Click to see the full-size image
Written by Eric Zuesse.
In an interview by Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, speaking with Victoria Nuland, the head of America’s policies for Ukraine and against Vladimir Putin (whom she said the U.S. aims to be overthrown by a revolution in Russia), Nuland concurred with her interviewer, that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, would be a superb person to arrange an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Here was that part of the conversation:
22:41
How frustrating is it for you with countries that are very closely aligned
22:47
with the United States and enjoy very close intelligence cooperation and security assistance, I’m
22:55
thinking of course of one country in particular, Israel, but there are
23:00
others, the the UAE, uh, as well and not to mention Saudi Arabia, how do you deal
23:07
with with countries like that that are, uh,
23:12
well some would argue there are frenemies in the case of Saudi Arabia, but how do you deal with close American
23:18
allies who in the case of Israel share our values, uh, and but who seem reluctant to come on
23:28
board? [Nuland] I think in the case of the the Gulf countries,
23:34
you know, a lot of this goes to what we just talked about. So, the Saudi relationship with Russia in in OPEC plus
23:42
etc., um, you know, to continue to demonstrate that,
23:48
um, betting with Vladimir Putin offers more risk than than reward and
23:54
we’re doing that quietly. There are also the same points to be made vis-a-vis Xi
24:00
jinping’s China, right? But that’s a long conversation. Um, with regard to Israel,
24:06
um, they continue to believe that they have special wasta with Putin and our
24:13
point is go ahead and use it and get this awful brutal war stopped and nobody
24:20
knows better than the Israelis, uh, what happens when war crimes go
24:27
unanswered, so we will continue to have that conversation. [Miller] Right. I’m sure prime minister Netanyahu would like nothing
24:33
better than to become a mediator to facilitate or broker an end to, uh,
24:39
Russia’s brutal, uh, invasion of Ukraine. [Nuland] If Bibi Netanyahu can get Putin out of
24:47
Ukraine, I’m going to give him the Nobel Prize.
Nuland was asked at the interview’s end: what are the U.S. Government’s bottom-line minimal acceptable results from this war. (Obviously, if neither Netanyahu nor anyone else will be able to meet these minimal U.S. requirements, then the U.S. side of this war will not stop, and the war will continue, and so there will be no negotiated end of this war — and this would mean that there will be a full-scale WW III and virtually the end of this planet’s biosphere.) Here was her answer to this question:
42:53
are supporting that. [Miller] Fair enough. We’ve almost come to the end of of our,
43:02
of our session, um, and I guess I have a final question and
43:07
I again, Tori, I raised the issue of risk and escalation because matching means
43:13
and ends, uh, are important here, um, ending this war is important,
43:20
and avoiding escalation is, is critically important, um, I, I do that, I, I, keeping in mind that
43:28
next month March 20th, um, that we’ll be celebrating another anniversary,
43:34
uh, 20 years after uh what I consider to be an ill-fated ill-conceived
43:41
largest projection of American military force since Vietnam into Iraq, two
43:46
situations [that] are hardly analogous, but the one one question keeps
43:53
occurring to me and it’s the it’s the, how will this end question
43:59
and and while I, I understand that not even Pythia the Oracle of Delphi reading
44:04
the best of signs can answer that question. When our allies ask us how
44:10
will this end, what do we say, what do we say, to them?
44:18
[Nuland] Aaron, I think this goes back to first principles, it has to end with a strategic failure
44:25
for Putin, it has to end with Putin not being able to, from
44:33
a residual platform [Crimea] in Ukraine, or from, you know, if the Ukrainians succeed in
44:39
pushing him all the way off from Russia [meaning here “Ukraine”] again, come roaring back, in six months, or in
44:45
six years. It has to end with an autocrat with grand
44:52
18th century 19th century Imperial ambitions being told no, not only by the state he’s
45:00
invading, the little country he’s invading, but by the whole civilized world, because if we don’t do that, every
45:08
other autocrat on this planet is going to go looking to bite off pieces of countries and destabilize the order that
45:15
has largely kept us safe and prosperous for decades and decades, so that’s what
45:22
Ukraine is about. It’s obviously about Ukraine, but it’s about the larger world
45:28
order, the world that the U.S. has LED and kept safe, for all of these years. It’s
45:35
about the UN Charter we all signed, sovereignty of States, no invading
45:40
anybody by force, right? It’s about the values that we hold dear. So that’s what
45:46
this is about. So how does it end? It ends with a safe viable Ukraine, it ends with
45:53
a Putin who is limping back off the battlefield.
46:00
Um, I hope it ends eventually with a Russian citizenry who also says
46:06
that was a bad deal for us and we want a better future but it must end
46:14
with a strategic defeat for Putin or everybody else is going to come looking
46:20
for what he has, and it’s going to be a far less safe world, a far more dangerous
46:25
world, for us [Miller] Uh, Tori Nuland, there’s so much more to discuss I wish we had more time,
46:32
um but I want to thank you uh for coming on and maybe hopefully next year at this time
46:38
um, we will not be talking about Russia in Ukraine, and maybe you’ll come back then and we can talk about how it
46:45
actually all did end. I, I truly hope so. [Nuland] I hope so, too, Aaron. Thank you so much. Take
46:51
care, bye-bye.
That interview occurred on 16 February 2023 but has been almost entirely ignored by the press, though it’s the fullest public statement yet, by the the Biden Administration, regarding what its “Red Line,” or absolute minimum acceptable requirement, is, for the U.S. Government, in Ukraine’s war. What would be minimally necessary in order for the Biden Administration to accept a defeat of Ukraine, by Russia — the minimum that America will accept — is defeat of Putin, his overthrow, which must follow after the defeat of Russia in this war between NATO and Russia, in the battlefields of Ukraine. In other words: the Administration’s minimum on this is the same as its maximum on it: Putin’s defeat — regime-change in Russia. U.S. President Biden has said, in effect, “Putin must go”, and Nuland has here presented his Administration’s case for that. Perhaps she presented it because Biden had later, reluctantly, softened the statement; maybe she managed to get his permission to make the full case for it, perhaps he liked what she presented to him, and she then chose the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as being the most supportive ‘Peace’ ‘nonprofit’ and thus the optimal forum at which to do this. You might want to see and hear the entire interview, because all of it is packed with shocking statements, both from her and from her interviewer. The interview’s headline is “Inside Biden’s Ukraine Strategy With Ambassador Victoria Nuland | Carnegie Connects”. And it has been online now for more than three months. And the press has ignored it. The present article contains the only text of excerpts from it. You can see the full text just by clicking onto the “…” to the video’s bottom left and then clicking onto “Show transcript” there.
Victoria Nuland argued there that Ukraine’s war is America’s war: America cannot exist without Ukraine’s winning against Russia — that’s what she argued for. She said that America is an idea, and that this is ‘democracy’ as the U.S. Government represents what that is — nothing but that (what she says it is — regardless of what its reality is). Her ‘America’ is fictional, just as her ‘Russia’ (and her ‘Putin’) is. But she isn’t fictional.
The U.S. Government here is saying that if Russia wins this war in Ukraine, then the United States will go to nuclear war against Russia, because the U.S. Government won’t allow that (Russia’s victory there) to happen. The U.S. is making a Ukrainian ‘win’ of this war an existential issue for America, and making a promise to the current Government of Ukraine — for the idea of ‘America’ as she presented it, and as she represented Ukraine to be embodying it.
The U.S. Government is saying that the existence of the United States is at issue here, nothing less than that; the U.S. Government is saying that it simply will not allow Russia to win this war. This is a promise to Volodmyr Zelensky and to all Ukrainians who will be surviving this war: that they will represent America, and America will represent them.
For an alternative historical account of this war, very different from the one that Victoria Nuland has put forth here — and her alleged historical account went entirely unchallenged by her interviewer, who was entirely sympathetic to her and her values — you will see that different “history” here, where it is fully documented to all of its primary sources, by means of links that I have provided there.
To see this history in a broader geostrategic perspective that includes also China, and its province of Taiwan, which the U.S. Government hopes to grab from China (though using somewhat different means than it had used in order to grab Ukraine away from its having previously been a neutral country on Russia’s border), see this and this.
To see her boss, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, saying that if Ukraine’s Government wants to assassinate Vladimir Putin (something that some prominent members of Ukraine’s Government have proposed), then Ukraine would have a right to do that and the U.S. Government would not oppose it, click here.
To see and hear Jeffrey Sachs saying straight-out and with unimpeachable honesty, with full reason, and with intense passion, that the U.S. Government is posing to the entire planet the biggest-ever threat to the continued existence of everyone and of all living things, on this planet, click here. He doesn’t mention Victoria Nuland but he states with total truth the reasons why she ought to be tried and executed (but he doesn’t say that he is presenting any case to do that). However, if she ought to be, then what about Biden? What about Obama? What about Trump? What about Bush? Will there be any accountability? (Trump was the least responsible for this but his was the responsibility that he failed: to stop this, and never to have hired Republican neocons to replace Democratic ones.) Or will we all be annihilated before there is any accountability, at all, for the all-time worst crime, of forcing a global-annihilationist war on the basis only of lies? Sach’s statement there is a tornado of truth. His George-Soros-funded interviewer interrupted him to slip in the phrase “Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine,” and Sachs simply ignored her distractionary raining on his parade. He just continued presenting his damning case, regardless of the interviewer. She’s someone who, if she had refused to invite him on, might have ended up destroying her career: he’s too prominent to refuse, onto her ‘progressive’ show.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
