Turning on Russia Series:
Parts 1 & 2 Published in 2018
Part 1: It’s been done to Russia
before but this time will be the last By Paul Fitzgerald
and Elizabeth Gould
“Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is familiar with the decline of the world’s rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British protectorate of Rhodesia… before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies. There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire… Now an American citizen, Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage… the United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently… The U.S. political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction...”
A Shrinking Giant, Spiegel Online, 9/11/2017
With the collapse of
the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz Doctrine
in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United
States claimed the mantle of the world’s first and only Unipower as well as its
intention to crush any nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The
New World Order foreseen just a few short years ago becomes more disorderly by
the day, made worse by varying degrees of incompetence and greed emanating from
Berlin, London, Paris and Washington. As a further sign of the ongoing seismic
shocks rocking America’s claim to leadership, by the time Stanley Fischer’s
interview appeared in the online version of the conservative German magazine
Der Spiegel, he had already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal
Reserve; eight months ahead of schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and
fall of empires it is the “globalist” and former Bank of Israel president,
Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of the British
Empire as a young student in London, he actually assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product
of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims, that makes
Stanley Fischer not just empire’s Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of
Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, Anatoly
Chubais and Jeffry Sachs, (the Harvard Project) Fischer helped to throw 100
million Russians into poverty overnight - privatizing, or as some would say
piratizing - the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never got the real story
because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the robbery
from beginning to end. As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist
Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book Shadow
Elite, “Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers
trying to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde
Luddites who opposed them, this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or
goal of privatization was not controversial, even among communists… the Russian
Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the groundwork for
privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself
but in the particular privatization
program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it was put into place,
and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament.”
Intentionally set up
to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false narrative,
she continues “The outcome rendered privatization ‘a de facto fraud,’ as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais
scheme to ‘offer fertile ground for criminal activity’ was proven right.”
If Stanley Fischer, a man
who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to post-empire
Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for
post-empire Americans to ask what role Stanley Fischer played in putting the
U.S. on that dangerous course. Unknown to Americans is the blunt force trauma
Stanley Fischer and the “prestigious” Harvard Project delivered to Russia under
the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative’s James Carden “As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted back in 2011… ‘the IMF’s intervention in
Russia during Fischer’s tenure led to one of the worst losses in output in
history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.’ Indeed, one Russian
observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF’s intervention
to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack.”
Neither do most
Americans know that it was President Carter’s national security advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian
heartland that boomeranged back to terrorize Europe and America in the 21st
century. Zbigniew Brzezinski spent much of his life undermining the Communist
Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying about its resurgence as a
Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that hating
Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as
the President’s top intelligence officer was that he couldn’t find Nicaragua on
a map. If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a
unipolar world following the Soviet Union’s collapse it was Zbigniew Brzezinski
and if anyone could be said to represent the debt driven financial system that
fueled America’s post-Vietnam Imperialism, it’s Stanley Fischer. His departure should have sent a chill down
every neoconservative’s spine. Their dream of a New World Order has once again
ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph
for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to feature the
iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. After emerging
from their Marxist/Leninist cocoon after World War II their movement helped to
establish the Cold War. And from the chaos created by Vietnam they set to work
restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy to their own
purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists but directed
by the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the
neoconservatives’ goal was to deconstruct the nation-state through cultural
cooptation and financial subversion and in that they have been overwhelmingly
successful. From the end of World War II through the 1980s the focus of this
pursuit was on the Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their
focus has been on dismantling any and all opposition to their global dominion.
Shady finance,
imperial misadventures and neo-conservatism go hand in hand. The CIA’s founders
saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed
them with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987’s Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, described how “Pentagon Capitalism” had made
the Vietnam War possible by selling the Pentagon’s debt to the rest of the
world. “In effect, the US Marines had
replaced Meyer Lansky’s couriers, and the European central banks arranged the ‘loan-back’” Naylor
writes. “When the mechanism was explained to the late [neoconservative] Herman
Kahn – lifeguard of the era’s chief ‘think tank’ and a man who popularized the
notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration - he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, ‘We’ve pulled off the
biggest rip-off in history! We’ve run rings around the British Empire.’” In
addition to their core of ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives
could count among their ranks such establishment figures as James Burnham,
father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator
Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Zbigniew Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of
their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was known
that their emergence could spell the end of democracy in America and yet
Washington’s more moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels’ 1979 classic The Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America’s politics begins with these fateful words. “THE
PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First,that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook,
preoccupied with certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent
towards others, justifies a politics which, should it prevail, threatens to
attenuate and diminish the promise of American democracy.”
But long before
Steinfels’ 1979 account, the neoconservative’s agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America’s was well underway attenuating American democracy,
undermining détente and angering America’s NATO partners that supported it.
According to the distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond
Garthoff, détente had been under attack by right-wing and military-industrial
forces (led by Senator “Scoop” Jackson) from its inception. But America’s ownership
of that policy underwent a shift following America’s intervention on behalf of
Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in his detailed volume on
American-Soviet relations Détente and Confrontation, “To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and
without consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S.
military alert of its forces in Europe was too much.”
In addition to the
crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in U.S.
decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, “The
United States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into
which the United States had plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation.
Then it had used that tension as an excuse to demand that Europe subordinate
its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble over which they
had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity.”
In the end the U.S.
found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a cease-fire
accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of détente.
But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel’s “politically significant supporters” in the U.S. to begin opposing any cooperation with the Soviet Union,
at all. Garthoff writes, “The United
States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet Union (as well
as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez… Thus they [Israel’s
politically significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet
interests and effective cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of
greater future cooperation by the two superpowers in working toward a
resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem.”
Copyright - 2022 Fitzgerald &
Gould All rights reserved
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story, published by City Lights (2009), Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire, published by City Lights (2011).
Their novel The Voice , was published in 2001. Their memoir, The Valediction Three Nights of Desmond was
published by TrineDay (2021) and The Valediction Resurrection was published by TrineDay (2022). For more information
visit invisiblehistory , grailwerk and valediction.net
Comments
Post a Comment
Moderation is off as a courtesy. Please treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Posts a few calories short of a happy meal will be marked spam.