The Cat is Out of the Bag: Biden Confirms US’ Real Objective in Ukraine

The cat is out of the bag, Dear Readers. That is if it were ever fully in the bag. At the very least, its head was never in; its eyes were always gazing at Russia, sorry, Putin.

OK, no more riddles. The name of this cat is the US Deep State (USDS), whose public face is the President Of The United States, or POTUS, the present one being Joe Biden (JB).

Now JB got carried away a bit on his last day in Warsaw while addressing a crowd assembled by Polish President Duda. During his speech he said, “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.” In other words, Biden said that the US and NATO were playing the familiar old game of “Regime Change”. Though a White House official scrambled to control the damage done by saying [the POTUS’ remarks] “did not represent a shift in Washington’s policy that it is not seeking regime change in Russia,” the cat, as stated above, was out of the bag. The real objective of the US & Co. was revealed to the world.

The US and its allies [which include the UK, France and, lately, Israel] began playing this game soon after WW II. They first tasted blood in Iran in 1953, when the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq because he had the temerity to nationalise Iran’s petroleum industry. The Anglos could not tolerate that, given that most of the oil revenues of Iran were going into Britain’s pockets.

After Mosaddeq’s departure, the westernised and autocratic Iranian ruler Shah Reza Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the West’s policeman in the Persian Gulf. More than twenty-five years later the Shah was himself overthrown by the people of Iran, who welcomed Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France. His successors continue to be the spiritual leaders of Iran to this day; harsh US sanctions against the Iranian people have not been able to dislodge them.

So much for the US’ alleged claim to spread democracy around the world, for which it maintains more than 800 military bases and spends more than US$800 billion, most of which ends up in the pockets of American weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman, to name a few. They are one of the most important players in the USDS. They always want wars and more wars, irrespective of who is fighting whom, because wars are fuelled by weapons, which are sold to the US government and foreign buyers. The war in Ukraine is good news to them because they are making more money.

The Anglos never looked back after Iran, which was followed by Vietnam, Afghanistan (1979), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan again (2001) [because their good boys like Osama Bin Laden had become bad boys], Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2001-still ongoing because Putin intervened in favour of Bashar al-Assad), Ukraine (February 2014), and now Ukraine again, to effect regime change in Russia itself. Except that this time they have run into a country with nuclear weapons and permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC), not to speak of a leader who is tough, and a people who, more than anyone else, defeated Hitler and Nazism.

But why do the Anglos want regime change in Russia? Has Putin done anything to deserve it? You bet! Putin stopped Russia’s slide into disorder since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the consequent plunder of its resources by the West, which had always been the Anglos’ wet dream. The British called it the “Great Game,” and their successors, the Americans, called it “Cold War,” except that the nature of this war had been fundamentally changed by the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945 in Japan.

The Soviets acquired those weapons soon after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, precluding the possibility of America launching a no-holds-barred war against them. All they could do was to “contain” the Soviet Union, the author of that policy being George Kennan, who, from his perch in the US embassy in Moscow suggested it to his bosses in Washington D.C. in the now-famous “Long Telegram” [Kennan also headed a long list of American strategic experts who cautioned the US against NATO expansion to Russia’s borders].

Though luckily most sensible people in DC saw Kennan’s logic, not all of them did. Don’t believe it? Please see Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film “Dr Strangelove,” which was not really a funny movie. It reflected the mindset of the military/security establishment in the US, which told President Kennedy that the US could win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and that such a war was worth fighting despite millions of innocent American civilians dying in the Soviet counterattack.

It was when JFK expressed his disgust to the Generals and said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind,” that the CIA, then headed by Allen Dulles, decided to get rid of JFK himself. The rest is history, though not yet fully complete, because the CIA has refused to declassify all the documents related to JFK’s murder even after 61 years. And to make sure those skeletons never tumble out of the CIA’s cupboard, his brother Bobby was also murdered, likely by the same outfit.

It is the fear of Russia’s nuclear arsenal that has so far prevented the US from directly attacking that country to achieve regime change. And that’s why Putin thinks it’s necessary to remind them from time to time that if Russia faces an existential threat, he will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. And he has indicated that the US mainland will not be exempt from his nuclear weapons. “American Exceptionalism” will not work in that scenario.

And that’s also why the preferred modus operandi of the Anglos vis-a-vis Russia is to bring NATO to Russia’s doorsteps, by giving NATO membership to states such as Georgia and Ukraine. That way they would be able to fire their guns from someone else’s shoulders, and also leave it to someone else to clear the debris. They are not bothered as long as a war, even a nuclear exchange, takes place in Europe or some other continent. The bottom line is that the territory of the US should remain untouched.

In the present case, viz. Ukraine, the real victims are the people of that country, millions of whom have become refugees, spilling over mainly into neighbouring countries. Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, quite a bit of which has been destroyed or damaged, is another casualty. By the time this war is over [ likely by the intervention of Germany and France; I can’t see the USDS stopping it, as long as their cash registers keep ringing], we are likely to see large-scale destruction in the area west of the Dnieper River, which will become a huge wasteland in the heart of Europe. It will be Europe’s Afghanistan, roamed by neo-Nazi groups such as the Azov Battalion, Right Sector etc., who will be its Taliban.

This European Afghanistan will radiate instability into some of the states bordering Ukraine viz. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and possibly further west. The EU does not have, or will not spare, money to rebuild what remains of Ukraine. Will the US do so? Answer that question for yourself, Dear Reader!

****************