The US wants war — on European soil

Posted on Fort Russ

Analysis by Boniface Musavuli
Translated from French by Tom Winter

One should nurse no illusions about the intentions of the American leadership: they want war. A war that will take place on the old continent and that should involve as many Europeans as possible in confrontation with Russia. The Ukrainians, short of some mass uprising, must resign themselves to seeing their country serve as the long term battlefield for this conflict of the great powers, since their stakes got out of hand when they lost control of the demonstrations at Maidan Square one night in February 2014.

In any case, the latest developments in the United States are hardly reassuring. One year after the demonstrations of the Maidan, hatefully guided by the Atlanticists, the US has officially announced the decision to send 600 parachutists of the 173rd Airborne Brigade to Ukraine. The announcement was made last Monday by Colonel Michael Foster, brigade commander, and confirmed by Ben Hodges, supreme commander of US forces in Europe.

The first combat units are expected to arrive from here in Ukraine March 8. Officially, not for combat, but to train Ukrainian troops, fresh from their debacle in the Donbass, in the use of the American weaponry now being shipped.[1] As far as that goes, shipping American arms to Kiev, one realizes that it will encompass a reciprocal enlargement of military materiel for the autonomous republics of the east, (Donetsk and Lugansk) by Moscow, because, for Russia, it is out of the question for NATO troops to be deployed on the russo-ukrainian borders, and rightly so.

The Russians have never digested getting misled by the West on the sidelines of German reunification.[2] It was to sideline the risk of military escalation that France and Germany decided, beginning of February, to get into direct contact with Vladimir Putin without consulting Washington. It was a matter of reassuring the chief of the Kremlin that France and Germany will oppose the shipping of American weapons to Ukraine.[3] The Russian president showed himself to be open to the Franco-german proposals, and accepted the accords of Minsk II.[4]

The main glitch with Minsk II is the pair of absentees: the Brits and the Americans. Not being bound by the accords, they are going to keep on fueling the conflict.

You must kill each other for America

Just 10 days after the Minsk II accords were signed, David Cameron announced the deployment of British soldiers to Ukraine. One week later, John Sawers, former boss of MI16 (British CIA) confirmed “The war against Russia is only beginning.”[5]

With the deployment of combat units to Ukraine by the US, the Brits are joined by their American cousins who maintain that the situation continues to worsen and degenerate. Obviously, the American and British forces are not going to engage in frontline combat against the Russian Army. Rather this Atlanticist deployment has in view establishing a climate of hatred between populations, a permanent environment of desolation and violence.

One of the strategies used by US incendiarists against the countries they target consists in directly striking the populations, whether by random violence, whether by embargo, or humiliations in systematically putting collective tragedies on the back of “the enemy” that they have chosen. It should surprise no one if the Russian or Russophone population of border countries become the target of indiscriminate killings, deliberately caused famines, that will lead them to demand help from Moscow all the more, help that Putin will not for long be able to refuse them at the risk of turning his back on his own Russians.[6] Except that in assisting further in Ukraine, or if it comes to that, in the Baltics, the Russian President would become an “aggressor”— exactly the image the western media and the leaders from across the Atlantic are trying to pin on him. So some European forces, more or less officially, would lead down the road to “countries threatened’’ by Russia — the beginning of a murderous grind at the heart of Europe.

Faced with these American activities, one is tempted to exclaim “These Americans are insane!” Not at all. In reality, the US, a power running out of breath, counts on the Ukrainian conflict to engage as many Europeans as possible in a military confrontation with Russia. [7] The betting is that (apart from the use of strategic weapons, a scenario of suicide) the American soil will be spared the ravages of the resultant war. When all is said and done, Europeans and Russians, no matter which camp prevails, will be economically drained and ruined. Just like the outcome of the First and Second World War, there will abide only one power of last resort, the United States of America.

Several billions of dollars in contracts for reconstruction, the remission of European states into a protectorate, and the preservation, by America, of her status as the planetary superpower.

Boniface Musavuli


[2] February 9, 1990, James Baker, George Bush’s Secretary of State, assured Mikhail Gorbachev that the western alliance would not extend its influence one inch eastwards is Moscow would accept the entrance of a reunified Germany into NATO. The very net day, February 10, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German foreign affaires minister, made the same promise to Edward Chevardnadze his Russian counterpart: NATO will not expand to the East. But since, Poland,the Çech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have joined NATO. With the outcomes of the Euro-Maidan, the object was, among others, to get Ukraine into NATO Cf.…
[3] This is, at any rate, what the Italian journalist Giulietto Chiesa assures us:…
[4] Because there was Minsk I, a protocol signed September 11, which was not respected.
[7] Provoking a brutal conflict between Europe and Russia permits the Americans to put off an eventual alliance between the Europeans and the Russians, an alliance that would end the American hegemony. In The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), it is the question of “breaking Russia” into three units (European Russia, a Republic of Siberia, and Republic of the Far East), it is also a question of cultivating the docility of the protected subjects, and preventing potential rivals from forming offensive alliances. A strategic rapprochement between Russia and the European nations, (protected subjects) is thus a scenario that the US holders of hegemony would never allow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.