the fold.

At the same time, it would shine a different, clearer light on the events that have been unfolding in and around Ukraine in recent years:

     • NATO’s relentless expansion across Eastern Europe despite expert warnings that it would eventually provoke Russia.

     • Biden and Nuland’s meddling to help oust an elected Ukrainian government sympathetic to Moscow.

     • The cultivation of a militarized Ukrainian ultra-nationalism against Russia led to a bloody civil war against Ukraine’s ethnic Russian communities.

     • And NATO’s exclusive focus on escalating the war through arms supplies to Ukraine rather than pursuing and incentivizing diplomacy.

None of these developments can be stripped of a realistic assessment of why Russia responded by invading Ukraine.

Europeans have been persuaded that they must give unflinching moral and military support to Ukraine because it is the last rampart defending their homeland from merciless Russian imperialism.

But the attack on the pipelines hints at a more complex story. The European public needs to stop focusing exclusively on Russia and turn around to understand what has been happening behind their backs.


Jonathan Cook is a MintPress contributor. Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

_______________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

Our Friday News Analysis | 'In Search of a Nation's Soul (Part 7),' 21 October 2022.

Our Wednesday News Analysis | Opinion | Suddenly, Everyone Fears for Israeli Democracy,' 26 October 2022.

The Evangelical Pope| 'Power to Forgive, to Reconcile, to Live,' 24 October 2022.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague.