What the N. Korean “Crisis” Is Really About
What the N. Korean “Crisis” Is Really About
Paul Craig Roberts
The North Korean “crisis” is a Washington
orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked
or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack
any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US.
Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.
So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the
presstitutes and Trump administration about?
It is about the same thing that the demonization of
Iran was about. The “Iranian threat” was an orchestration that was used as
cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders. An
anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed
ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching
their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not
directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran’s
nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians
surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian
government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed
at preventing a Russian retalliation against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese
leadership understands that the reason for the N. Korean “crisis” is to provide
cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China’s border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield
against nuclear retalliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear
strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to
Washington’s efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate
halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea.
https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/
In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now
calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. China understands
that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders S. Korea,
making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.
THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China’s
retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington’s preparations to nuke both Russia
and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe would certainly
be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian
nuclear cruise missiles and the Russian air force.
But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its
vassals, and Washington is uninterested in Europe’s fate. Washington is
interested only in its hegemony over the world.
The question is: now that Russia and China understand
that Washington is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against them in
order to remove the two constraints on Washington’s unilateral behavior, will
the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?
What would you do?
On April 27 I posted on this website a column,
“Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China.” My column was a report that this
was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I quoted Russian Lt.
Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff
and provided links for his expression of concern such as: https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
As the readers of my website are a self-selected group
of intelligent and concerned people who want to know what is the reality as
opposed to what is The Matrix, I was somewhat taken aback when several wrote to
me that they disagreed with me that Washington planned to nuke Russia and
China. I write clearly; yet here were several readers who mistook my report on
the conclusion of the Russian general staff for my opinion! I was also amazed
that the readers thought that it mattered what they think or what I think. All
that matters is what the Russian and Chinese leadership think.
I then looked at the comment sections on other sites
that repost my columns, and there were the trolls hired by the CIA, Mossad,
National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros, NATO, US State Department, and
others denouncing me for promoting nuclear war. Of course, it is Washington
that is promoting nuclear war, and it is Washington that has convinced Russia
and China that a preemptive nuclear strike is in their future.
Washington, being full of hubris, thinks that this
will scare Russia and China and that the two governments will submit to
Washington.
Possibly they will, but I would not bet the life of
the planet on it.
It is conceivable that education in the US and
throughout the Western world is so poorly done that readers educated in recent
decades simply cannot comprehend what they are reading. How else to explain the
mischaracterizations of my report on the conclusion of the Russian General
Staff? The only other explanation is that websites that have comment sections
provide the opportunity for the ruling elites to hire the slander of
truth-tellers.
I seldom see an intelligent comment on websites that
have comment sections. Most comments come from people too ashamed to speak in
their real names and who are unwilling to provide their real email addresses.
Almost all comments come from narcissistic ignorant fools hiding behind fake
names and fake email addresses and from paid trolls.
I don’t write in order to be slandered by paid trolls
and ignorant narcissistic fools. I regard it as highly
irresponsible for websites to undercut their writers with anonymous accusations
and slander from no one knows who. There should be no comment sections unless
there is a firm check on the commentator’s real name and real email address.
Sites that do not have this requirement no longer have
my permission to repost my columns.
Washington, as the Russian and Chinese governments
comprehend, has placed life on earth under dire threat. This is serious
business. There is no space for ignorant narcissistic idiots and paid trolls to be
using the Internet to attack the few who truthfully report the dire threat that
all life faces from Washington’s drive for world hegemony.
No comments:
Post a Comment