Paul Craig Roberts Interview: What Are The Prospects For Peace?
By John Rachel
Q. The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists has recently put the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight. Midnight means all out war, probably nuclear holocaust. This is the closest it has every been. Do you agree with this dire assessment?
A. Yes, I agree. Partly it is the fault of the Russians and Chinese. By refusing to put their foot down, the Russians and Chinese have encouraged more provocations. This will end badly.
Q. The U.S. always portrays itself as the greatest force on the planet for peace, justice, human rights, racial equality, etc. Polls tell us that most other nations actually regard the U.S. as the greatest threat to stability. What in your view is the truth here?
A. As declared by the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the US is entitled to hegemony over the world. The attempts to exercise hegemony is destructive of stability.
Q. Here's a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S. What's your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?
A. Russia and China do not claim hegemony. Only the US claims hegemony.
Q. The U.S. always denies that it has imperial ambitions. Most unbiased experts say that by any objective standards, the U.S. is an empire indeed the most powerful, sprawling empire in history. Does the U.S. have to be an empire to be successful in the world and effectively protect and serve its citizenry?
A. All empires destroy their own people. In the US the "war on terror," that is, US wars in the Middle East, were used to destroy US civil liberty. The "war on terror" has now turned into a war against "domestic extremists," that is, against the American people.
Q. The highest ranking commanders of the U.S. military recently sounded the alarm. They have concluded that the U.S. widely regarded as the most formidable military power in history can't defeat either Russia or China in a war. These military commanders are saying we need to dramatically increase our military capabilities. What do you make of this claim and the resulting demand for more DOD spending?
A. The US military is anything but "the most formidable military power in history." If the US got into military conflict with Russia or China or possibly even Iran, the US would be instantly defeated. After two decades of effort the US was unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban. The last time that the US won a war was against Spain at the end of the 19th century.
Q. In 2009, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced a reset with Russia, heralding greater cooperation and understanding. By 2014, Obama had made a sharp reversal. A sweeping regime of sanctions has since been imposed on Russia to cripple its economy. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats now relentlessly demonize Russia and Putin, blaming them for every imaginable ill. Both in the media and from official pronouncements by government officials, Russia has become the favorite whipping boy for both the U.S. and its "special friend", Great Britain. Why? What happened?
A. Russia is the necessary enemy for the profits of the US military/security complex and the power of the CIA. The US doesn't want war with Russia; the US wants the "Russian threat" which is used to spy on the American people and to spend $1,000 billion annually on the military/security complex.
Q. The number of spy missions, nuclear-armed bomber flights, and war games near Russia's borders have vastly increased over the past year. Same with China. Is all of this just business-as-usual geopolitical posturing? Or does it represent a dangerous escalation and a new ominous direction in U.S. strategic positioning? What is the justification for what Russia and China see as provocations and aggressiveness, if not actual preparation for a war?
A. There is no justification. The idiots in Washington think they are intimidating the Russians and Chinese. Sooner or later Washington will experience an embarrassing slap-down.
Q. Between the FONOPS in the South China Sea and the recently expressed enthusiasm for Taiwan's independence, the risk of military conflict with China keeps increasing. Where is this headed? If People's Republic of China decides to use military force for full reunification of Taiwan, do you see the U.S. going to war in an attempt to prevent it?
A. The US has no capability of going to war with China, unless the war is nuclear. Same for Russia. American threats to China help China keep the Chinese people united with the government. Washington is too stupid to realize that.
Q. The U.S. against the clear objections of the government in Syria is occupying valuable land, stealing the country's oil, and preventing access to the most agriculturally productive region, effectively starving the population. The world sees this for what it is, a cruel game sacrificing innocent people for some perceived geopolitical advantage. Is this the kind of reputation the U.S. wants? Or does it simply no longer care what the rest of the world community thinks?
A. The "exceptional" "indispensable" country could not care less what the unexceptional dispensable rest of the world thinks.
Q. In a democracy, at least in theory citizens have a say in all matters of public policy. Yet, in the end none of the recent military campaigns and undeclared wars seem to achieve much popular favor or support. What is and what should be the role of everyday citizens in determining the foreign policy and military priorities of the country? Or are such matters better left to the "experts"?
A. The bulk of "experts" are well paid functionaries of material interests. The "experts" serve the agendas of their pay masters. Academic studies have concluded that the American people have no meaningful input into policies. Congress and the administration represent the interest groups that fund their political campaigns.
Q. Related to that, the citizenry and most of Congress are kept in the dark with respect to special missions, proxy funding, CIA operations, and swaths of unknown unknowns constituting psyops, cyber ops, and regime change ops, all done in our name as U.S. citizens. The funds to support this sprawling "dark world" of sabotage and terror being inflicted on the rest of the planet, is also a secret. Now there's pervasive spying on U.S. citizens right here at home. What place does any of this have in "the land of the free"? Does this mean government of the people, by the people, for the people is just a sham?
A. Yes, Western "democracies" are complete and total shams. Since Clinton and Blair turned the Democrat and Labour parties into money-making operations, there has been no meaningful opposition. Since WW II, with the exception of France under de Gaulle, Western European countries have existed as Washington's puppets.
Q. Recently we've seen some token but precedent-setting direct payments to citizens in the form of Covid relief. There is also the ongoing discussion about reparations to descendants of slaves. If it could be unequivocally established that the government has abused DOD funding, misused and squandered vast sums of money to promote unjustified wars, purchase unneeded equipment, unnecessarily expand U.S. military presence across the globe, and regularly lied to the American public to manufacture consent for these misadventures and fraudulent activities, practical and political considerations aside, do you see any constitutional or other legal barriers to the public identifying, expecting, or even demanding proper compensation? A cash refund or citizen reparations for massive, authenticated abuse of power?
A. The people are powerless, like the US Constitution, as Washington does not believe in them, and there is no one to represent them. "Their" elected representatives represent the private interests that fund their political campaigns. These interest groups live off the US budget and the regulatory agencies that advance their interests.
We are grateful to Paul Craig Roberts for his thought-provoking views. The interview was arranged by John Rachel, Director of the Peace Dividend Project. This effort embraces a powerful, unprecedented, end-to-end strategy for challenging the tyranny of neocon warmongers in Washington DC, ending the endless wars, and reversing the self-destructive foreign policy and military paradigm which now poisons U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Mr. Roberts has also agreed to be interviewed for the full-length Peace Dividend documentary film, a devastating indictment of the corruption and fraud built into our excessive military budgets and imperial overreach. This movie will inform, unite and empower everyday citizens to have a voice in determining the future they want for themselves and their children.
(Article changed on Sep 16, 2021 at 4:53 PM EDT)
Authors Website: http://jdrachel.com
"Scribo ergo sum."
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"!
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same.
|Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It's super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin. Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License