The Real Purpose of the Ukraine Crisis Is To Destroy Russia’s Economy (Same Tactic Used Against Japan to Force Them Into WW2)

Steven IannelliRonny’s Fun House!

Ftetbt53or5ua2r3y 1it54 agot t23:124 d7PM  · LikeCommentShare


ActiveWrite a comment…

Ron WieczorekFtetbt53or5ua2r3y 1it53 agot t43:320 d7AM  · IN DEPTHLEADING DEVELOPMENTS

Putin Reveals Real Purpose of the Ukraine Crisis Is To Destroy Russia’s Economy

Feb. 2 (EIRNS)—In a press conference after his meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that the U.S. and NATO were trying to draw Russia into an attack on Ukraine or a broader war, in order to destroy Russia’s economy and stop its industrialization. His analysis is right on the money.“I still believe the United States is not that concerned about Ukraine’s security, though they may think about it on the sidelines. Its main goal is to contain Russia’s development. This is the whole point,” Putin told the press conference as reported by the Kremlin. “In this sense, Ukraine is simply a tool to reach this goal. This can be done in different ways: by drawing us into some armed conflict, or compelling its allies in Europe to impose tough sanctions on us like the U.S. is talking about today, or by drawing Ukraine into NATO, deploying attack weapons there and encouraging some Banderites to resolve the issues of Donbass or Crimea by force. In this way, we could be drawn into an armed conflict regardless.” ( the Minsk accords Putin said: “On the one hand, we hear statements from Ukraine that it wants to implement them, while we are constantly accused of not implementing the Minsk agreements. On the other hand, we hear public statements to the effect that Ukraine will collapse if it carries out these agreements. Has anyone thought that if they create such threats against Russia, they will only be creating similar threats against themselves?” [dea/dns]Kremlin Advisor Ushakov Announces Major Agreements Will Be Signed Between Putin and Xi JinpingFeb. 2 (EIRNS)—In comments to the press on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 4 trip to China, Kremlin Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov played up the strategic depth and significance of the agreements the two heads of state will sign—at exactly the moment that London and Washington are acting like mafia bosses to try to isolate Russia from all other nations so that it can be destroyed.Ushakov emphasized that the two heads of state will sign documents which “will reflect the shared views of Russia and China on the most important global problems, including security issues.” He further remarked that this “joint statement on international relations in the new era and global sustainable development has already been prepared beforehand for the talks.” Ushakov commented that plans are in place to “adopt a very solid package of bilateral documents—intergovernmental, interdepartmental and commercial,” adding that “more than 15 contracts and agreements are in the folder that is being prepared for the meeting.” According to him, the new documents “will contribute to the further development of relations in various domains between Russia and China.”In addition to Ushakov, Putin’s delegation will include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko, who chairs the Intergovernmental Commission to prepare regular meetings of heads of government, Energy Minister Nikolai Shulginov, and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin. [dns]Russian Diplomat Asserts ‘We Don’t Trust British Diplomacy’Feb. 2 (EIRNS)—Russia’s First Deputy Representative to the UN Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy, bluntly told Britain’s Sky News yesterday that Russia had little expectations about Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s planned call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly, we don’t trust British diplomacy,” Polyanskiy told Sky News’ U.S. correspondent. “I think in recent years British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless. I really don’t want to offend anybody, especially my good friends, British diplomats, but really, the results are nothing to boast about.”With his customary irony, Polyanskiy remarked on the latest fear-talk about Russian troops along Ukraine’s border: “Now it’s already 130,000. I see that inflation is very high these days; it was 100,000 yesterday. I don’t know where they take these figures from and we have absolutely no trust in the intelligence data from the U.S. and from the U.K. I think this is the same intelligence that claims that Saddam Hussein possesses the weapons of mass destruction. The hysteria doesn’t stop, it’s absolutely happening in the heads of Western politicians and not really on the ground.”As for President Biden’s comment that trying to predict President Putin’s motives is like “reading tea leaves,” Polyanskiy suggested “if you close your eyes, of course, it’s difficult to read anything,” he said. “You will not be able to read any book with your eyes closed. It’s up to our American friends, whether to open these eyes or to remain comfortably numb.”His remarks evidently stung in the U.K., where they were reported in various publications.The Kremlin readout was short, concluding that “NATO was not ready to respond adequately to Russia’s well-grounded concerns, as it used the alliance’s so-called ‘open door’ policy, which violates the fundamental principle of indivisibility of security, as an excuse.” [] [ggs]Orbán Shows in Moscow That Small Nations Can Contribute To End War ThreatFeb. 2 (EIRNS)—Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin met for nearly five hours in Moscow yesterday, Putin reported afterwards, with both leaders expressing satisfaction that the talks had been very productive.While much of their discussion centered on new or expanded economic cooperation projects, in their press conference after the meeting it was the “peacemaking” intention of his visit which Orbán chose to emphasize, putting the lie to the “narrative” that Europe stands united against Russia. In his words:“You and I have been cooperating for 13 years now, and today’s meeting was our 12th. Due to the global geopolitical developments, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the current meeting is the most important.“I am here on a peacemaking visit because I was able to highlight that the European Union is a unified entity. This means that not a single EU leader wants a conflict with the Russian Federation to flare up. This is particularly important for us in Central Europe.“I was able to tell you how we interpret history. We always stood to lose when a conflict brewed between the West and the East. The long years of the Cold War spelled sorrow and suffering for Hungary. Consequently, we, Hungarians, and other Central European nations are interested in reducing tensions between the West and the East and in doing everything possible to prevent a Cold War and scale down pressure and tensions. In this situation, dialogue and talks are needed to prevent this.“I welcome the dialogue between Russia and our Western allies. I have informed you, and I always tell our allies that it is highly important to continue these talks, this dialogue and to use all possible diplomatic tools to resolve the conflict and reduce tensions.“What can we offer? We can offer the Hungarian model. The Hungarian model exists in politics: we are members of NATO and the European Union. Nevertheless, we can maintain excellent relations with Russia. This is possible. What do we need for this? We need mutual respect. Hungary has always been respected by President Putin, and we also show such respect for the Russian Federation and President Putin.” ( two nations’ cooperation is grounded not merely on trade (which rose 30% in 2021), but on productive economic cooperation in multiple areas. In addition to Russian financing announced for Hungary’s project to become a major rail/logistics center on the New Silk Road (see slug), the two leaders discussed the joint Hungarian-Russian railcar manufacturing venture; the integrated pharmaceutical plant which Hungary’s Gedeon Richter company is building in Russia and coming production of Sputnik Light vaccine in Hungary; ideas for agricultural expansion; and getting Rosatom’s construction of two new nuclear plants at Hungary’s Paks nuclear site underway in the first half of 2022. Putin also arranged a tentative commitment from Russian gas companies to supply an additional 1 billion cubic meters of gas to Hungary (pending assessments of Russia’s stocks after the autumn-winter period). [ggs]Ost-Ausschuss Chairman Calls for Helsinki 2, Economic Cooperation with RussiaFeb. 2 (EIRNS)—Oliver Hermes, chairman of Ost-Ausschuss, the German Business Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations, issued an urgent appeal on Feb. 1 to de-escalate the crisis and instead negotiate solutions for the Ukraine problem centered on economic cooperation.Hermes wrote under the headline “Helsinki 2.0 Instead of War Cries”: “The specter of war is haunting Europe. In numerous media, but also on the part of politicians, a Russian invasion of Ukraine is literally being conjured up and talked about, as if the ‘hawks’ on all sides had only been waiting for this opportunity for years…. The danger of a massive clash between Russia and NATO is undoubtedly greater these days than it has been for 30 years. A war in Eastern Europe would, in addition to the terrible human suffering, throw our entire continent and with it the European economy back by decades. Therefore, all sides should be keen to de-escalate and cool tempers. Military muscle flexing in Eastern Europe is not effective.“The economy can also play its part in de-escalation. Business cannot replace politics, but it can use its specific channels of dialogue. The Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations is celebrating its 70th birthday this year. Beyond our economic function, we have always seen ourselves as ‘bridge builders,’ contributing to political and social understanding and reconciliation with a region where Germany caused unimaginable harm in the 20th century. The result of our efforts is close economic relations with Ukraine and Russia that have grown over decades. Reliable business partners have become friends in the process. German companies are responsible for around 280,000 employees in Russia alone. Through their work, they lay the foundation for trust and mutual recognition at all levels—from management positions to employees in plants and offices—on a daily basis. This is the long-standing, hard-earned basis for peaceful and successful cooperation in the future. People, not states, build trust.“Conversely, anyone who questions economic relations with Russia should consider what opportunities for talks and influence Germany still has without economic relations with Russia. Destroying these bridges altogether would not make our world any safer. Incidentally, the majority of Germans want closer cooperation between the EU and Russia: In a representative Forsa survey commissioned by the Eastern Committee, two out of three Germans (62%) spoke out in favor of more intensive relations between the EU and Russia….“However, foreign trade is only part of our economic relations: Russia is the largest market in our immediate vicinity and an important investment location. Due to the importance of the country, German companies have already set up local and regional value chains in order to serve customer needs not only in Russia itself, but also in other markets of the Eurasian Economic Union and the rest of Central Asia, which can be easily accessed from Russia.” And not least because with the German exit from nuclear and coal, dependence on gas supplies from Russia, which is already 40%, will even increase in the medium term, Hermes remarks.“The globally oriented German economy is fundamentally against any form of decoupling. Not only in trade, in the energy and financial sectors, but also in the area of ​​security, we need a European ‘coupling,’ that is, a pan-European security architecture including Russia and Ukraine….“We now need a Helsinki 2.0. Overcoming the consequences of the coronavirus together with new drugs and medical technology would be an important approach. There are already initiatives for digitization and for specialist training and further education, but they could be networked more closely. The same applies to the agricultural sector—Ukraine and Russia are record wheat producers and rely heavily on German agricultural technology. Above all, however, the topic of energy has linked Germany, Russia and the Ukraine for over 50 years. Turning the existing energy relationships into a trilateral climate partnership is therefore a logical step that is long overdue. It’s time for a conference on security and climate cooperation in Europe—gladly again in Helsinki.” (…/helsinki-20-statt…) [efi/rap]Pentagon Announces 3,000 U.S. Troops to Go to Eastern EuropeFeb. 2 (EIRNS)—Pentagon spokesman John Kirby announced today that President Joe Biden has ordered the deployment of 3,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe to “bolster” NATO defenses facing Russia. About 2,000 of those troops will come from the 82nd Airborne Division and the 18th Airborne Corps based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which will be deployed to Poland, while the remaining 1,000 or so will come from a Stryker brigade already based in Germany, which will be deployed to Romania.“The current situation demands that we reinforce the deterrent and defensive posture on NATO’s eastern flank,” Kirby said. “These are not permanent moves. They are moves designed to respond to the current security environment. Moreover, these forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They’re going to ensure the robust defense of our NATO allies.”Kirby stressed that the 3,000 are not part of the 8,500 troops that the Pentagon announced last week would be put on alert for possible deployment. Those troops are dedicated to supporting the NATO Response Force, which has not been activated.

See the source image
All U.S. Presidents Are WAR CRIMINALS Except Trump.

How the U.S. Economic Acts of War Put Japan Into an Economic StrangleHold and Provoked the Bombing of Pearl Harbor:

COMMENTARYHow U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl HarborMay 1, 2006By ROBERT HIGGS

Also published in The Freeman 3.8kShares

facebook sharing button
email sharing button
As Usual after the United States Used Their Superior Military Capability to Bomb the Defenseless Christians at Hiroshima and Nagasake they totally Degraded Japan by Occupying the Country, Installing a Rothschild Bank and allowing their Soldiers to Rape Japanese Schoolchildren Without Consequences for over EIGHTY Years.
print sharing button
sharethis sharing button

Ask a typical American how the United States got into World War II, and he will almost certainly tell you that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans fought back. Ask him why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he will probably need some time to gather his thoughts. He might say that the Japanese were aggressive militarists who wanted to take over the world, or at least the Asia-Pacific part of it. Ask him what the United States did to provoke the Japanese, and he will probably say that the Americans did nothing: we were just minding our own business when the crazy Japanese, completely without justification, mounted a sneak attack on us, catching us totally by surprise in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.

You can’t blame him much. For more than 60 years such beliefs have constituted the generally accepted view among Americans, the one taught in schools and depicted in movies—what “every schoolboy knows.” Unfortunately, this orthodox view is a tissue of misconceptions. Don’t bother to ask the typical American what U.S. economic warfare had to do with provoking the Japanese to mount their attack, because he won’t know. Indeed, he will have no idea what you are talking about.

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and east Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean and Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[1] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans (and of course Adolf Hitler), and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Afterward, he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraum aggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the north Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—an end that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under Taft and secretary of state under Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

An Untenable Position

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]


1. Harry Elmer Barnes, “Summary and Conclusions,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace:A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath (Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953), pp. 682–83.

2. All quotations in this paragraph from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, pp. 322–23, 327–28.

3. Quoted ibid., p. 329.

4. Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (NewYork: Free Press, 2000).

5. Stimson quoted in Morgenstern, p. 343.

6. Stimson quoted ibid., p. 384.ROBERT HIGGS is Retired Senior Fellow in Political Economy, Founding Editor and former Editor at Large of The Independent Review.

You may also like...