Forum Post: Russians Reiterate Danger of World War III
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 29, 2012, 4:30 a.m. EST by arturo
(3169)
from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
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.
‘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 by some extremists around the royal family who are willing to risk thermonuclear war.
Putin is a thug that can see clearly his cohorts in raping the public, being thrown from power and killed. Soon, Putin will be the only organized crime boss still in power. Fk him and his blustering. He's lucky those rusty ass missiles didn't detonate at launch.
What a surprising spectacle: one of the chief chief villains, set to conquer the world with its evil designs and overwhelming powers and influence, is Britain, long since a broke and second-rate power and fading fast. And better still, the US is a patsy for the British. Most of the Brits I talk to think it's the other way around, and they're not very happy about it. Those clever Brits have totally concealed their evil designs. Who'da thunk Elizabeth R had that sort of cunning?
Taking Arturo's posts collectively to their logical conclusion, this must mean that the death squads being run by the U.S. are really being run by the Saudis as proxies for the British. But wait, the US is also a patsy of the Global Financial Oligarchy, so the Brits and Saudis must also be patsies for the Global Financial Oligarchy. Or maybe the Global Financial Oligarchy is a patsy for the Brits and the Saudis. Or maybe the Brits and the Saudis ARE the Global Financial Oligarchy. Very complicated. No wonder the Russians are worried.
I believe the complication begins with your misunderstanding of the chief villain. Its not the country of England, but rather the international network of firms that have their headquarters in London. You could say that the country of England is itself a colony of the international financial empire.
The US has the bigger military, and maybe this is what the British resent. But I do believe the chief brains of the operation are there in London.
Why are any of you even talking to this LaRouche nutcase?
51 comments already, this topic is relevant to people here regardless of who you think is a nutcase.
LOL. Thank you, I didn't want to say it.
I read about this earlier,
I find that these calls for or fear of WWIII to be silly. What are China, Russia and, even those in the US really saying here: ZOMG, you are really starting to piss us off and we are actually going to have stop having proxy wars where other people die and actually have a real one. Possibly one on our own soils. Because they are only acceptable when they occur on someone else's soil? They aren't real?
Hey arturo.
There is the slight possibility it's just a chapter out of the "Shock Doctrine" playbook. I may be full of shit, but I can't really believe, with all this country and Russia stand to lose, that nuclear war is really on the table. But in this present economic and political climate, anything's possible I guess.
The push for the war comes from the financial oligarchy. They realize that the inevitable conclusion of the economic collapse is that they will go bankrupt. So, like a child losing at Monopoly, they want to throw a hissy fit, and ruin the game for everybody.
Its they who want to start a nuclear war, then try to hide in their bunkers until its over, and then come out to reclaim whats left of the earth.
Damn good point. And scary. But if the financial elite also control Russia, which I assume they do, why all the bluster and posturing? Just let it happen. Unless all the blustering is for show, which is very possible.
I think the elite have certain footholds in Russia, in various financial institutions for example. But I don't think that they control Putin and that he opposes them with determination.
Check it out:
Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin http://larouchepac.com/node/21265
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of how much meddling the US/Britain has done in Russian politics.
Edit: I'm still reading the article.
Let me know what you think, once you are done.
It's not surprising that the US/Britain would try regime change in a small, third-world nation, but trying it in Russia is bold, but not surprising. And here I thought the US and Russia were good buddies by now. And there's that name that seems to pop up just about everywhere recently, Soros. His Nazi roots are showing yet again.
2013 is going to be an "exciting" year, eh?
Yes, exciting to say the least. Hopefully we will all live through it.
Agreed. I bookmarked that link so I could check a couple of the references as well. The "Cambridge Apostles" reference looks intriguing.
By the way, where have you been, haven't seen you here for a while.
Just got busy with personal stuff, home repairs before winter and such. How are things in the Orient?
It's fine here thanks. China has gotten better in the few years since I've been away. The people are more civil, there's less resentment for foreigners. I think that to a great extent its due to economic development. Not much reason to resent others when your doing pretty well yourself.
I cannot help but observe a few things, to wit:
The Russians are rather poorly positioned to criticize anyone about notions of either empire or regime change. The list of their own sins in regard of both is long and black, far too long to recite here; but they include everything from the occupation of the Baltic states and Eastern Europe after world war II through the Chechnya war, and cynical meddling that has caused untold misery and death everywhere from the middle east to Africa to Syria.
And if they are so concerned about WWIII, one wonders how testing of their nuclear triad furthers the cause of world peace.
Isn't all of this the sort of thing people here strongly condemn when the United States is the guilty party? Where is the condemnation of all this? Are you not prepared to hold Russia to the same standards?
Think about US / NATO moves to bomb or attack Iran or Syria as being similar to Russia or China wanting to go into Mexico and bomb it back into the stone age for some reason or another.
Don't you think that our country would draw a line in the sand at that point? This is basically what Russia and China are doing now.
republicans deny climate change
democrats deny warmongering
Arturo brings us a nice bowl of punch- some truth about the dangers of US interventions and the fact that other nations- in this case Russia- are not going to just sit still and be raped by Uncle Sam. Then he goes and takes a dump in the punchbowl with his blithering and blathering about the British Empire.
Empires have existed for thousands of years. Did you think they just would have vanished completely after WWII? Even today, people still talk of "financial empires" and this is what Wall Street is a part of.
The global financial oligarchy has its headquarters in the City of London Financial district, so we still refer to it as the British empire. Wall Street is one of its "branch offices", while it has other branches in various financial centers around the world.
The top 1% of the world invest their money into these institutions, giving them their power, and financing the enactment of their monetary policies.
There is an internationalism about finance capital and as far as the trading of international finance capital goes it is centered in London, though Wall Street is still the larger of the two. That's because London is situated between New York and Hong Kong/Tokyo and has a staff that speaks English well, the lingua franca of money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/magazine/how-london-surpassed-wall-street.html?pagewanted=all
If this buying and selling were situated in Lichtenstein would that mean Lichtenstein rules?
The economic world is run today on the British economic philosophy of "free trade". America's adoption of British free trade policies is what has lead to its ruin.
I do believe most of the strategy for the financial empire is run out of London today.
Is it a "philosophy" that took hold or a new physical reality -- relatively cheap and fast global transport of goods, computerization leading to vast improvements in efficiency in production distribution and storage of goods and information and incredible almost instantaneous and dirt cheap global movement of information. I vote that the philosophy followed the reality and not the other way around.
It turns out though, that the new "physical reality" is counter productive. The clear evidence is the economic crisis. As American jobs have been eliminated, fewer and fewer Americans are able to buy even cheap manufactured goods.
The Chinese workers who manufacture the products certainly can't buy them, as their salaries are a fraction of what US workers once made. The result is a collapsing society.
It is counterproductive, You're right about that. Under the system of production for profit all these efficiencies ultimately bite the seats of the workers who after all produce all weath. Planned economy with production for use - goods and services created by work because they are needed by society - as opposed to needed so someone can scheme how to make a buck without working ie. creating something of use.
I don't think that it is necessarily profit that is the problem, but how the profit is made. The British philosophy seeks to maximize profit by reducing the pay to the worker. The original American philosophy was to maximize profit by improving and developing the worker, as well as by paying him enough to afford his own products.
America had such a beneviolent capitalism before - all about making sure the workers got their just due? And then the nasty brits (or were they jews?) came along and changed all that? Hogwash.
Around sixty years ago, about 30% of the US economy was based on manufacturing. Back then, kids could graduate from high school, go to work in a factory, develop some skills, and earn the equivalent of $50k per year. They could buy houses and cars, and send their kids to college. This was the "American dream".
These days, around 6% of our economy is based on manufacturing, and we are in the deepest economic crisis since the great depression. All this has happened since we adopted the principles of British free trade.
Let me add here. My gampa came from Europe and slept in the factory where he worked to save the rent so he could pay passage for my grandma and her four kids. That's a heartrending story and it's a true one. Meanwhile a black guy who was five generations American could not even get that crumby job. Go figure.
It wasn't perfect, but it was probably better than any other place in to word for the time. My grandparents were all poor immigrants. One of them started from nothing, and became a millionaire here in the US.
Yes. In a way I am the "black sheep" among my cousins who are mainly prosperous as far as I know. I just couldn't "adjust" and become a team player so here I am an aged taxi driver but that's okay. What about the point I made re the fact my gramps could come straight off the boat and get a job - albeit a shitty job- and a Black guy with five generation on this soil could not even hope to dare to apply for that self same shitty job?
Yes, that's true but there were also times when blacks could get good jobs in factories. South Central LA, I believe, used to be quite a manufacturing center.
Yes, particularly during WWII and Korea. I think after the black revolts of the 60's a decision might have been made to isolate and replace the black working class. It sure looks like tht these days.
Yes for a brief while in historical terms there was this "social contract" based on US hegemony and supremacy. Six percent of the world's people consumed over fifty percent of the goods. Even then the workers were expected to sacrifice their sons from time to time to keep things going. And sacrifice them they did.
I think the idea that the US's past prosperity was somehow based on the special conditions of the world back then is a form of propaganda that is intended to prevent us from realizing that we could once again have that level of prosperity.
I agree.
Are you saying we had no need to import wealth from these non existent societies like we do today?
Where did the wealth come from? It came from the mastery of scientific principles, and the organization of industry and society as a whole around the application of those principles.
Remember Benjamin Franklin and his scientific experiments. His idea was that America should become primarily a scientific republic.
Franklin was an adroit businessman; his purpose was to extract as much wealth as possible from the local economy and he was relatively successful. His science was both status and wealth oriented.
America's wealth was imported by two means - immigration and trade.
That may be so that a lot of wealth was imported, but real wealth is the capacity to produce wealth.
Well, you were asking where the wealth came from... it came through the sale of one's acquisition of an over abundance of resources that others valued.
Once an economy is established, granting some value to the medium of trade, government can inject wealth. But it generally does so at some devaluation of that medium. So it becomes a question of whether government itself can grow wealth, independent of revenue, and the only way to do that is either a, through investment of revenue, b, state acquisition of producers, or c, through taxes on foreign imports.
Luckily, today, there are vehicles which allow all to pursue wealth of wealth as investment. These are called "stocks," "bonds," and "mutual funds." "Retirement" itself is an investment.
I think trade and immigration brought wealth in later years under globalization. Prior to that, in certain periods, wealth was created by building power plants providing electricity where it never existed before, and wealth was distributed by trains allowing local businesses to ship their products to national markets.
Perhaps the most tremendous amount of wealth ever generated, in the US and possibly world history, was by JFK's space program. Its said to have created ten dollars in terms of economic development for every dollar put into it. Pretty much everything that we call high technology today came from that space program.
No wealth was imported from the very start - the very first ships returned with cod and sarsaparilla (medicinal purposes). And what people don't realize is how much wealth was imported illegally.
Really? There were no "special conditions" between 1945 and 1969? Or they didn't have any impact on the reality of the time?
Yes, but I think not only because those sectors were left intact, but also because our economic system was the best, and if we would have stuck with it, we still would be the best.
Yeah, maybe protectionism would have been the way to stay because after "we" got our asses whipped in Vietnam other powers like Japan and Germany started to rise. And German workers had (do they still- I don't know) minimum month long paid vacations and rising wages and benefits. Same in France.
Some say that after WWII, the US was the only major power with its society intact, and only for this reason was able to prosper.
"Some say...." You're a hoot! Not only its society intact but its infrastructure as well
Prosper in what sense? Are you saying we had no need to import wealth from these non existent societies like we do today? If that is true then where did this wealth come from?
You're right but I don't see any direct correlation between what was deemed to be "Free Trade" by the British and what Free Trade is to the US today.
Free trade stipulated that there should be freedom to trade in anything and at any price. Back then, one example would have been slavery, the British backed the Confederate slavocracy, and at one time were the world's biggest dealer in slaves. Today we still see slave like conditions in Chinese sweatshops as well as other third world nations, as a result of free trade policies.
Another example would be drugs. Back then the empire fought a war to sell drugs to China on a massive level, getting one in ten Chinese people addicted to opium. Opium traders are said to have been comparatively wealthier than today's computer billionaires, and their descendants are still among the wealthiest and most influential in America, including the Bush family:
Today, the empire still pushes opium from its base of production in Afghanistan, laundering the money through the international banking system. I believe that its hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in drug money that are still laundered through the international banking system. The queen of England still pockets a substantial portion of that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120867/Money-laundering-Queens-bank-Coutts-fined-8-75m-taking-despots-millions.html
Raped by Uncle Sam? Russia?? Surely you jest. You can certainly come up with a better example than that. Vietnam, okay, Chile, fine. But Russia? The land of Putin and the Gulag?
I think the point is that the whole world effects everyone.
Uncle Sam would love to rape Russia if he could do it. Look at how Russians suffered when the USSR was tumbled and a Sam puppet, that drunken Yeltsin was in charge. Birth rate tumbled, death rate soared, drug addiction spread, crime, women exported as prostitutes. With all his faults Putin arrested the decline and hopefully maintains a country strong enough to defend itself. If they aren't, they're lost.
Thanks, I agree.
Well read my other post arty
http://occupywallst.org/forum/russians-reiterate-danger-of-world-war-iii/#comment-866711
Sorry, that link doesn't seem to be working.
You answered it anyhow. Thanks
Russia a U.S. puppet? That's stretching things, to say the least. So too is any suggestion that Putin has solved the woeful social dysfunction in Russia. They've just gotten much more aggressive about tamping down any discontent. The gulag is alive and well, and people who make too much trouble have a way of dying there.
And as for Putin's faults, you seem to suggest that running a corrupt and brutal thugocracy is fine as long as it strengthens the country. That's a bit disturbing. Do you think that a similar solution would be acceptable in this country? Your other posts seem to suggest that you're holding the Russians to rather a lower standard than you expect here.
Yeltsin was a US puppet.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324619/
http://exiledonline.com/how-the-west-helped-invent-russias-election-fraud-osce-whistleblower-exposes-1996-whitewash/
It's really disrespectful not only to me but to this forum that you come spouting opinions with no foundation in the world of reality.
One article does not a reality make my friend. Yeltsin was certainly many things, mostly bad, but suggesting he was a US puppet is indeed stretching things.
Your pretended offense at my imagined disrespect is a non-sequitur. You've avoided discussing Putin. What about him? Do you approve of his internal political tactics and his foreign policy? Would you approve of a leader in this country using the same tactics?
Yeltsin was a puppet for the global financial oligarchy, just like many US politicians are today.
So if they are all puppets of the global financial oligarchy, who's in charge of those death squads you were talking about the other day, the puppets or the global financial oligarchy?
Well, I guess you could say its a "string of command". The oligarchs pull the strings of the puppets, and those puppets pull other's strings.
Ah, I see. Interesting.
Putin was elected by the Russian people in several votes that wasn't US influenced thanks to God. He's the people's choice in Russia regardless of what a few degenerates in Moscow think.
Before you go off - FDR was elected four consecutive times and then his chosen successor got re elected too.
You're still avoiding the question. Do you approve of his tactics? If a legally elected president in this country chose to employ them here, would you grant them the same latitude you're granting Putin?
This is where we probably cannot see eye to eye no matter what. I don't as a non Russian have the right to "grant" Russians anything, and neither do you. It's a difficult concept for many Americans to grasp, so work on it.
I'm not asking whether you'd grant Putin and the Russians anything. Your prior comments would appear to indicate that you're at least willing to tolerate Putin's tactics in Russia. My question is: Would you tolerate the same tactics in the United States if employed by an elected leader in the name of curing social ills and strengthening the country?
Boy, here it is in still other words: Not Putin and not Russia need or ask for my "toleration!" They are who they are and they do what they do. Can that penetrate your all too American mind?
Leave aside any notion of tolerating Putin or not for the moment. Would you, or would you not, approve of or tolerate the same tactics in this country if employed by a duly elected leader in the name of curing social ills and strengthening the country? It seems like a simple enough question.
It depends which of his tactics and which social ills. Russia is not the USA, its history and culture are its own. The possibility of there being a closely analogous situation there and here is remote. I would have gladly put Pussy Riot in the slammer and I personally would not have called on the court to be lenient as Putin did but he has his reasons I suppose and understands the situation there better than I did, though the judge in the case agreed more with me than with him. I hope the cops find the other ones and being them to the same judge.
Interesting. I think that you're right, we'll probably not see eye to eye. Fair enough.