Here's Why the U.S. FEARS the Inevitable (Barring Thermonuclear War) Russian Victory in Ukraine
And why team-Biden thinks it's worth risking thermonuclear war to keep a Nazi Kiev regime in control of Russian-speaking people who'd rather be part of Russia
Here’s what happens when people learn their rulers are not on their side:
U.S. rulers know that when Russia is victorious in Ukraine then Americans will be more likely to do what these Mexicans did: overthrow the rule of the rich. Read below to learn why this is so.
Once again I invite you to listen to Alexander Mercouris, on whom I rely for reporting about the “what” but never about the “why” of world events:
In the first part of this video (published June 14, 2024), Mercouris recounts the terms that Russian president Putin just announced would be acceptable for Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine. Briefly, they are:
Recognize as part of Russia the four provinces of Ukraine that Russia now mostly controls, in which the people are mostly Russian-speaking and prefer to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine (especially since Nazis who run the Ukraine Kiev government hate Russian-speakers and have been trying to kill them since 2014);
Promise Ukraine will never join NATO;
Eliminate Nazis from all power in Ukraine.
Mercouris then explains (correctly) that the United States will never agree to these demands. Nonetheless, as Mercouris and many others have made clear, barring a thermonuclear war, Russia will inevitably win its demands in Ukraine either by direct military force or by the credible threat of that force in the context of peace negotiations. This is because Russia not only has superior military force, but also the support of most people living in the parts of Ukraine that Russia says are now Russia, not Ukraine.
Next, Mercouris, as usual, reveals that he has not a clue why the U.S. is waging its proxy war against Russia. He reveals this by telling us that there is no rational reason why U.S. rulers do not accept these Russian demands, since, as Mercouris insists, accepting these demands would not in any way make NATO or the United States less powerful. I invite you to listen to the first few minutes of the video to hear Mercouris’s arguments about why Putin’s demands are entirely reasonable and pose no threat to NATO or U.S. power.
Mercouris is wrong in saying that U.S. rulers would not lose power if they accepted Russia’s demands in Ukraine. U.S. rulers will actually become FAR LESS powerful when Russia’s victory is accomplished. To understand this, think about what will happen after Russia’s victory.
The first thing that will happen after the Russian victory is that nothing terrible (for ordinary people anywhere) will happen!
Russia will administer regions as part of Russia that once were part of Ukraine. Like in Crimea that Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, there will be no substantial unrest in those regions because most people there are Russian-speakers and members of the Russian Orthodox Church (not the Ukrainian one) and are fearful of the Nazis in the Kiev government who have been trying to ethnically cleanse them by outlawing the use of the Russian language and by shelling them with artillery. They either prefer being Russians to being Ukrainians, or don’t care that much one way or the other.1
The horrible (to U.S. rulers) fact that nothing terrible (for ordinary people) happened would make Americans wonder, “So, why the hell were we fighting Russia all this time?”
Americans would be angry as hell! They would see that they had been made to send billions of dollars to Kiev to support its war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and produced millions of refugees and risked thermonuclear war, for what? For not one damn thing that made it worth the cost.
And then Americans would begin thinking that America’s warmongering leaders must have had some ulterior reason for the warmongering, that its purpose was to control the American have-nots and make them accept being ruled by the very rich and being treated like dirt by them.
Americans would start thinking about the trillions of dollars that their rulers had diverted to the military-industrial complex corporations each year instead of being used to pay for what Americans need and wanted, such as affordable homes, and schools with high classroom teacher-to-student ratios, and high quality health care based on science not corrupted by Big Pharma’s profit motive, and repairs to all our roads and bridges and massive anti-pollution projects, and affordable (not obscene debt-slavery) university education, and programs to provide good high paying and non-oppressive jobs—from trades to professions—for all to produce these desirable things, and on and on.
And then Americans would grow even more furious at America’s warmongering leaders. This anger would polarize the nation into the great majority of people on the one hand (whether they had voted for Trump or Biden in the past and whether they were ‘woke’ or not) versus the small ruling elite and the billionaire class to whom this elite would now be clearly exposed as beholden.
And then America’s rulers would say to the American people, “Wait! Stop! Don’t go against us. Don’t forget that we’re the ones who are protecting you from your REAL enemy, the enemy that we need to fight over there so we won’t have to fight them here.”
To which Americans now will say, “What enemy? There is no such enemy. You bamboozled us before with that Weapons of Mass Destruction lie2 to justify your warmongering against Iraq and the phony Gulf of Tonkin lie3 to justify your warmongering against Vietnam but now we’re finally onto your lies. Russia’s non-terrible victory in Ukraine has opened our eyes. Get out of here! We’re not going to allow you to decide important questions anymore. We’re not going to let a few people like you and your rich buddies keep having the lion’s share of wealth and power while we go without in order to have a trillion dollar military force to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist and whose only purpose is enrich a bunch of your friends.”
This is what U.S. rulers fear: a non-terrible (for ordinary people) Russian victory. This victory will expose the U.S. rulers’ bogeyman enemy warmongering strategy (read lots more about this here) for controlling and oppressing the American have-nots. This Russian victory will unite America’s have-nots against America’s rulers. This victory will mean America’s rulers will lose power over the American have-nots.
What our rulers fear is losing power in the United States, not in Ukraine.
What is at stake for our rulers when Russia wins its victory in Ukraine is EVERYTHING, since if one loses power in one’s own nation over one’s own have-nots then one loses everything.
Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to make this happen even if our rulers do not accept Putin’s demands.
As I discuss in detail here, the Russian government is an ANTI-egalitarian government, of, by, and for the very wealthy. The Russian government enforces unjust class inequality. While this is true, it is no more anti-egalitarian than the United States government, and the Russian government is adept at eliciting sufficient support from the Russian have-nots to operate without making Russia be perceived as particularly oppressive compared to other nations of the world.
The New York Times, in its Feb 1, 2004 editorial about what U.S. intelligence experts believed (regarding Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)) prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, noted that "the most important intelligence document leading up to the invasion was a National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] hastily assembled and presented to Congress shortly before the vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq" and that the claims this document made about Iraq's danger to the U.S. were "out of kilter with the government's own most expert opinions."
The editorial points out that while the NIE said the aluminum tubes Iraq tried to import were for a nuclear program, "the Energy Department, the government's leading source of expertise, thought the tubes unfit for that purpose." It points out that the NIE's claim that Iraq had drone aircraft intended to deliver biological agents to American soil "was disputed by Air Force intelligence, the chief source of expertise on drones, which thought the drones were primarily for reconnaissance."
And the editorial adds, "Also left unexplained was how the estimate's [NIE's] authors could conclude that Iraq was continuing and expanding its chemical weapons programs when a Defense Intelligence Agency report had just acknowledged that there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."
Read the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which LBJ used as a pretext to launch the huge U.S. escalation of the Vietnam War, as reported by Lieutenant Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy, in his U.S. Naval Institute Magazine article online here. Note, by the way, that Ken Burns, in his documentary about the Viet Nam war, covers up this key truth, as I discuss here.