Border confrontation between the U.S. and NATO with Russia – the risk of nuclear war and the loss of European partners
Michael Hudson talks Jessica Dewar
Jessica Devereaux, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. We’re in Washington, I’m Jessica Dewar.
Over the weekend President Obama met with leaders of NATO in Warsaw, as it turned out, to confirm the solemn promise to defend Europe. Let’s listen to what the President said.
Barack Obama:
“At this critical moment, I want to take this opportunity to clearly state that will remain unchanged. This is a strong, responsible attitude of the United States to security and the protection of Europe, our transatlantic relationship, our interest in our common defense. Throughout the presidential term one of my top foreign policy priorities is the strengthening of our alliances, especially NATO. And as show the achievements and challenges of the past eight years, I declare that we will fulfil that promise. The United States has increased its presence here in Europe. NATO is as strong, easy going and ready as ever.”
So ready that the President will send a thousand military contingent in Poland as one of the four battalions sent to countries bordering Russia. But what underlies this decision? This is just a tactical ploy of the United States, leading to the escalation of tension between USA and Russia? And what role the North Atlantic Alliance must play in maintaining the European balance?
To help us answer these questions we are joined by our guest, Michael Hudson. Michael is an Emeritus Professor of Economics, engaged in her studies at the University of Missouri, Kansas city. In addition, he is the author of many books, including his latest, “Killing the host: How financial parasites and debt are destroying the global economy”. Thank you so much for joining us, Michael.
Michael Hudson: I am pleased to be here.
Jessica Devereaux: so, Michael, we just heard President Obama, who promised to be faithful to the protection of Europe. But really, is it really Europe need protection?
Michael Hudson: that’s right, as soon as Obama uttered these words, followed a flurry of statements by the Europeans, claiming that Obama and NATO are making Europe less safe. The Prime Minister of France, Francois Hollande said, we do not need NATO. They say that NATO plays no role in our relations with Russia. Then the leaders of the two largest German parties, the social democratic and Christian democratic, said that NATO incited to war. Showed up Gorbachev and said that the world was never closer to nuclear war than it is now. William Perry, in the mid 90-ies of the former head of the Pentagon, said that NATO creates threats and trying to provoke a nuclear war in Europe.
One of the leading military strategists of Russia formulated, what is the problem: NATO intends to move up the bombers and nuclear weapons to the borders of Russia. This means that if they launch a missile we we will have a few seconds to answer. Some time ago President Putin was talking about that, the truth is that Russia has no forces on the ground. In fact, today no country in the world – at least in the Northern hemisphere – has no land army, able to invade somewhere.
Try to imagine a canadian or Mexican invasion across the U.S. border. You can’t imagine. Impossible. No democracy can no longer afford to have a land army, because the cost is so high that the cost of preparations for land war will simply undermine the economy.
An undeniable fact that NATO is trying to force Russia to build an army because the United States could undermine its economy at the expense of greater and greater amount of economic resources for military needs. But Russia does not fall into this trap. Putin said that Russia has absolutely no intention to concentrate the army. Even inconceivable that he might want to invade the Baltic States or Poland. But Putin said Russia has the means of retaliation. This is the atomic bomb. Nuclear weapons is mainly defensive in nature. It tells us that the army no longer needed. No country needs an army if it has nuclear weapons, because if you attack a country, it can wipe you off the face of the earth. And she, too, will be destroyed, but no country will be able to win. Really no country can defeat another. This means that Russia can not conquer Europe.
In fact, Putin and Russian officials say: look, accepted that an American plane will fly a bit, or the ships often try to arrange provocations, we do not know at all, and not a nuclear attack? Russia can not risk it. If someone tries anything against us, we strike with hydrogen bombs, and the end of Berlin, Frankfurt, London, Manchester, Brussels. That is the meaning of all these warnings. And Europe are absolutely terrified that Obama is seeking destabilization. Even more frightening is the passage on the election of Hillary, who mentioned that she was going to appoint the Minister of defence protégé of Cheney’s “super hawk” Michelle Flournoy, and the Secretary of state – Victoria Nuland.
Over the past two months a couple of times I visited Germany, and there really concerned that one way or another incite America Europe: come on, povoyuem with Russia. Essentially, it is a crisis.
Jessica Devereaux: Okay. Michael, I want to go back to your statement about how we see mentioned regarding the deployment looming on the horizon, the threat of nuclear war. And it seems that she is really real. It’s not just an assumption. We have the warning armed forces of Russia and the United States that a nuclear war closer than ever before.
So, now let’s get interested. On both sides, and to the extent possible, more specific, and let’s call a spade a spade. In whose interest it is to maintain this stereotype? Because I’m sure that there are people that extract profit from this, and not only in the United States, but also in Russia. I can say something about this?
Hudson: well, one of the solutions the results of the summits, NATO has become the call of the Alliance to the [component] countries not to depend on Russian weapons. Add to this the insistence of Obama, allies spend 2% of its GDP to NATO, the weapons, buying it mainly from American arms manufacturers – have “Ration”, “Boing” and others.
Now look what is happening in Europe. It’s not even an increase of 2 percent due to the introduced austerity measures. These 2% are the entire annual economic growth in Europe. Here are a lot of money needs to be spent on American arms. It turns out that the saber rattling against Russia is a way to oblige European countries to pay for military products arms manufacturers from the United States, and, in essence, a method to force Europe to pay off saying that if you do not become a part of this, we are not going to protect you; Europe counters: wait, we really don’t need protection. We would prefer to establish with Russia economic relations. Especially the Germans – they say they don’t want sanctions. The Italians say they don’t want sanctions. And the Americans in response: we don’t want you making money with Russia. Buy from us and not in Russia. Buy agricultural products and other products from us, or, at least, in the countries of the orbit of the dollar, not Russian.
This is exactly what Obama meant by “reset”. On the one hand, this is a new cold war, and the meaning of this new cold war in the new method of the scrum is the financial war, in which war is just a kind of catalyst financial “operations” by the United States. And now they – the first effect of the “reset” – has led Russia to an Alliance with China. Now, on the other hand, NATO can overdo it so that ultimately pushed Germany, Italy and France out of the Alliance. This here is the effect… the opposite result.
Jessica Devereaux: Michael, what about the Russian side? Are interested that support this “reset”?
Hudson: They were hoping a “reboot” will mean the curtailing of military spending. Russia and almost every country would like to use more resources in the interests of the domestic economy and not for military purposes. In the framework of the economic war with Russia America is trying to force Russia to spend more on overhead military spending.
It was the plan of Brzezinski in Afghanistan, you remember, in the Carter administration. The idea was that if you make Russia pay more for their armed forces, protecting Afghanistan and its economy will lose stability, and [the country] will spread discontent. In this sense the American strategy: to spread chaos. Then the Americans can come and promote nationalistic and other parochial divisions, try to break up Russia, as well as a long-term strategy America is trying to push the collapse of China. It is impossible that it could have negative consequences for the United States.
Jessica Devereaux: Okay. Let’s talk about what ordinary people can do to not put up with this stereotype, or to change the point of view of the possible “reset” offered by President Obama? What political decisions can be taken to reduce the tensions.
Hudson: By and large, to dissolve NATO, that France is pushing for many years. Right now there is no need NATO because there are no more threats of military invasion. Remember, after the Second World war, NATO was organized, when the idea came, well, the first idea was that European countries must never start wars with each other. Never again be wars between France, Germany, Italy. It was decided. There is no variant in which the European countries starts a war with each other.
The second thought was this: what if Russia again invaded, as it was when it fought against Hitler? Well, no danger of a Russian invasion no longer exists. In fact, in 1990, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine had adopted a resolution which she desired to remain neutral and to benefit from your position – “neutral buffer”, which rotates between Russia and Europe. And then, the United States invested $ 5 billion in Ukraine, and also gave impetus to the national-ethnic revolution. The US took 20 years to pull that off and to break the neutrality.
Strategy of the United States is to eliminate neutrality. European economic interests require the achievement of neutrality with Russia, and achieving economic unity among the European countries themselves in any confrontation with Russia has little chance.
Jessica Devereaux: Okay. Michael Hudson, always happy to meet with You in our programs. Thank you very much for being with us.
Michael Hudson: it Was nice to talk to.
