Could It Be This Cynical?

Bear with me while I engage in a bit of speculation.

Since the NATO/Ukraine invasion of Russia, in the Kursk direction, began the hot question has been: Why? None of the usual suspects can make this move make sense. The Ukrainians are stripping their main defense lines in Donbass and sending their best trained and equipped reserves to die in a futile adventure of some sort—even as the Russians appear to be rolling up the Donbass frontline. Most agree that these invading forces in Kursk are doomed—Macgregor: ‘I don’t think they’ll make it [out of the meat grinder]’. The Ukrainian losses are already horrific, since they are operating without air cover and are increasingly cut off from support and resupply. Larry Johnson paints a grim picture:

The Russian Ministry of Defense claims that it has killed more than 4,400 Ukrainian and mercenary troops, destroyed 65 tanks and more than 400 armored and infantry fighting vehicles. It appears that some of the Russian forces in the area are using this as a training exercise — i.e., a live fire event for untested troops where they get to put their training into practice. The new units are fighting alongside and under the guidance of experienced forces, with the Chechens playing their typical gnarly role.

Big Serge has written a lengthy substack trying to figure this out: Back to the Bloodlands. He presents four theories of what’s behind this, but ultimately finds none of them persuasive: 1) The Atomic Hostage; 2) Diversionary Front; 3) Bargaining Chip; 4) Pure Spectacle. As I type I’m listening to Ray McGovern admitting that no one seems able to make sense of this. And yet …

Listening the other day to John Mearsheimer and Danny Davis, Davis cited several usually reliable sources to the effect that Ukraine is reported to have moved 1/3 of their entire army to the northern border for use in a full scale offensive into Russia. The latest claim is that this is to force Putin to negotiate from a position of weakness—an utterly implausible notion. But Ukraine is about to double down. Is this pure madness?

Here’s the one thing that all these commentators appear to agree on: NATO—which means the US—is behind this. Does that fact help us to understand what’s going on? Why would the US do this—push Ukraine to commit its best remaining forces to a suicidal venture that will only hasten the end? Will the US somehow derive some benefit from this deepening Ukraine tragedy?

I’ll approach this in a bit of a roundabout way by presenting a brief excerpt from John Mearsheimer’s responses to Danny Davis’ prompting ( the entire video, Zelensky Prepares to Risk it All, is a stimulating discussion). Toward the very end Mearsheimer expresses bafflement at US incompetence and inability to learn from mistakes in foreign policy:

If you look at American foreign policy since the Cold War ended--especially after the year 2000 but even in the 1990s--it is truly amazing what a bad job we have done trying to run the world. We have created one disaster after another. Really remarkable. That's my first point. Second point is, it's amazing the extent to which the foreign policy establishment has not learned and continues to pursue basically the same policies. We are in deep trouble because the foreign policy establishment has blown it. Nevertheless we continue marching down the same road and I don't know what we can hope for to change this situation.

Let me interpret what Mearsheimer is saying. American foreign policy went off the rails as early as the 1990s—when the Clinton’s came to power and brought their Neocon friends with them. Ever since that point the US has followed a consistently disastrous foreign policy shaped by Neocon goals: 1) Aggression towards Russia through the steady expansion of NATO to encircle Russia and undercut Russia’s major resource, energy, and bring Russia to its knees; 2) Forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Afghan war was part of the encirclement of Russia (Putin was a bit slow in coming to understand that). The Middle East wars were mostly—especially Iraq and Syria—were launched to further Israeli ambitions.

Now let’s look at two articles from the past that recall the days when the American Republic was still basically a sovereign entity rather than an extension of Anglo-Zionist ambitions: The Reagan/HW Bush years, in which James Baker played an important foreign policy role. Led by Baker, Reagan and HWB doggedly attempted to assert control over the growing Neocon influence in DC. Ultimately, HWB lost to Clinton and the Neocons, thanks to extensive support for Clinton fueled by Zionist hatred for Baker in particular. We start with the Reagan years—and Zionist hatred for Russia:

How Reagan Beat the Neocons

By John Patrick Diggins

June 11, 2004

In 1985, Mr. Reagan sent a long handwritten letter to Mikhail Gorbachev assuring him that he was prepared ''to cooperate in any reasonable way to facilitate such a withdrawal'' of the Soviets from Afghanistan. ''Neither of us,'' he added, ''wants to see offensive weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, deployed in space.'' Mr. Reagan eagerly sought to work with Mr. Gorbachev to rid the world of such weapons and to help the Soviet Union effect peaceful change in Eastern Europe.

This offer was far from the position taken by the neoconservative advisers who now serve under Mr. [W] Bush. Twenty years ago in the Reagan White House, they saw no possibility for such change, and indeed many of them subscribed to the theory of ''totalitarianism'' as unchangeable and irreversible. Mr. Reagan was also informed that the Soviet Union was preparing for a possible pre-emptive attack on the United States. This alarmist position was taken by Team B, formed in response to the more prudently analytical position of the C.I.A. and then composed of several members of the present Bush administration. The team was headed by Richard Pipes, the Russian historian at Harvard, whose stance was summed up in the title of one of his articles: ''Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War.''

Not only did the neocons oppose Mr. Reagan's efforts at rapprochement, they also argued against engaging in personal diplomacy with Soviet leaders. Advisers like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, now steering our foreign policy, held that America must escalate to achieve ''nuclear dominance'' and that we could only deal from a ''strategy of strength.'' Mr. Reagan believed in a strong military, but to reassure the Soviet Union that America had no aggressive intentions, he reminded Leonid Brezhnev of just the opposite. From 1945 to 1949, the United States was the sole possessor of the atomic bomb, and yet, Mr. Reagan emphasized to Mr. Brezhnev, no threat was made to use the bomb to win concessions from the Soviet Union.

...

The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it. ...

But many neocons came to hate Mr. Reagan, saying he lost the cold war since he left office with communism still in place. Some even believed that the cold war would soon be resumed. Dick Cheney, as President George H. W. Bush's defense secretary, dismissed perestroika (''restructuring'') as a sham and glasnost (''opening'') as a ruse, he insisted that Mr. Gorbachev would be replaced by a belligerent militarist; and warned America to prepare for the re-emergence of an aggressive communist state.

Mr. Reagan gave us an enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies. Today those who claim to be Mr. Reagan's heirs give us ''shock and awe'' and a ''muscular'' foreign policy that has lost its way and undermined valued friendships throughout the world.

Next, we look at the second grievance of the Neocons and Zionists against Reagan/Bush:

James Baker: The man who said No to Israel

Jonathan Steele

13 July 2021

Three decades have passed since Israeli leaders first sat down with Palestinians at a public negotiating forum in Madrid. It is easy to forget that the concept of the two-state solution, which today seems outdated and unrealistic, was not on the international agenda at the time. At the 1991 conference, Palestinians were willing to accept some form of limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza, and even agreed to placate Israel by coming to the conference as part of a Jordanian delegation. Much has changed since those days.

The main architect of the Madrid conference was James Baker, then the US secretary of state. In a comprehensive and well-researched biography, The Man Who Ran Washington, Peter Baker (no relation) and Susan Glasser, a journalistic husband-and-wife team with extensive Washington experience, reveal fascinating details about the manoeuvrings that led to the conference during George HW Bush’s presidency. They spent many hours interviewing Baker and US, Israeli and Palestinian officials, as well as reviewing Baker’s memos and diary notes.

Baker and Bush were the last exponents of realism in US foreign policy before neocons took over the Republican Party and ideological “human rights” interventionists took over the Democratic Party. As such, they were not afraid to disagree publicly with Israeli leaders, and even to use the denial of aid as a way of applying pressure.

...

The book also covers the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany, as well as Baker’s role in domestic policy as former President Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. But at the heart of its pages on the Middle East is the US relationship with Israel, which under Baker and Bush was more contentious than ever before or since.

...

The Israeli programme of settlement construction in the occupied territories was a constant source of irritation for Baker and Bush. ...

It was no surprise that the issue came up again two years later, on the eve of the Madrid conference. Shamir was asking the US to guarantee housing loans worth $10bn for a new wave of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union. Baker and Bush were concerned that the money would be used for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and Baker persuaded Bush to postpone the loan guarantees.

In a foretaste of the pressures that would plague later US presidents, Baker and Bush were regularly targeted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel advocacy group, and its friends in Congress. Charges of antisemitism were trotted out.

In May 1989, Baker told an AIPAC conference: “For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel … Forswear annexation, stop settlement activity, allow schools to reopen, reach out to the Palestinians as neighbours who deserve political rights.” Bush congratulated Baker on the speech, calling it candid, strong and fair, but senators from both US parties condemned it. They felt it was a sea change from Reagan’s warm embrace of Israel.

Bush resisted, and a few months later, called for an end to settlement building not just in the West Bank, but in East Jerusalem too - the first time a US president had referred to housing in the city as settlements.

Baker came under regular attack from the pro-Israel lobby. In March 1992, as Bush began his re-election bid, the New York Post ran a front-page headline: “Baker’s 4-Letter Insult: Sec’y of State Rips Jews in Meeting at White House.” In the accompanying article, former New York City mayor Ed Koch wrote that Baker had responded to criticism of the tough US approach to Israel by saying: “F*** ‘em. They didn’t vote for us”. After the word “they”, the Post had added in brackets “the Jews”. The quote was repeated endlessly by Baker’s critics.

The White House and State Department denied that Baker had said any such thing, but new variants of the distortion kept emerging, all with the suggestion that Baker was an antisemite. Jack Kemp, an eagerly pro-Israel former Congressman who had heard the alleged quote and told Koch about it, apologised to Baker years later and claimed that Koch had “mischaracterised” it. But the damage had been done.

...

So now you see why The Lobby, under the direction of Israel, were determined to get the Clintons in and Baker out. But we also see how the two issues—Russia and Israel—are absolutely intertwined for Zionists. The same people were involved in both of these disastrous policy areas. Disastrous for America, if we see America as a force for peace and mutual understanding. Which is the key to understanding why, as Mearsheimer points out, the Neocons have refused to back away from policies that are disastrous for America. Their goal is to punish Russia and make Israel a regional hegemon—and the way to do that is by encouraging US hyper-aggression around the world, under the guidance of Zionist operatives who run US foreign policy. And have run it since the Clinton years. Don’t kid yourselves that Obama was an independent operator in foreign policy, any more than the Clintons or Dubya or Trump were. Maybe Trump 2.0 will be different, but …

Now the speculative part. How does this relate to the crazy Kursk invasion? I remind readers that the Kursk invasion should not be viewed in isolation. We are currently witnessing a remarkable upsurge in deep drone strikes against Russia. For example:

Ukrainian Missile Sets Fuel-Laden Ferry On Fire At Key Russian Port

You may read that this is all about “changing the narrative” to make it appear that Ukraine is winning. But key to understanding this is that these strikes don’t happen without US assistance and direction.

Meanwhile …

Israel under Revisionist Zionists is desperately seeking to ignite a major Middle East. Why the desperation? Haaretz ran an piece this week stating that Israel can only hold out for about a year. The war that Netanyahu brought on was never supposed to last this long—Israel simply is incapable of sustaining warfare on this scale on its own. Nor was the economic war ever envisioned, with the Houthis leading the way. Check this out:

Israel Diamond Exchange In Crisis As Exports Plummet In 2024

The Neocons who govern US foreign policy are well aware of this. Iran is holding back, knowing that time is working against both the US and Israel in the region. The US has transferred vast resources to the region, but Israel can’t seem to jump start the war. Thus, my speculation is that the US is directing the increasing tempo of war directly against Russia in Russia in order to keep Russia occupied and less able to be involved when war breaks out in the Middle East. Which means that the Neocons expect war in the Middle East in the near term. It’s just that Iran isn’t cooperating.

Think about it.

We’ll end with a link that commenter ML provided this morning, which plays directly into this post. As we cruise toward war, major war, who’s accountable? If you still don’t know, reread:

Who is running the country right now?

We have no idea, but it's certainly not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

The powers that be have sent President Joe Biden on vacation to California for the remaining days of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). He is currently tucked away on a five-day vacation at the estate of a billionaire Democrat donor. His schedule over the past two days has been entirely empty.

Last week, President Biden was on vacation to Camp David. The week before, he was on vacation in Delaware. …

Joe Biden is not just a lame duck. He’s not a duck at all. He is the de jure president, but certainly not the de facto president.

So who exactly is running the country? Nobody outside of the upper echelons of the Washington D.C. political elite seems to know.

... And Kamala Harris will be busy until November on the campaign trail, ...

There are plenty of rumors that Barack and Michelle Obama hold massive sway over the direction of the Democratic Party. As does the Clinton machine, but to a lesser degree. Yet they’re not the ones calling the shots on a day-to-day basis.

Some reports indicate that select elements within the White House Domestic Policy Council and the National Security Council — along with prominent outside donor and institutional forces — are calling the shots …

… At the very least, it would be great to know who or what entities are commanding our troops, but we are just not getting those answers.

In an increasingly hostile and interconnected world, with a multipolar geopolitical environment fast becoming a permanent reality, the American government is without a visible, true command structure. …

That’s called hiding the ball. Or maybe the shell game. Take your pick. There’s a reason why that ball is being hidden, or why the shell with the bean is being so dexterously moved.