Eric Zuesse: America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  hey’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia

The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.

This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.)

This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources). 

Neither version of this article mentioned the key reason why nuclear victory is exceedingly dangerous even under the most favorable conditions, which reason is the concept (and the likely reality in the event of nuclear war between the two superpowers) “nuclear winter” — the scientific studies showing that a resulting sudden sharp cooling of the atmosphere after all those enormous explosions would produce a global die-off. America’s aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies controlling the U.S.-allied nations (billionaires, centi-millionaires, and their top agents in both the public and private sectors) are buying and building deep-underground nuclear shelters for themselves, but they wouldn’t be able to stay underground and survive on stored feedstuffs forever. (As for everybody else, those other people are not involved in geostrategic decisionmaking, and so are being ignored.) However, many of America’s (and associated) elite are paying those bomb-shelter expenses, but none of the West’s elite are condemning the path toward nuclear war that their governments are on. So: buying or building nuclear-war shelters is more acceptable to them than is stopping America’s planned conquest of Russia. The higher priority is to conquer Russia.

A far less influential scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article arguing against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no impact upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it argued that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It presented a moral argument: “U.S. leaders might try to exploit its nuclear superiority … by actually launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack against its nuclear rival in the midst of an intense crisis. The professors discount significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to restrain U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow dire enough, the temptation to try to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike may be too strong to resist, they argue.” The concept of “nuclear winter” wasn’t even so much as just mentioned (much less dealt with) in this article, just as it was ignored in the two that it was arguing against. 

The co-authors of (both versions of) the article that had proposed and endorsed nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a response to that critical article. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more impact than did the obscure article it was arguing against.

Thus, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it remains Russian policy). The U.S. government is planning to take over Russia (basically, to install a puppet-regime there). That’s the reality.

Central to the nuclear-primacy concept is that of what’s variously called a “Ballistic Missile Defense” (BMD) or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (ABM) system: a system to disable or knock out Russia’s retaliatory nuclear weapons so that a U.S. blitz nuclear attack won’t be able to be met by any nuclear counter-attack.

As “The End of MAD?” put it: “Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived.” 

In other words: America’s aristocracy aren’t necessarily hoping to protect all of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are willing to sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, in order to achieve the intended result: conquest of Russia.

That article then says that a BMD-ABM system wouldn’t necessarily indicate America’s determination to pursue nuclear primacy against Russia, because it could instead be intended purely and authentically defensively, to protect against nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea or some other country. However: “Other U.S. nuclear programs are hard to explain with any mission other than a nuclear first strike on a major power adversary. For example, the decision to upgrade the fuse of many SLBM warheads (the W76s) to permit ground bursts makes sense only if the mission is destroying hundreds of hardened silos. One might argue that ground bursts could be useful for a variety of other missions, such as destroying North Korean WMD bunkers or remote cave complexes housing terrorist leaders. The United States, however, already has a large number of highly accurate, similar-yield warheads that would be ideal for these purposes.” The article even notes that: “Other analysts have noted that the current U.S. nuclear force looks surprisingly like an arsenal designed for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China.” And, “A group of RAND analysts agrees: ‘What the planned force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.’” So: the co-authors here are claiming to be merely giving a name, “nuclear primacy,” to America’s existing strategic military policy — not to be inventing or creating it. They are, above all, saying that this is the reality now in U.S. policy-making circles; that MAD no longer is.

And their article has, indeed, described the guiding strategic-planning objective not only of the George W. Bush Administration, but also of Barack Obama’s — as will now be documented.

U.S. President Obama has always been saying that the reason why America is installing anti-ballistic missiles (“ABM”s, otherwise known as ballistic-missile defense or “BMD”) in Romania, Poland, and other nations that border (or are near to) Russia, is in order to protect Europe against Iranian missiles that might be aimed against Europe. He says that this is purely defensive, not aggressive, and that what it’s defending from is Iran, not Russia — so, Russia has no reason for complaint about it.

But then, Obama reached his nuclear deal with Iran; and this deal ended, for at least ten years, any realistic possibility that Iran would develop any nuclear-weapons capability — Obama himself emphasized that this was the case; he wasn’t denying it.

So: Obama’s claimed reason for installing ABMs in Europe was now, quite simply, gone. (Not that it had been credible anyway, since Iran didn’t have any nuclear weapons. It was merely a pretext, not honestly a reason.)

Here is how Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, stated the matter, at that time, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, on 22 October 2015:

The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. [But] What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.

Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.

The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one

He called Obama there a “liar,” and that’s a blatantly truthful characterization of the situation. But Putin missed there saying what’s even more basic for an understanding of what Obama was doing in this matter — and which makes that “lie” from Obama particularly heinous: Putin missed saying that an anti-missile system can be at least as important as an aggressive weapon as it is as a defensive one, because if a first-strike attacker wants to eliminate the defender’s ability to strike back from the attacker’s first-strike attack, then an anti-missile system is the weapon to do that, by eliminating the defender’s missiles before those strike-back missiles can reach their targets. It nullifies the other side’s defense — and to do this is enormously aggressive; it strips the victim’s retaliation. The whole distinction between offensive and defensive can thus be pure propaganda, nothing having to do actually with aggressive and defensive. Whether the use will be defensive, or instead offensive, won’t be known until the system is in actual battlefield use. Only the propaganda is clear; the weapon’s use is not.

So, Putin understated the heinousness, and the danger to Russians, that was actually involved in Obama’s tricks. All that Putin did was to vaguely suggest an aggressive possibility: “It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.” Most people don’t relate to such abstractions as “strategic balance.”

Obama and other agents of the U.S. aristocracy know that their public have been trained for decades, to hate, fear, and despise, Russians, and especially the Russian government, as if it were the Soviet Union, and as if its Warsaw Pact and communism still existed and Russia hadn’t ended its hostility to the U.S. in 1991 (though the U.S. continued its hostility to Russia — that rump remaining country from the former communist empire — and during Obama’s second term the hostility soared). So, for example, at the conservative website Breitbart, when that statement quoted here from Putin was posted as part of an honestly written and presented article titled “Vladimir Putin: U.S. Missile Defense System Threatens Russia”, almost none of the reader-comments indicated any ability or inclination of the readers to sympathize with the plight for Russians that Putin had just expressed. Instead, to the extent that the comments there were relevant, they were generally hostile, such as:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he has concerns that the U.S. ballistic missile defense system threatens Russia’s nuclear capability.”

Vlad, its supposed to, its called defense. The only way it could harm your nukes is if they were shot down…………….after you launched them!


How can a defense system threaten anything? Like Obama would attack Russia. That is laughable.

Most people’s minds are straightjacketed in bigotries of various sorts, preconceptions such as that a “missile defense” system, and a “Defense” Department, can’t be aggressive — even extremely aggressive and war-mongering. The first thought that comes to mind about anything that’s ‘defensive’ is that something else must be ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’, and that whatever is ‘defensive’ (such as an ABM) is therefore good and even necessary. That’s thinking, and receiving the term “defense,” like thinking just one move ahead in a chess-game, but this is the mental limit for most people, and every propagandist (such as the people who professionally design propaganda or PR slogans and campaigns) do precisely what Obama and the rest of the aristocracy and their agents do in order to deceive their gulls: they phrase things for one-move-ahead-limit thinkers, like that. The cardinal rule in the deception-professions is therefore, first, to find people with the desired prejudices, and then to play them as that, with one-move-ahead-limit sales-pitches, which are directed to precisely those prejudices. This report at the Breitbart site was instead presenting a high-quality news-report, to a low-quality audience, and so the reader-comments it generated were few, and generally hostile.

Obama is a master at deception. Another good example of this was 26 March 2012, during Obama’s campaign for re-election, when he confidentially told Dmitry Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Obama was privately communicating to Putin (through Medvedev) that Obama was pushing the ABM installations only so as not to be politically vulnerable to charges from the knee-jerk Russia-haters, Republicans, and that Obama’s fakery regarding the supposed ABM-target’s being Iran was only in order to appeal to yet another Republican bigotry (against Iran), and so Obama was intending to back away from supporting the ABM system during his second term.

But actually, Obama had had Russia in his gunsights even prior to his coming into office. Two specific objects in focus were Moscow-friendly leaders of nations: Assad of Syria, and Yanukovych of Ukraine. America’s strategy, ever since 24 February 1990, has been to strip Russia of allies and friends — to leave Russia increasingly isolated and surrounded by enemies. When Obama entered the White House on 20 January 2009, there already was a plea in the pipeline from the Syrian government for urgently needed food-aid to address the all-time-record drought there, which had decimated Syrian agriculture. Obama’s Administration never even answered it. Well before the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011, Obama was hoping for turmoil in Syria and the overthrow of Assad — lots of starving Syrians would be just the thing.

Moreover, the planning for the February 2014 coup to overthrow the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, started in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011.

So: when Obama told Medvedev and Putin, on 26 March 2012, not to worry about Obama’s intentions toward Russia, he was lying. He wanted his intended victim to be off-guard, unprepared for what was soon to come.

On Obama’s way out the door, he did two things that significantly advanced America’s ABM-BMD threat against Russia.

On 10 December 2016, ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter stated, burying it in a speech he gave in Bahrain — site of a major U.S. military base — “just this week, we reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses,” and he said nothing more about it, as if this announcement weren’t the bombshell it actually was. Alex Gorka headlined about that at Strategic Culture, “US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines” and he explained that this system “is designed to be used as an early warning system against strategic offensive assets – something Iran does not possess.” Near the start of Carter’s speech, Carter had said that he would be talking about “checking Iranian aggression and malign influence, and helping defend our friends and allies,” including Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Gorka noted, “The announced range of 5,000km (3,100mi) by far exceeds the requirement to counter a missile threat coming from Iran,” and, “There is no other reasonable explanation for the choice, except the fact that the AN/FPS-132 can monitor large chunks of Russian territory,” the objective being “to surround the Russian Federation with BMD sites and neutralize its capability to deliver a retaliatory strike if attacked.”

One of Obama’s last actions as the U.S. President was to sign into law a bill that had been quietly passed in Congress, which included a key change in U.S. law that would enable the government to spend unlimited funds on realizing former President Ronald Reagan’s dream of a space-based ABM system, “Star Wars.” On December 22nd, David Willman of the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race”, and he reported that the eliminated word was “limited.” Willman explained that, “The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or ‘limited,’ attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.” He noted: “The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.” Willman also noted that on an earlier occasion, “the Obama administration criticized the changes in the Senate bill, saying it ‘strongly objects’ to removing ‘limited’ and to placing anti-missile weaponry in space. The statement stopped short of threatening a veto.” But then, the next day, on December 23rd, Willman bannered, “President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race”. Whereas Obama’s public rhetoric portrayed himself as being the type of person who had deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, almost all of his actual decisions in office were the exact opposite — and here was a superb example of that. 

Whether Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will continue with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) plan to conquer Russia, or instead finally end the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had ended in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), isn’t yet clear.

This is what happens when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and everything (including the ‘news’ media) serves it, rather than the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.

It fits in with the massive data which indicates that the U.S. government is run by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, instead of run by people who represent the public — a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) Dec 30, 2016 7:12 PM

Will the pussies in the USSA conquer Russia? Don't make me laugh!

NoDecaf's picture

It will be the duty of every American patriot to rip those motherfuckers from office that supported war with Russia and hang them from the nearest tree.

yogibear's picture

When the SHTF. Russia needs to drop a few 50 MT Tsar Bombas on the elitist shelters to cook these insane bastards.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Let's just cut to the chase.

Even conventional world war is out of the question.


Fukushima times a couple hundred.

Nuclear plant dirty bombs that will irradiate for centuries have been erected all over the earth.

In a war, they all melt down and the earth is inhabitable.

End of story.

Chief Wonder Bread's picture

I read the article, the short one. It seemed reasonable, that is if you're a psychopath. However, the article was published in April 2006!  Much out-of-date? lol

Your concern about the disruption of nuclear power plant operations is a good point.

Furthermore how come none of these experts has anything to say about the elephant in the room -- the sheer IMMORALITY of murdering millions of innocents. Hopefully, no President will want that as a Legacy and that's probably why it hasn't happened these last ten years. That and the practical logistics of having to actually occupy the northern Eurasian landmass.

weburke's picture

the jews lost control of russia, and they have gone all out to get it back.

they have tried to kill putin for years. 

I dont know that is the best course, but they did lose russia. 

Chief Wonder Bread's picture

How did that happen? You mean there's still hope for America?!


garcam123's picture

I don't remember voting for ANY kind of wars or weapons systems at ALL!  These criminals who manufacture weapons of mass destruction in my country should be tried and executed forthwith for conducting murder in the name of government!  Please know Russia, the American people just want to have decent lives and rasise their famalies.  What can we, America do to rid ourselves of these murderous trash that has our country under their control.  Will you helpo us like you are helping Assad, PLEASE!  HNY! Sir!

Eric Zuesse's picture

You greatly over-estimate the morality of America's leaders. See Oliver Stone's monumental history of U.S. foreign relations during the period from around 1912 to 2012, "Untold History of the United States" (book is, and documentary series starts at and but is great throughout.)

Jubal Early's picture

@Eric Zeuss,

Like articles from Gatestone Institute, your articles are usually shredded in the comments due to your lack of consideration of thousands of years christian murder by jews.  I do not know if you are jewish, part jewish, crypto jewish, or just simply a shabboh goy.  But if you are going to try to write informative arguments about nuclear war without even mentioning the tribe and its obsession with nuclear primacy starting long before the second war of christian genocide, then you will never have any credibility.  You will never be anything more than a novelist like Tom Clancy, who although he writes many thing very pertinent and informative, is just writing more fake news for the elites that are in the process of completing our genocide.

robobbob's picture

if you could count on Russian targeting actually working, that might just be the greatest thing to happen to America since 1776.

algol_dog's picture

You can start with  Lindsey Graham. 

El Vaquero's picture

Russia's latest ICBM is supposedly able to take a South Polar route.  That means pointing ABM shields in all directions if we think that we're going to knock out incoming MIRVs.  Russia has too much land mass for us to be able to catch the ICBMs in the boost phase, when they're easiest to shoot down.  While they don't have the number that we do, they still have their subs.  None of that even gets into whether or not they can launch before our warheads get there. 


If policy makers are relying on that The End Of MAD paper, it was written by Poly-Sci professors for fuck's sake. 

greenskeeper carl's picture

This policy also hinges on our ability to return to normalcy in the world even after we 'win' the war. Even if not one single warhead falls on the US (an absurd proposition) how do they think the planet is going to be after we detonate a thousand nuclear weapons all at once. You'd think the countries that are supposedly our allies that are near russia would be howling in protest as well. The planet would be finished after that. It might take a few years, but it would mean the end of life as we know it, at minimum for the whole of the northern hemisphere.


Do the elite REALLY want to move into these bunkers? Seems like just sitting back and enjoying the fruits of their thievery would be a much more enjoyable life.

tazs's picture

Agree. They know they can't confront Russia face to face in a war. The Nuclear thing is just a red herring, not the real reason.

Mano-A-Mano's picture
Mano-A-Mano (not verified) tazs Dec 30, 2016 8:04 PM

W Bush encircled Russia with Missiles.

Obama, ditto.

Trump? Will ditto as well.

HowdyDoody's picture

Have the people at CFR ever got anything right? Now the geniuses want others to go toe to toe in nuke combat with the Rooskies? I bet the stupid fuckers think it is still the 1990s in Russia. One other thing, Dr Strangelove was poking fun at you fuckers, it was not an instruction manual.



Eric Zuesse's picture

It's right for their masters. That's why they're successsful.

07564111's picture

Yep, and most here also forget the other countries that hate each other, most who follow the political issues know that Pakistan and India are in constant conflict. If it ever came about that the US and Russia launched you can guarantee that Pakistan India and China would also press their buttons.

There will be nothing left for anyone.

Diatom's picture

Does anyone knows that there are more than 400 nuclear spent fuel pools in the world?

Can anyone imagine 400 Fukushimas at the same time?

Open nuclear war? Not gonna happen! TPTB aren´t stupid.

sinbad2's picture

Believe it or not the nukes are the least of your worries. The US and I imagine the russians have monstrous stockpiles of nerve gas and plague weapons.

The Soviets destroyed a lot, but the US never lived up to its end of the deal. Now imagine a conventional Russian missile hitting the US stockpiles, and allowing the nerve gas and anthrax to escape?

Jimmy Twinkle's picture

Define Normalcy

I think what Mr Zeusse is pointing out is that US Deep State were factoring an acceptable loss of US citizens of several million some time ago. But my current estimate is far higher than that. Whilst the possibility of nuclear winter scares the bejezuzz out of most sane people (I tentatively suggest there may be large numbers in the West looking forward to nuclear annhilation either as presage to some Biblical Event/Cosmic Disclosure, or as a far less messy end via instant vaporisation than a knife fight in the street with imported Salafists).

Whilst the MIC has been an known unknown since Eisenhower there are I beleive recently admitted junior members whose entry has been won by guarantees of far higher acceptable body counts, likely to include your tech elites who have brought many gifts to the Cabals feet, such as mass automation, transhumanism, off world adventurism and far more advanced technical solutions to underground living conditions than what could be achieved 70 years ago.

With the right location, the right power and life support systems, ho many decades could the elite stay down before resurfacing to a world made new. This i think is quite possibly a Georgia Guidestones tinged New Religion for these folks.

Perimetr's picture

It is an open question as to whether the neocons believe the bogus "Nuclear Primacy" theory put forward by Lieber and Press. The danger is that they do.

Zuesse is correct in pointing out that the long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, i.e. nuclear winter, make nonsense of nuclear primacy. See "Self-Assured Destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war"

Colonel Valery Yarynich and I wrote a reply to Lieber and Press entitled "Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy" in May, 2006, published by Global Research at 


MFL5591's picture

Can't concur Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan and were gonna concur Russia?  What was the last war we won? Was it Vietnam ah-aha!! or the war on terror! Laughable. Our Military is depleted , we have no capability to fight anywhere with a 20 trillion dollar debt and we are gonna beat Russia? How about China with their more sophisticated weapons, they are gonna just sit back and watch? This is complete madness! Lets stick to driverless cars and spy equipment at least we know we are good at these two.  Tell McCain, Obama, Clinton and Graham that we had enough of them and their war economy!

espirit's picture

Nuclear World War is only winnable for cockroaches and alligators.

Fuck that mudbreather Soros.


Send dot gov to Russia to experience Siberia during tourist season - November to May. 

Great outdoor camping experience.  

yogibear's picture

People in the US government coming up with this fantasy are mentally ill and smokin dope.

They would make the ultimate error and kill billions. Maybe going from 7.5 billion down to less than billion quickly.

But then of course leftist like Bill Gates think the surface population needs to be reduced quickly.

sinbad2's picture

If the US doesn't retain control over the world, the world will want its money back.

If the US wins a war against Russia, the pillaging of Russian resources would give the US decades of free money, and stop others from wanting independence.

If the US loses, the debts will be incinerated along with the people. The aristocracy will survive, and there are lots more poor people they can import to do the work. The US population is merely an asset/liability to them, they don't care if they are all killed, people are very cheap to buy.


Either way the aristocrats win.

Akzed's picture

Bill Gates think the surface population needs to be reduced quickly.

Indeed, using vaccines. Weird. Like opposite world.

Cynicles's picture

But they are willing to go full retard and exterminate humanity in their blind pursuit to further satiate their lust for power. 

Invinciblehandaxe's picture

kenyan nigga can rim his male wife's ass

fkn stupid piece of black shit

Ecclesia Militans's picture

Am I the only one who thinks that working with Russia is good business?  And when did business stop being the business of the USA?

Ignatius's picture

Same was true for Vietnam, but our rulers think, "Why negotiate when we can just steal it?"

sinbad2's picture

And in Afghanistan, all Bechtel had to do was pay off the Taliban for the TAPI pipeline, but Bechtel decided that invading Afghanistan would be cheaper for the company, if not America. 15 years later, still no pipeline, and US taxpayers are out a bundle of money.

JLee2027's picture

Working with Russia is GOOD. There is no need to conquer them, this is foolish.

BobEore's picture

Amerika[satrapy of the moneypower tm]working with Russia is GOOD...

for Israeli dreams of dominating the world. Have a controlled Puppet=POTUS work closely with a Chabad-directed Russian potentate to organize phony east-west divisions into a NEW "One Ring to Bind Them" JERSUSALEM where nation states dissolve into satellites of the only power on this planet which will matter - if the script comes off -

debt/usury finance capitalism has pulled out all the stops this time to "sell the dream" which has never died...

over millennia of scheming for religio-ethnic supremacism.

It's the task of Eric/StrategicCulture/and the whole scribe tribe of scribblers who drone on here now incessantly about Merika -bad/Russia-good, to aid in the arrival of that NEW BABYLON.


and the people wept.

Mustafa Kemal's picture

Yes, some things are simple. Work together. Make things better

turnball the banker's picture
turnball the banker (not verified) Dec 30, 2016 7:17 PM

They could of swept through there in 91 if they wanted

mobius8curve's picture

No country will conquer Russia but in the not too distant future the country who imported all the worlds goods will burn first:


Revelation 18:10-19 standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. (11) And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, for no man buyeth their merchandise any more; (12) merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stone, and pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet; and all thyine wood, and every vessel of ivory, and every vessel made of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble; (13) and cinnamon, and spice, and incense, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and cattle, and sheep; and merchandise of horses and chariots and slaves; and souls of men. (14) And the fruits which thy soul lusted after are gone from thee, and all things that were dainty and sumptuous are perished from thee, and men shall find them no more at all. (15) The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning; (16) saying, Woe, woe, the great city, she that was arrayed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearl! (17) for in one hour so great riches is made desolate. And every shipmaster, and every one that saileth any whither, and mariners, and as many as gain their living by sea, stood afar off, (18) and cried out as they looked upon the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great city? (19) And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, wherein all that had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.


any_mouse's picture

Same probability as Jesus being the christ.

mobius8curve's picture

Much of the Word of God was written in parables:

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Jacob was given the name Israel and his children became the nation of Israel.

Babylon was both a city and an empire.

Following this pattern the city of Babylon mentioned in Revelation chapter 18 is speaking of the USA as Jeremiah does: