By Richard C. Cook
This is a brief post in response to an article appearing in today’s VT Foreign Policy by my colleague Claudio Resta entitled: "Russian Roulette": the unspeakable objective of the US proxy war in Ukraine is clear: either to cause a regime change in Russia or to kill us all.
Claudio quotes Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying:
“What strategy… should Ukraine and its supporters pursue? First, Ukraine should emphasize the defensive, an approach that would allow it to husband its limited resources and frustrate Russia. Second, Ukraine should be given the means — long-range strike capabilities — and the freedom to attack Russian forces anywhere in Ukraine, as well as Russian warships in the Black Sea and economic targets within Russia itself. Russia must come to feel the cost of a war it initiated and prolongs. Third, Ukraine’s backers must commit to providing long-term military aid. The goal of all of the above is to signal to Vladimir Putin that time is not on Russia’s side and that he cannot hope to outlast Ukraine.”
What is Haass’s ultimate objective in prolonging the insanity of the U.S.’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine? Claudio Resta writes:
“This is a revelation of the elite agenda, which looks beyond the fatuous propaganda about ‘unprovoked aggression’ and focuses entirely on geopolitics, the driving force in international relations. In Haass’s mind, Ukraine is not a battlefield on which Ukrainian and Russian patriots sacrifice their lives for their countries. No. In Haass’s mind, Ukraine is the critical gateway to Central Asia which is expected to be the most prosperous region of the next century. Western plutocrats intend to be the main players in Central Asia’s development,(pivot to Asia) which is why they are trying to remove the biggest obstacle to western penetration, which is Russia. Once Russia has been weakened and rolled-back, Washington will be free to spread its military bases across Eurasia laying the groundwork for containing rival China through provocations, encirclement and economic strangulation.”
I want to point out that Haass’s perspective is nothing new. The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire has been intent on world conquest for 500 years. Back in the 1600s, my own English ancestors came to America in search of freedom. In 1638 my ancestor Thomas Bliss, a Puritan blacksmith, arrived in Massachusetts after being told by the minions of King Charles I and Archbishop Laud to get out of an England that didn’t want people like him. Thomas’s father, Thomas Bliss, Sr., had been dragged through the streets of London behind one of the King’s horses and died from his injuries. His brother Jonathan died in a King’s prison.
The Blisses later fought for American freedom in the Revolutionary War. Through its autonomy and hard work, the U.S. became an industrial leader and home for many more freedom-seeking immigrants. But late in the 19th century, people like Cecil Rhodes and Nathaniel Rothschild decided to use their fabulous wealth derived from South African gold and diamonds to “recover America for the British Empire.” They succeeded through passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and by dragging the U.S. into World War I.
That’s when Richard Haass’s Council on Foreign Relations was founded with money provided by the Morgans and Rockefellers. Its purpose, ongoing until today, was to complete the imperial takeover, with the U.S. designated forever afterwards to provide the muscle in subduing all the peoples of the earth through the regime of financial exploitation and endless war.
As an aside, Richard Haass’s biography shows perfectly the qualifications required to help lead such an enterprise.
I document in my recent book Our Country, Then and Now how in 1940-1941 the Council on Foreign Relations foisted on the Roosevelt Administration the long-term plan for total military dominance of the entire globe. After the annihilation of Germany in World War II, the declaration of a Cold War against the Soviet Union, and the creation of the National Security State under President Truman, the plan for global conquest moved ahead. When John F. Kennedy balked at the plan, he was assassinated.
Ever since, the plan has been full steam ahead, with its management gradually being taken over by the faction known as the Neocons. In 1991 the plan manifested in the Wolfowitz Doctrine . Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama it became Full Spectrum Dominance.
They now have us on the brink of World War III against Russia, Iran, China, BRICS+ and the rest of the Global Majority. Their biggest current projects are in Ukraine and Gaza. But make no mistake. Enslavement of every human being on the planet is what they are intent upon achieving. Sitting astride the plot is the Western financial hegemony of a small number of ultra-billionaires. They run institutions like the WHO, the WEF, NATO, etc. Of course they run the Biden administration.
I do not believe they will succeed in their ultimate goal. But they may have activated what in some quarters is called Armageddon.
Stay tuned.
“Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), Translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014. Also see the Kober Press edition of The Book on the Living God here.
Well said in this piece!
Richard, I followed the link to Haas' biography at Spookipedia and was somewhat surprised to find the following:
"In April 2023 former U.S. officials including Richard Haas, Charles Kupchan, Thomas Graham, and Mary Beth Long, among others, were reported to have conducted unofficial meetings with Russian diplomat Lavrov.[16] In an extensive article published by the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs, Haass and Kupchan detailed what they termed as a "a plan for getting from the battlefield to the negotiating table." These interactions were allegedly centered on adjusting U.S. policy with the intent of facilitating Russia's acquisition of Ukrainian territory, an action that is purportedly in violation of U.S. law. The engagement of former U.S. officials in informal dialogues with Russians has led to a schism among American diplomats, foreign policy academics, and national security experts. Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Obama, voiced concern that conversations about potential resolutions without involvement of Ukrainian representatives, could undermine the stance of the Biden administration insisting that Ukraine’s future can't be decided in backrooms: “If you’re having Track Two negotiations about how to end the war, Ukrainians have to be there,” said McFaul."
Resta's article seems to indicate that Haas wants to prolong the Ukraine proxy war. How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions - where on the one hand it looks like he wants to make concessions to Russia and end the war, but on the other to serve the wishes of Empire and bleed Russia further?