The Phaserl


The US: A Dead Nation Walking — Paul Craig Roberts

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

Here is an informative article by Dmitry Orlov:

I use the writings of Orlov and The Saker as checks on my own conclusions.

In his article Orlov concludes that the United States is a dead nation, still walking, but no longer a uni-power. I agree with Orlov that US weapon systems are more focused on profits than on effectiveness and that Russia has superior weapons and a superior cause based on protection rather than dominance. However, in his assessment of the possibility of nuclear war, I think that Orlov under-appreciates the commitment of Washington’s Neoconservatives to US world hegemony and the recklessness of the Neoconservatives and Hillary Clinton. Washington is incensed that Russia (and China) dare to stand up to Washington, and this anger crowds out judgment.

Orlov, also, I think, under-estimates the weakness in the Russian government provided by the “Atlanticist Integrationists.” These are members of the Russian elite who believe that Russia’s future depends on being integrated with the West. To achieve this integration, they are willing to sacrifice some undetermined amount of Russian sovereignty.

It is my conclusion that Washington is aware of the constraint that the desire for Western acceptance puts on the Russian government and that this is why Washington, in a direct thrust at Russia, was comfortable orchestrating the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government. I believe that this constraint also explains the mistakes the Russian government made by refusing the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to be reincorporated as parts of Russia, where the territories formerly resided, and by the premature withdrawal from Syria that allowed Washington to resupply the jihadists and to insert US forces into the conflict, thus complicating the situation for Russia and Syria.

Orlov sees Russian advantage in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and the breakaway republics as the conflict could be leading to the collapse of the US puppet government in Kiev. However, the disadvantage is that the ongoing conflict is blamed on Russia and feeds Western anti-Russian propaganda. It also makes Russia look weak and unsure of itself as if the Western criticism of Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea has struck home and Russia is afraid to repeat it by accepting the pleas of the break-away republics.

Moreover, if the Russian government had accepted the requests of Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia from which they were artificailly separated, not only would the conflict have been ended, but also the Ukrainian people would have realized the disaster caused by Washington’s coup against their government, and Europe would have realized from decisive Russian action that it was not in Europe’s interest to provoke Russia in behalf of Washington. The correct Russian response was prevented by the Atlanticist Integrationist desire to appease Washington.

In contrast to Orlov, The Saker underestimates Russian military strength, but he does understand the constraints placed on Russian decisiveness by the Atlanticist Integrationists, who seem to count in their ranks the economic establishment including the central bank and perhaps the prime minister himself. Putin does not seem to be overly concerned with what appears to me to be a fifth column of Washington’s agents as Putin himself has placed heavy bets on achieving accommodation with the West. However, Putin has cracked down on the US-financed NGOs that have tried to destabilize Russia.

Western reporting and think tank and university reports on Russia are propaganda and are useless to understanding the situation. For example, in the current issue of The National Interest Thomas Graham, who had the Russian desk on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush regime, attributes the “destabilization of eastern Ukraine” to “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” He avoids mentioning the US-orchestrated overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government and that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (97 percent) to rejoin Russia when faced with the Russophobic government Washington established in Kiev.

According to Graham, the foul deed of Russia’s acceptance of a democratic outcome upset all of Washington’s very friendly, supportive, and hopeful attitudes toward Russia. With all of Washington’s “assumptions that had guided America’s Russia policy” irreversibly dashed, it is no longer possible to maintain that Russia “is a suitable partner for addressing global issues.” Graham goes on to define Russia as a problem because Russia favors a multi-polar world to a uni-polar world run by Washington.

It is possible to read Graham’s repeat of the propaganda line as Graham genuflecting before the Neoconservatives before going on quietly in a low-key manner to attack their hegemonic attitude toward Russia. In his concluding paragraph Graham says that Washington must find a new approach to Russia, an approach of balance and limits that rejects “resort to force, which would be devastating given the destructive power of modern weaponry.”

All in all, it is an artful argument that begins by blaming Russia’s response to Washington’s provocations for a dangerous situation and concludes with the argument that Washington must adjust to Russia’s defense of her own national interests.

It is reassuring to see some realism creeping back into Washington attitudes toward Russia. However, realism is still a minority view, and it is highly unlikely that it would be the view of a Hillary regime.

In my opinion, the chance of nuclear war from Neoconservative intention, miscalculation or false launch warning remains high. The provocations of US/NATO military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders are reckless as they build tensions between nuclear powers. It is in times of tension that false warnings are believed and miscalculations occur. In the interest of life on earth, Washington should be de-escalating tensions with Russia, not building them. So far there is no sign that the Neoconservatives are willing to give up their hegemonic agenda for the sake of life on earth.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

9 comments to The US: A Dead Nation Walking — Paul Craig Roberts

  • anon

    “The US: A Dead Nation Walking”? — Paul Craig Roberts

    Mr. P.C. Roberts: IF the U.S. of AMERICA is as you say, ‘A Dead Nation Walking’, it is due to the FACT that self-proclaimed “Jews” have hijacked the ENTIRETY of Western Civilization ~ EVERY ~ MAJOR ~ INSTITUTION ~ OF ~ WESTERN ~ SOCIETY.

    “The fact is that the Jews were known only as destroyers in ancient history, not creators. They have developed no science, have produced no art, have built no great cities, and alone have no talent for the finer things of civilized life. The Jews claim to be the torchbearers of civilization, but thorough their parasitic habits have deteriorated or destroyed every nation in which they have existed in large numbers.” (Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 28).

    Of course, they don’t have to exist in large numbers, when members of ‘the tribe’ control the global financial system, all the major secret societies, AND EVERY MAJOR INSTITUTION IN WESTERN SOCIETY!

    “Whoever is in power in Downing Street [or in the White House!], whether Conservative, Radical, Coalitionist, or Pseudo-Bolshevik, the international Jews rule the roost. Here is the mystery of the ‘Hidden Hand’ of which there has been no intelligent explanation [until now].” (Leo Maxse, writing in the August issue of the “National Review” 1919)

    Source: 1001 Quotes By and About Jews (mainly on the topic of Jewish Supremacism)

    Who sits at the very top of the Pyramid (take out a $1 bill and look at the back ~ who, exactly, represents the “All-Seeing-Eye”)? Rothschilds? The ‘Kahal’? Sabbatean-Frankists? Chabad-Lubavitchers? Hasidic/Chasidic “Jews”? ZOHAR-ites? Well, whichever group it may be (or, more likely, some combination of those groups mentioned), the Rothschilds sit atop the global financial system PONZI-SCHEME. Is there a power somewhere even greater than the Rothschilds?

    • anon

      Are Your Opinions Crafted by Foreign Powers? | Jerry Robinson

      Read the comments.

    • glitter 1

      “Who sits at the very top of the Pyramid (take out a $1 bill and look at the back ~ who, exactly, represents the “All-Seeing-Eye”)? Rothschilds? The ‘Kahal’? Sabbatean-Frankists? Chabad-Lubavitchers? Hasidic/Chasidic “Jews”? ZOHAR-ites? Well, whichever group it may be (or, more likely, some combination of those groups mentioned), the Rothschilds sit atop the global financial system PONZI-SCHEME. Is there a power somewhere even greater than the Rothschilds?”

      It’s Moloch aka Baal aka Lucifer aka Satan aka The Devil aka “The God Of This World”.Those groups above have knelt down and worshiped him,therefore he has rewarded those with worldly wealth and power to do his bidding.

  • rich

    UBS whistleblower exposes ‘political prostitution’ all the way up to President Obama
    August 25, 2016

    UBS, the world’s largest wealth manager, is facing embarrassment over fresh revelations going back to the tax investigation that led to the collapse of Swiss banking secrecy. Two significant events are looming before UBS. The first is the possibility of a public trial in France, featuring UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld, concerning historic tax evasion allegedly orchestrated by the bank. That could happen this year.

    The other is the publication this October of Birkenfeld’s scathing new book, Lucifer’s Banker, which covers his time at UBS.

    “Why is it that I had to travel 3,000 miles across the pond to go help a foreign government?” asks Birkenfeld. “My own government covered it up. Well now the French case is coming forward – and unlike the US they are actually holding a trial. And not only France; Germany has also contacted me to help them against UBS, as well as various other foreign governments. I have not heard from the UK, surprisingly,” he said.

    ‘James Bond’ bankers

    The standard defence among UBS top brass in wealth management was that they didn’t know what their large teams of bankers were getting up to. It certainly was a secretive business, which made use of untraceable SIM cards and encrypted laptops.

    “If you sent a client to me and they put bankable assets you would get 50% of the revenue generated. So they incentivised you and that’s against the law because you are aiding and abetting clients to evade their tax obligations.”
    Politically exposed persons

    Birkenfeld claims the UBS cover­-up stretches to the highest levels of the US establishment, where an additional layer of secrecy covered the accounts of bank’s politically exposed persons (PEPs).

    He said: “A lot of PEPs were kept under secret, secret status. Swiss banking was secret, but then PEPs were even more secret. This was just too sensitive. They had a desk in Zurich dedicated to PEPs out of Washington, DC.

    UBS and Obama

    Birkenfeld claims there was a glaring conflict of interest involving then Senator Barack Obama, which essentially placed him on the UBS payroll. He said UBS was an enthusiastic fundraiser for Obama for his 2008 election campaign and senior executives at the bank bundled campaign contributions. Bundlers are expected to raise in excess of $500,000 each for the US president’s re-election effort. UBS also advised the president on investments and strategy for the country. Birkenfeld states that when he gave testimony about UBS to the Senate Committee in late 2007, Senator Obama was conspicuously absent.

    Birkenfeld said: “When I went to give this information to the US Senate Committee ­they provided me a subpoena to testify, as the DOJ refused to do this. At this time Senator Obama was an active member of that committee and he never showed up for any of those hearings. Not one.

    “But at the same time he was taking millions of dollars from UBS in campaign contributions. That’s the ultimate conflict of interest because he should have been there helping to investigate UBS on behalf of the American taxpayers, but instead he was taking money from UBS. I call it political prostitution. He is taking millions of dollars from a criminally corrupt bank in direct violation to his oath of office.”

    “Why wasn’t I allowed to testify in public? They stopped it. Why wasn’t I allowed to testify at Raoul Weil’s trial? They stopped it. I had to fight to go find the French magistrate to help them.

    “We are dealing here with the corruption of US government and people like Barack Obama and the corruption of big banks like UBS. These are people that have really betrayed their country.”

  • anon

    Attack of the Globalists: Hillary Raises Over $1 Million At Martha’s Vineyard Home of Economist Magazine Owner

    Hillary Clinton: Rothschilds’ & GOLDMAN SACHS’ Choice for POTUS in 2016.

    Welcome to the “Jew” World Order.

  • anon

    X22 Report: Central Bankers Can’t Stop The Economic Collapse Instead They Will Cover It Up

    Be sure to read ALL comments, click on ALL links, and read/view/listen to ALL content. (Americans have been SERIOUSLY LIED TO ABOUT PRACTICALLY ~ EVERYTHING!)

  • Kakistocracy

    AmeriKa is lost…

    Shut it down !
    Shut it down !

    Clawback the money and assets stolen by the ROTHSCHILDS.

    Do you Americans have the courage to go after $200+ TRILLION in ill-gotten gains ?

    You deserve it back.

    The question is : do you think you deserve it ?

  • Craig Escaped Detroit

    I lost some of my respect for PCR during one of his interviews when somebody was talking about the evil elites, and they mentioned Henry Kissinger in that group, & PCR objected and announced that Kissinger was definitely one of the good guys, and went on to defend and love Kissinger.

    Something very suspicious.

    I won’t discount all the true things said by PCR, but his public declaration of Kissinger being such a good man fighting for goodness and against the bad guys does not sit well with me.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>