President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy for Nuclear-Blitzing Russia


Eric Zuesse

There is no mystery as to why Russia is making preparations for being hit by a U.S. nuclear attack.

When the U.S. toppled the freely elected, pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, in February of this year, and replaced him with a U.S. appointed Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that coup enabled the U.S. to have access to Ukraine as a launching-pad for U.S. nuclear missiles that could destroy Russia’s Moscow command-center in less than ten minutes, which would be too short a time-window for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory weapons. Our new Government in Ukraine is ethnically cleansing from southeastern Ukraine the people in the area of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for the former President, Viktor Yanukovych. This will lock-in Ukraine’s newly dominant anti-Russian tilt, and will thus solidify Ukraine as a NATO ally, and, soon (as our regime there hopes), a new NATO member, like other post-Soviet and now NATO members. Other NATO members that have already been brought over from the former Soviet Union are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Ukraine would be the keystone to that.

In addition, the U.S. already has troops in many countries, which include the following nations where our soldiers are stationed (and this includes ones with missile bases located near Russia): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. We also have some soldiers in other former parts of the U.S.S.R.: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The U.S. nuclearly surrounds Russia; we have missiles in nations that border Russia; Russia doesn’t have any missiles in nations that surround the U.S.

When the Soviet Union tried to get a missile base in our nearby Cuba, during the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy said no, and a nuclear war was imminent until Nikita Khruschev removed the threat — and that was just one nearby nation, and one missile base that was being built by the U.S.S.R. near us. The United States has already vastly exceeded that same threat against Russia, indeed many times over, while Russia is powerless to stop us. Russia can do nothing whatsoever about it.

Back in the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced a “Star Wars” program, which subsequently became America’s program to develop and deploy Anti-Ballistic Missiles, or ABMs, to destroy incoming Soviet nuclear missiles in the event of a nuclear war. Though Reagan described it as “peaceful,” and “purely defensive” in the event of a nuclear war, it was actually a measure to win a nuclear war, it was an aggressive measure, because, if it works, it will enable the U.S. to destroy the other side (now only Russia) in a “pre-emptive” nuclear U.S. attack against the “enemy,” while blocking the “enemy” from retaliating: the “enemy”s retaliatory missiles will then be knocked down before they reach their U.S. targets. So: Reagan lied about the “purely defensive” nature of his plan, and every U.S. President since then has been lying as well, including Barack Obama, who, as soon as he entered office, reviewed George W. Bush’s ABM program and radically revamped it, and greatly improved it, so that now, finally, there is a version of ABM that might actually work. On 21 May 2014, the U.S. DOD headlined, “Standard Missile Completes First Test Launch from Aegis Ashore Test Site,” and reported that: “The Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. Navy, and sailors at the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), successfully conducted the first flight test involving components of the Aegis Ashore system. During the test, a simulated ballistic missile target was acquired, tracked, and engaged by the Aegis Weapon System. At approximately 7:35 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, May 20 (1:35 a.m. EDT, May 21), the Aegis Weapon System fired a Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block IB guided missile from the Vertical Launch System. Several fire control and engagement functions were exercised during the test. A live target missile launch was not planned for this flight test.” In other words: The “test” was only a “flight test,” not a real test. But it is the closest that the U.S. or any nation has yet gotten to developing an effective ABM.

In addition, President Obama has established a new program, “Prompt Global Strike,” which aims to disable Russia’s retaliatory ability by use of non-nuclear weapons, so as to force Russian surrender without destroying the country (and perhaps the world) — a Hitlerian blitzkrieg against “the enemy.” This would be even better for America’s aristocrats than a nuclear knock-out, because it wouldn’t only give them unchallengeable global dominance, which a nuclear destruction of Russia would do, but it would also enable our aristocrats to plunder the country, whereas a nuclearly destroyed Russia wouldn’t even be worth plundering. So, in addition to slaking the aristocracy’s primary craving, which is for sheer unchallengeable dominance, it would also further enrich them. All other nations’ aristocracies would then have to do their bidding, not only by unchallengeable force, but by unchallengeable money.

Furthermore, Obama’s Ukraine-ploy has been strikingly effective at helping him to whip up in America a fear of Russia, so as to enable this nation to go increasingly onto a war-footing. A recent CNN Poll found that 29% of Americans think that Russia is a “Very serious threat” to the United States, and that 40% consider it a “Moderately serious threat.” That’s 69% who consider it a “serious threat.” In 2012 (before our coup in Ukraine), only 11% considered it a “Very serious threat,” and 33% considered it a “Moderately serious threat.” 44% then considered Russia a “serious threat.” The huge surge in fear of Russia — from 44% to 69% — seems to be due entirely to Ukraine. 81% of poll-respondents said that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine are … a violation of international law.” Only 12% said that it’s not. Asked whether “there was any justification for Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” 72% said “No,” and only 17% said “Yes.” In other words, the stenographic reporting by the U.S. media, of the White House’s accusations that the problems in Ukraine and the civil war there are Russia’s doing, instead of ours — are Putin’s, instead of Obama’s — has proceeded according to Obama’s plan, just as the propaganda-media in the U.S. had earlier done about “Saddam’s WMD,” when George W. Bush was planning to invade Iraq.

An article, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” from the highly influential journal of the organization of U.S. aristocrats and their agents, the Council on Foreign Relations, their authoritative Foreign Affairs journal, in March 2006, argued that the U.S. can win a nuclear war. It argued that the old U.S. nuclear strategy, of using nuclear weapons only as deterrence (“Mutually-Assured Destruction” or MAD), is over. Nuclear victory can now be America’s aspiration, argued this article, not in an ordinary magazine, but in the foreign-affairs journal of America’s aristocracy. It is Wall Street’s Foreign Affairs. Obama seems to be following the goal that was set forth there. And his ethnic-cleansing program in southeast Ukraine is part of that broader strategy of his. Many analysts consider America’s winning control in Ukraine to be the lynchpin of that strategy — and clearing out the pro-Russians from there is an important part of it.

Consequently, Russia is now preparing for a nuclear attack by NATO. Furthermore, NATO has now established a new policy that effectively treats Russia as its enemy. This is why Obama booted Russia out of the G8: to make Russia the “odd man out.”

President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, said: “Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” Our President said: “In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe.”

He seems to have all his ducks in a row. The complaints by liberals saying that Obama is an ineffective President are nonsense; he’s the most effective conservative President since Ronald Reagan. Now that he doesn’t have to worry about re-election, he’s making clear how conservative he really is, not only regarding bailing out the aristocracy after the 2008 crash, but also setting up to hand them an unchallengeable global dominance. He’s brilliant. However unfortunate that may be, it’s what is; and liberals who keep thinking he’s one of them are just obstinate fools, suckers really. They’re in their fantasy-world, and seem determined to stay there. Just consider the victims he’s producing to achieve his aims, (and here is testimony from that woman’s daughter, who survived), and it is clear.

Anyone who thinks Obama can’t possibly be that far right-wing should listen to the testimony of Mona Eltahawy in Egypt, interviewed by NPR’s Michelle Martin June 24th headlining, “‘Shameful’ Verdict Exposes Egyptian Journalists’ Fears,” where this courageous independent journalist said, “And just the day before the verdict [imprisoning entirely innocent journalists], John Kerry, the Secretary of State, told Egypt that the U.S. would release millions of dollars that had been suspended in aid to Egypt. Just a few months ago, Apache helicopters, which had also been put on hold, were promised back to Egypt.” Now, the people of Egypt will viscerally hate the United States, and with sound reason to do so. Obama’s boot is on their necks. And at the start of his Presidency, Obama, alone of all world leaders, kept the fascist coup junta in power in Honduras after they had overthrown that country’s progressive democratically elected President. Obama is consistent. He’s just not honest.


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





This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy for Nuclear-Blitzing Russia

  1. Randa says:

    This is real. I believe they have been planning this for years, maybe even centuries and of course I am not referring to the puppets who are choosing to carry out this filthy thing (Washington D.C.), but I am referring to the puppet masters who are not of this world. Hence, it is not about winning a war because this war cannot be won.

    My thinking is that USA will make the first attack, but the blowback will be profound. America will no longer be recognizable. I hope the psychopathic puppets realize this. It will be game over.

    Can Putin’s Diplomacy Prevail Over Washington’s Coercion?
    Paul Craig Roberts

    • cettel says:

      I respect your view, but am not as pessimistic; Obama is intelligent but I think that Putin is more so; I’d place the likelihood of a war between the U.S. and Russia at less than 50%, and the likelihood of a nuclear war between them at less than 30%, and the reason is that Putin has been playing this game better thus far than Obama has. Putin is carefully avoiding to give Obama a specific pretext for the U.S. to bomb Russia; and if Obama bombs Russia without a specific pretext, then NATO will probably break up; the entire world would rebel against America; the entire world would feel threatened, viscerally. Damage would be done to Russia, sure; but, look at the damage that Hitler did to Russia, yet Stalin won, Hitler lost. Putin is playing the strategy that Stalin did, and I don’t think that Obama will fall into the same trap that Hitler did. I actually think that, at some point, Obama will back down, and that he and Putin will negotiate, not publicly but privately one way or another, and that the end result is going to be a weaker American aristocracy, not a stronger one. 30 or 40 years from now, Russia and China could be the two leading economies, and Obama’s Ukrainian ploy could bring an end to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency much faster than would otherwise be the case. If I had to bet on the outcome, I’d bet that this ploy will become an enormous embarrassment to Obama, and that he’ll be happy simply to negotiate with Putin a way to save face about it. I think that Obama underestimated Putin; I certainly hope he did, because the fate of the entire world now rests upon the decisions that he makes, not only on the decisions that Obama makes — and Obama is unquestionably profoundly evil, so, to the extent that the fate of the world depends upon Obama, the outcome will be profoundly grim.

      • Randa says:

        Well researched Eric, but here’s the thing. A psychopath has no true thinking capacity, just the ability to mimic. Everything Obama says is invoked by a controller, or group of controllers who are absolute monstrosities of this dark creation. It is like a technologically advanced teleprompter. He is nothing but a toy boy.

        Obama does not embarrass (he prefers to take it up the ass for Chrissakes) and he cannot feel. This is why he and Putin neither would never come to an agreement. Putin has been developing relationships around the world and solving old disputes (and has completely transformed the resource-rich Russia, which has 12 time zones), while Obama the Toy Boy dances his little diddly throughout the Middle East and eastern Europe attempting to create as much conflict as he can, and honestly I do not think he even has a goal. He’s a hedonistic monstrosity who is completely programmed toward their endgame. What is their endgame? I do not think it is to control the Earth.

        It is to control the wider Creation of which Earth is only a very tiny part.

        How many lives in the Middle East, Africa, America, Asia,South America and Mexico, Ukraine has Obama directly or indirectly been responsible for ending? Honestly, is there an accounting?

        Psychopaths have no frontal lobe to the brain. They can’t think or feel or know. Our leader does not have a program, he simply has a bloodthirsty lust for power.

        Jim Sinclair recently mentioned that the present nuclear threat is extreme, not so much because Russia or USSA will push the button, but that mistakes are made. Somebody is going to go bezerk. The game they are playing is based on chaos and psychopaths are running the show.

        Which is why I am desperately calling upon the US Military and all Americans to revolt and refuse to attack Russia, under any circumstances.

        Then maybe we can move on from this world from a place of understanding and dare I say, peace.

  2. Guest says:

    Brilliant analysis. Thanks.

  3. Wayne says:

    Nothing about such a strategy is brilliant in any respect. It is a death wish for all humanity and life on the planet. I’m surprised this isn’t made explicitly clear in discussing it. Precisely why do the Russians deserve being attacked with nuclear weapons? So the rulers (NOT the people) of America will have no other country capable of standing up to them technologically or militarily, presumably. But, make no mistake, everybody including America loses a nuclear war.

    • cettel says:

      Obama doesn’t give a damn about the public, but only about the aristocracy, specifically the U.S. Aristocracy, whose top motivation is dominance. They have come to dominate more and more over the domestic public while Obama is President; and they want to dominate more and more over their competitors abroad — the aristocracies in all other nations. The prize is dominance. But the article said that; you somehow missed its argument.

    • shawn says:

      This is the mutually assured destruction deterrant that was frequently cited and used during the cold war. But you must realize that some would be willing to seek such dominance and world population reduction with the push of a button. I agree that it would probably end civilization as we know it, but you should know that there are hundreds of deep underground military bases in the US and throughout the world. So, some form of the human race and civilization would probably survive. On the surface, probably not so much. But to the true globalist, maybe it is worth it. That’s how they think. And, until reading this I never realized that Obama was that aggressive and effective. If they atomize countries in the middle east, and Russia, that gives them the opportunity to get lots more oil and gold and diamonds, to dominate the world. From Chaos Order, as the masonic saying goes.

  4. colinjames71 says:

    I referred to this article on one of the last pieces here covering possible nuclear war, this is the first half below. There are no winners in any nuclear war. We’ll never have the ability to eliminate Russia’s nuke arsenal completely, the ABM system will never work as planned, so if we are stupid and crazy enough to launch a nuclear strike, it will likely end up destroying humanity and possibly all higher life forms on earth.

    The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons

    Steven Starr

    Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. [iii]

    These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race.[iv] In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life.

  5. gerry d welder says:

    Did Obama purposely leave behind all those attack helicopters, tanks, equipment and weapons when the US pulled out?

    Still Report #281 – Is Obama a Sunni?

    The Islamization of American Schools – Books by Abdullah Al Araby store/ index.php/ books-by-abdullah-al-araby/ the-islamization-of-american-schools.html

    Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

    by John Rossomando • Jan 3, 2013


    “An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.”

    Obama Releases 5 Of The Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders … – View by Ixquick Proxy – Highlight

    Jun 2, 2014 …

    Is the Obama State Department Following Shariah Law Over U.S. Law in Refusing to Acknowledge Meriam’s Kids’ Citizenship?

    “For the U.S. State Department to accept this ruling (the same ruling that sentenced her to torture and then death), it would have to accept Sudan’s interpretation of Shariah law. That appears to be exactly what is happening, and it’s outrageous.”……

    … get it yet? – Fitna the Movie (New Version 4-4-2008)

  6. Artimus Maxtor says:

    Nuclear weapons are the hee haw of this and the last century. If you buy into nuclear weapons. Your part of the herd and don’t think for yourself. Some are too afraid to mention their suspicions. Because they get run over by a bunch of people. That believe everything or a lot of what this massive information system puts out. Which drives the herd. I won’t mention going in herds to work and lunch and back all at the same time. Or the school herd that leaves and comes back at the same time every day.

    I won’t offer a pictorial here lol. Or links on a web that’s closed so tightly now with its information. Some sites that give you an argument that there are no nukes. Then you read on and find the guy believes in Martians or the Illuminati or some other nonsense. Which is probably written on purpose to make you think all those that do think that Nuclear nonsense is bunk are a little bit off.
    We invaded Vietnam. While our troops were getting cut to pieces. lol. Of course the Russians and the Chinese. Both WW2 allies. Were screaming. Don’t use those nukes no fair. Cause we got some. lol. Meanwhile their buddies in North Vietnam were getting cut to pieces also. So we had a nuclear standoff. However ground troops and everything else is fair game to kill with. Makes sense. Sort of. Carpet bombing was ok to. I can point out the fact that Saddams entire military was out in the open on the desert. We carpet bombed. No nukes. I could point out that the current debacle. Is near a desert no nukes or the mention of using them. Nor the fact Osama was quite rich and Russia was destabilized. He couldn’t get anything. Now the new kids are rich with oil and cash. Place your bets. They don’t get anything no nukes. Because they aren’t to be had. Actually you have been had. By a post WW2 scheme to stabilize a cut up eastern Europe. Also a scheme by a post war Iran to stabilize the middle east. Iran an oil partner. That pumps Iraqi oil. That refines Iraqi oil. Read an oil trade paper for a change. Oh and by the way Iran has one nuke. We have what 50k for example. We just let it go on and happen. Why not lets have another crazed religious regime have nukes. Its pretty near the end for the apocalyptically stupid. lol. So USA your in a bind here with Iraq. Why not drop the big one just to show them you mean business. Stop all this terrorism. Nope you can’t and won’t. Its much more humane to send in your ground troops to get shot up. lol. It’s much more humane to send them in to shoot up civies. Surely Afghanistan was an excuse to use nukes after 9/11. A Democratic Russia. Who was going to care? I mean even small nukes. You wouldn’t because its BS.

    Thank you for your mass marketing of Christianity. Fuel cells, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston and all the other HS you pump out every day that people buy into. By the way why doesn’t anyone have nuclear bomb shelters (that’s an enigma). Why did they stop doing drills in schools and we haven’t had those sirens going off for quite some time. I guess you got bored with it.

  7. Somebody Else says:

    The US did not “topple” regime in Ukraine. You must love to entertain fantasy as real. I’ll bet you refuse to believe the Russians shot down that airliner over Ukraine too. I quit reading when I see idiotic statements upfront. I should thank you for its placement saving my time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *