Back in 2014, Condoleeza Rice was being interviewed about the then-conflict in Ukraine, and in her mild, sweet voice, suggested regretfully that the key to solving Ukraine was much, much tougher sanctions on Russia, no matter the cost, with a you-can’t-make-an-omelet-without-breaking-a-few-eggs sort of tone:
… we need to have tougher sanctions [on Russia]. And I’m afraid at some point, this is going to probably have to involve involve oil and gas. The Russian economy is vulnerable. Eighty percent of Russian exports are in oil, gas, and minerals. People say, well, the Europeans will run out of energy. Well, the Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy. And I understand that it’s uncomfortable…
Over the long run, you simply want to change the structure of energy independence. You want [Europe] to depend more on the North American energy platform of oil and gas that we’re finding in North America. You want to have pipelines that don’t go through Ukraine and Russia. For years, we’ve tried to get the Europeans to be interested in different pipeline routes.
It’s time to do that.
Huh. Rice’s plan sounds EXACTLY like what’s happening now. SO weird. It almost sounds like it’s a State Department plan that came off a top-secret shelf somewhere, and I don’t mean Mar-a-Lago. A “Use In Case Of Ukraine Conflict” kind of plan.
If they ARE following the plan, they totally mucked it up. They gave Putin too much time before they blew up the pipelines, time to coordinate replacement customers for his European energy products. If the deep state did plan to blow up the pipelines, they should’ve done it to start with, when it would’ve made a difference.
Anyway, in the clip, Rice referred to a meeting between President Obama and Angela Merkel in Washington. I think I found it, in a telling article from the World Socialist Website:
The article starts out complaining about Obama’s meddling in Ukraine, and noting all his problems working with the German Chancellor, mostly because Edward Snowden just leaked that the NSA had been spying on her. In language that would be familiar to all of us, the article described nazi forces (real ones) brutally attacking Eastern Ukrainians living in pro-Russian areas, and speculated that the U.S. was encouraging or even directing the violence. It even complains about Victoria Nuland.
Remember, this article is from 2014. Not yesterday.
It was all so eerily familiar. But I was really gobsmacked when I reached these prophetic paragraphs from the 2014 article:
What are Washington’s aims? It would appear that the US has decided to deliberately escalate tensions with the aim of drawing Russia into an invasion of eastern Ukraine, thereby creating the conditions for roping Western Europe into draconian sanctions and even war. …The US is intent on drawing Putin into an intervention in Ukraine, a former Soviet republic on Russia’s border, to protect pro-Russian protesters against the violence of the state. This will then be used by Washington to justify an escalation of economic warfare and military deployments against Russia, potentially igniting a nuclear Third World War.
If you listened to corporate media, you would think that Vladimir Putin cooked up the invasion of eastern Ukraine in February of this year, without any provocation or warning at all. Dumb reporters.
I know, it’s the World Socialists. Forget about the source. At best, the World Socialists are kooks. At worst, the website is a fake, a Russian cyber-military propaganda farm. I might even lean toward the latter, given the article’s overheated rhetoric. Whatever the truth about that is, the article still clearly predicted exactly where things were headed. It just took until 2022 to get there.
In other words, it sure looks like the Ukraine war has been marinating in the State Department’s deep state pressure cooker, for years, in a cunning covert operation spanning multiple administrations. If you don’t agree, point to where we did anything to relieve tensions and head off the war. I think you’ll find that our government did the reverse opposite of that.
I can speculate with the best of them, but it’s true that I have no actual idea what dark plans echo down Washington’s marble corridors of power. So my interest in this story is confined, once again, to marveling over our utterly useless and beyond-pathetic media. Why do non-journalists have to do all the heavy-lifting connecting the dots? Why, for Pete’s sake, isn’t anyone in the media asking our government actors the obvious questions?
In the movies from the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s featuring plucky heroes chased around by out-of-control government agencies, there’s a reason the happy ending was always when the good guys — at the last second — delivered evidence of the massive illegal government operation to A JOURNALIST AT A MAJOR NEWSPAPER. It was an homage, of sorts, to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. But these movies all ended the same way for a really good plot reason: because it was the only believable way for ordinary citizens to beat an out-of-control government.
In other words, it was common knowledge that the media held the government in check. So what happens when the media stops doing its job?
An Ian multiplier; Putin’s big speech, with some eyebrow-raising historical context; plus a little good news to warm your heart. Literally.
www.coffeeandcovid.com