On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал, че
> вървим по пътя към ядрена война.
>
> този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател, антиамериканист или
> изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?

"The Schiller Institute is a German based political and economic think tank founded by Helga Zepp- LaRouche, with stated members in 50 countries. It is among the principal organizations of the
_LaRouche movement_."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Върос в понижена трудност: Как пък все на такива попадаш?

>
> материалът без спор го приемам, че е руска пропаганда.
>
> нека обсебения да си спести забележките си за военния опит на казалия
> долните неща, а да се замисли върху казаното от него. също и забележките
> за сайта няма смисъл да се правят, така и така всичко за него е ясно 8-)
>
> U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War
>
> Well, let me begin, if I could, by telling our listeners that I’m very
> patriotic: I volunteered to join the Marines and I volunteered to go to
> Vietnam. I fought in the bloodiest Marine campaign of the entire war. And
> I was a helicopter pilot who flew 269 combat missions. My aircraft was hit
> by ground fire on four missions. I, then, fought on the ground with the
> First Marine Division, and during one of the 70 combat patrols that I
> made, my radioman were both killed, and I was wounded while we were
> attacking and trying to rescue a surrounded Marine outpost.
>
> So I’m very pro-American. I actually was a part of NATO and was prepared
> to die in Germany, to defend against an attack by the Soviet Union.
>
> But Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. People don’t understand that
> because the media have not made it clear. But Russia is not a communist
> state; the Soviet Union was a communist state.
>
> …
>
> започва малко отдалеч -- от сирия, но имайки предвид споровете тук за
> алепи и онзи град, дума ли беше, мисля че няма да е излишно да се види
> какво казва този човек за сирия.
>
> What I do know, and I can tell you about Aleppo is that Russia was
> extremely reluctant to get involved in combat in Syria. The war began in
> 2011, when the United States landed Central Intelligence operatives to
> begin coordinating with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. And we had
> been unwavering supporters of Al Qaeda, since before the war formally
> began. We are supporters of Al Qaeda today, where they’re bottled up in
> Idlib province. The CIA supplied them under secret Operation Timber
> Sycamore. We gave them all of their anti-tank weapons, all of their anti
> air- missiles. And Al Qaeda has always been our proxy force on the ground..
> They, together with ISIS, have carried out the mission of the United
> States, together with a great number of affiliates that really are kind of
> interchangeable. You have the Free Syrian Army soldiers move from ISIS to
> Al Qaeda to Free Syrian Army, rather fluidly. And so we started that war.
>
> сега става забавно за някои жертви на пропагандата:
>
> But the United States has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in
> war. And our objective was to overthrow the legitimate government of
> Syria, and in order to do that, we employed proxy soldiers who were the
> most vile of all terrorists. Something very similar is happening right now
> in in Ukraine.
>
> …
>
> But going back to Aleppo, the Syrian army, together with Hezbollah, which
> was very effective; there were some troops that were organized by Iran
> also, but it was pretty much a Syrian show, certainly directed by Syrian
> generals. And they had fought this bitter urban combat, very brutal, very
> deadly. And they had fought it for four years, before Russia ever joined
> the battle. So after four years, the city of Aleppo had enormous
> destruction. And at that point, the Russians, at the invitation of the
> legitimate government of Syria, entered the war. But unlike many of the
> media reports, they did not enter the war as a ground force. Now, they
> had some small ground forces. They had military police, they had a few
> artillery units, a few special operations people, and quite a number of
> advisers and that sort of thing. But they were not a significant ground
> force.
>
> …
>
> But to blame the Russians for the massive destruction that took place
> within Aleppo, it’s bizarre: Because they were not there, they were not
> even present when this happened. So this is simply another part of the
> propaganda narrative, which is which hasbeen very effective for the West,
> demonizing Russia, and making claims that have no substance. But people
> don’t remember the history of these things—they’re rather complex. So, no:
> Russia was not in any respect responsible for the massive destruction of
> the city of Aleppo.
>
> …
>
> Well, first of all, the American involvement, the United States war
> against Syria is a war of aggression. We put a highly secretive CIA
> special activities center—these are kind of the James Bond guys of the
> Central Intelligence Agency, total Machiavellian; they will do anything,
> there’s no it’s no holds barred with these guys. We sent them in and we
> started the war in Syria. The war didn’t exist until we sent the CIA to
> coordinate with Al Qaeda elements. So we began the war and we were not
> invited into Syria.
>
> In fact, the United States has seized, two significant parts of Syria. One
> is a very major part, the Euphrates River, carves off about a third of the
> northern part of Syria: The United States invaded that portion. We
> actually put troops on the ground, illegal—against any standard
> international law of war—it was it was a just a seizure. And this was this
> was something that was referred to by John Kerry, who was then the
> Secretary of State, and he was frustrated at the tremendous victory by the
> Syrian Armed Forces against Al Qaeda and ISIS. And he said, well, we
> probably need to move to Plan B. He didn’t announce what Plan B was, but
> it had it unfolded over time: Plan B was the American seizure of that
> northern portion of Syria. The importance of taking that part of Syria is,
> that it is the bread basket for all of the Syrian people. That is where
> the wheat—Syria actually had a significant wheat surplus and the people
> were very well fed in Syria, before the war. We wanted to take the wheat
> away, to cause famine among the Syrian people.
>
> The other thing we were able to do, is to seize the major part of the oil
> and natural gas fields. Those also were produced in that northern portion
> beyond the Euphrates River. And the idea was that, by stealing the oil and
> then the gas, we would be able to shut down the transportation system, and
> at the same time, during the Syrian winters, we could freeze to death the
> Syrian civilian population, which in many cases were living in rubble,
> where these terrorist armies, with mechanized divisions had attacked and
> just totally destroyed these cities, and left people just living in little
> pockets of rubble.
>
> We wanted to starve and we wanted to freeze to death the people of Syria,
> and that was Plan B.
>
> …
>
> We weren’t at war with Syria! And yet we had a naval blockade around the
> country. We devalued their currency through the SWIFT system for
> international payments, making it impossible for them to purchase
> medications. So you had Syrian women who would contract breast cancer,
> just like we have here in this country. But instead, where in this country
> where breast cancer has become relatively treatable, we cut off the
> medical supplies so that the women in Syria would die of breast cancer
> because they could not get the medications, because we slam their dollars
> through the SWIFT system.
>
> One of the last things that we did and the evidence is vague on it, but
> there was a mysterious explosion in the harbor in Lebanon, and it was a
> massive explosion of a shipload of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. It killed
> hundreds of Lebanese people. It wounded thousands and thousands, destroyed
> the economy of Lebanon. And, most importantly, it destroyed the banking
> system of Lebanon, which was one of the few lifelines remaining to Syria.
> I don’t think that explosion was accidental. I think it was orchestrated,
> and I suspect that the Central Intelligence Agency was aware of the nation
> that carried out that action to destroy Beirut Harbor.
>
> But throughout you see this this Machiavellian approach, where we use
> unlimited force and violence. And at the same time, we control the global
> media, to where we erase all discussions of what’s truly happening. So, to
> the man or the woman in the street, they think things are fine. Everything
> is being done for altruistic reasons, but it’s not.
>
> има интересни неща за уахабитските обичаи, прилагани в сирия, но не от
> руснаци, а от идилци, както и за санкциите срещу сирия, но тях ще трябва
> да ги прочетете сами.
>
> а навремето стефан николов се сърдеше, когато му беше казано за думите на
> мадлийн олбрайт:
>
> You know, Russia is, perhaps more blessed with natural resources than any
> other nation on Earth. They are a major producer of grain, of oil, of
> aluminum, of fertilizers, of an immense number of things that tie into the
> whole global economy. And no doubt there are people who look at this and
> say, “if we could somehow break up Russia itself, there will be fortunes
> made, to where trillionaires will be made by the dozens.” And there’s some
> attraction to that. Certainly you’ve seen some of this taking place
> already, with foreign interests taking over Ukraine, and taking their vast
> resources.
>
> а това е особено забавно:
>
> But, we began a drive towards Russia, almost immediately after the Soviet
> Union dissolved in 1991. The Soviet Union dissolved, the Warsaw Pact
> dissolved. _And unfortunately, one of the great tragedies of history is
> that we failed to dissolve NATO._ The sole purpose of NATO was to defend
> against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer existed. NATO went
> toe toe with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was gone; it no longer
> existed. There was no purpose in NATO’s continuing to exist. However, we
> retained it, and it could not exist unless it had an enemy. Russia was
> desperate to become part of the West.
>
> явно и тук вината не е на сащ и западна европа.
>
> това също е интересно да се прочете:
>
> I met with the head of Gazprom, the largest corporation in Russia, And
> this was shortly after the demise of the Soviet Union, and he described
> for me how they were struggling to have their media be as free as it was
> in the West. And they perceived us as being much more free and open than
> we were. And he said, you know, we’ve got this problem because we have
> this uprising in Chechnya, which is part of Russia. And he said the
> Chechnyan rebels send videos to Russian television and we play them on
> Russian television, because that’s the way freedom of speech works.
>
> And I said, “Are you kidding me?” I said, “You’re publishing the enemy
> propaganda films?” He said, “Yeah.” He said, “Isn’t that the way you do it
> in the United States?” I said, “No. In the Second World War, we took the
> head of the Associated Press and we put him in charge of wartime
> censorship, and it was very strict.”
>
> признавам, като набеден русофил и путинофил, аз не знаех за това, научих
> го от този човек.
>
> In any event, the United States has this long-standing strategy, this
> political-military strategy, of expanding the empire. We did it in the
> Middle East, where we attempted to create a massive neocolonial empire.
> It’s it became rather frayed. The people did not want it. And it seems to
> be doomed to extinction sometime—but it may go on for another 100 years.
> But in any event, we are trying to do something similar, as we roll to the
> East, right up virtually to the Russian border.
>
> …
>
> I think one thing that it will do is it will ensure that a tremendous
> number of innocent Ukrainian soldiers will die needlessly. A lot of
> Russian soldiers will die needlessly. These are kids. You know, kids go
> off to war. I went off to war as a kid. You think your country, right or
> wrong, everything they’re doing is fine. It just it breaks my heart, when
> I look at the faces of young Russian boys, who have been who have been
> gunned down—in some cases very criminally by Ukrainian forces. And
> likewise, I see Ukrainian young men, who are being slaughtered on the
> battlefield.
>
> обсебения дали има да каже нещо за тези военни престъпления на украинците.
> за руските знам, че може да говори много.
>
> We don’t care! The United States and NATO, we do not care how many
> Ukrainians die. Not civilians, not women, not children, not soldiers. We
> do not care. It’s become a great football game. You know, we’ve got our
> team. They’ve got their team, rah rah. We want to get the biggest score
> and run it up. And, you know, we don’t care how many how many of our
> players get crippled on the playing field, as long as we win.
>
> Now, we are shipping fantastic quantities of weapons, and it’s caused the
> stock of Raytheon, which creates missiles, and Northrop Grumman, which
> creates aircraft and missiles, all of these defense industries have become
> tremendously bloated with tax dollars. I don’t think it’s ultimately going
> to change the outcome. I think that Russia will prevail. The Ukrainians
> are in a very awkward strategic position in the East.
>
> а някой тук обясняваше, че украйна нямала толкова войска, колкото била
> разположена край донбас:
>
> But if you look at the way that this unfolded, President Putin made a
> desperate effort to stop the march towards war back in December of 2021.
> He went so far as to put specific written proposals on the table with
> NATO, peace proposals to defuse what was coming about. Because at this
> point, Ukraine was massing troops to attack the Donbas. And so, he was
> trying to head this off. He didn’t want war. And NATO just blew it off,
> just dismissed it; never took it seriously, never went into serious
> negotiations.
>
> а пък долното може да предизвика колики в някои хора, но мисля че няма
> нужда от коментар:
>
> At that point, Putin seeing that armed Ukrainians, with weapons to kill
> Russian troops were literally on their borders, decided he had to strike
> first. Now, you could see, that this was not this was not some preplanned
> attack. This was not like Hitler’s attack into Poland, where the standard
> rule of thumb, is that you always have a 3-to-1 advantage when you are the
> attacker. You have to mass three times as many tanks and artillery and
> planes and men, as the other side has. In fact, when Russia went in, they
> went in with what they had, what they could cobble together on short
> notice. And they were outnumbered by the Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian
> forces had about 250,000. The Russians had perhaps 160,000. So instead of
> having three times as many, they actually had fewer troops than the
> Ukrainians. But they were forced to attack, to try to preempt the battle
> that was looming, where the Ukrainians had massed these forces against the
> Donbas.
>
> Now, the Donbas is adjacent to Russia. It is a portion of Ukraine that did
> not join with the revolutionary government that conducted the coup in 2014
> and overthrew the government of Ukraine. They refused to become a part of
> the new revolutionary government of Ukraine. And so they declared their
> independence. And Ukraine had massed this enormous army to attack against
> the Donbas. And so Russia was forced to go in to preempt that planned
> attack by Ukraine. And you could see that Russia very much hoped that they
> could conduct this special operation without unduly causing casualties for
> the Ukrainians, because they think of the Ukrainians, or at least they did
> think of the Ukrainians as brother Slavs; that they wanted to have good
> relations. But there is a famous picture with a Russian tank, that had
> been stopped by a gathering of maybe 40 civilians who just walked out in
> the road and blocked the road and the tank stopped. I can tell you, in
> Vietnam, if we had had a bunch of people who stood in the way of an
> American tank, going through, that tank would not have slowed down, in the
> slightest! It wouldn’t honk the horn, it wouldn’t have done anything;
> wouldn’t have fired a warning shot. It would have just gone on. And I
> think that’s more typical—I’m not I’m not criticizing the Americans. I was
> there and I was fighting, and I probably would have would have driven the
> tank straight through myself.
>
> But what I’m saying is that the rules of engagement for the Russians were
> very, very cautious. They didn’t want to create a great deal of hatred and
> animosity. The Russians did not go in—they did not bomb the electrical
> system, the media systems, the water systems, the bridges and so forth.
> They tried to retain the infrastructure of Ukraine in good shape because
> they wanted it to get back. They just wanted this to be over with and get
> back to normal. It didn’t work. The Ukrainians, the resistance was
> unexpectedly hard. The Ukrainian soldiers fought with great, great valor,
> great heroism. And. And so now the game has been upped and it’s become
> much more serious.
>
> But it is amazing to look and to see that Russia dominates the air. They
> haven’t knocked out the train systems. They haven’t knocked out power
> plants. They haven’t knocked out so many things. They’ve never bombed the
> buildings in the center of Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine; they haven’t
> bombed the buildings where the parliament meets. They’ve been incredibly
> reserved about these things, hoping against hope that peace could be
> achieved.
>
> But I don’t think I don’t think Ukraine has anything to do with the
> decision about peace or war. I think the decision about peace or war is
> made in Washington, D.C. As long as we want the war to continue, we will
> fight that war, using Ukrainians as proxies, and we will fight it to the
> last Ukrainian death.
>
> леле, някой в тази група питаше защо руснаците мълчат:
>
> We need to recognize the risk of playing these games of chicken. Where,
> for example, the Turkish media just published an article saying that at
> Mariupol, where there was a great siege, that the Russians ultimately won..
> The one area they haven’t taken over is this tremendous steel plant. There
> are a lot of Ukrainian soldiers who are holed up there. And now it has
> come to light that apparently there are 50 French senior officers, who are
> trapped in that steel plant along with the Ukrainians. The French soldiers
> have been on the ground fighting, directing the battle. And this was kept
> under wraps, ultra-secret, because of the French elections that just
> occurred. Had the French people known that there were a large number of
> French officers trapped and probably going to die in that steel plant, the
> elections would have gone the other way: Marine Le Pen would have won. And
> so it was very important that for the entire deep state, that it not come
> to light that these French officers were there.
>
> We know that there are NATO officers who are present on the ground in
> Ukraine as advisors and so forth. We run the risk. Now, my guess is—and
> this is this is a guess, I could be wrong—but the flagship of the Russian
> Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, was sunk as a result of being struck by anti-
> ship missiles. My guess is that those missiles, I think there’s a good
> chance they were fired by the French. Now, I could be wrong, but those
> missiles are so ultra-sensitive and so dangerous to our ships, that I
> don’t think that NATO would trust the missiles to Ukrainians, or to
> anybody else. I think I think they have to be maintained under NATO
> control and operation. So I think that it was probably NATO forces that
> actually sunk the Moskva.
>
> …
>
> и още нещо интересно -- излиза, че калинките са глобално явление, а не
> локално :)
>
> You know, there’s been a tremendous deterioration in the quality of flag
> officers, going back to, well, certainly the 1990s. We had very, very fine
> flag officers, during the time I was on active duty—I left in ‘94—just
> superior quality people. But what happened is, subsequently, we had
> President Clinton take over, later, we had Obama. We’ve got Biden now. And
> they apply a very strict political screen to their military officers. And
> we now have “yes men.” These are not people whose principal devotion is to
> the United States and its people. Their principal devotion is to their
> careers and their ability to network with other military officers upon
> retirement. There’s a very strong network that can place military generals
> into think tanks, where they promote war, into organizations like Raytheon
> and Northrop Grumman, and all of these defense operations, where they can
> get on boards and things like that. So there’s quite a personal price that
> you pay for saying, “Hey, stop. War is not in the interests of the
> American people.” If we had a better quality of individual, we would have
> people with the courage who would say, “I don’t care what it costs me
> personally.” But it is very difficult to get into the senior ranks, if you
> are an individual guided by principle, and patriotism, and devotion to the
> people of this nation. That’s just not how it works. And at some point, we
> need a President who will go in and shake the tree, and bring a lot of
> these people falling down from it, because they’re dangerous. They’re very
> dangerous to America.
>
> останалата част от интервюто може да прочетете там:
>
> https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/04/26/video-col-richard-black-u-s-
> leading-world-to-nuclear-war/
>
> за обсебените има и видео с интервюто -- да не се мъчат да четат с
> разбиране 8-)
>
> --
> «地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»