FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Obama Continues Psyop Against Russia, Threatens China

 “Well, look, there’s no doubt that a robust, interventionist foreign policy on behalf of certain principles, ideals or international rules is not a tradition that most countries embrace. And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that.”  

-Barack Obama in Interview with The Economist.

On the eve of Obama’s meeting with African politicians, he gave an interview with obsequious editors and reporters from The Economist.  He used it to attack Russia and Putin once again.  The objective was clear:  To dismiss Russia as weak and irrelevant and so to drive other countries away from it, including China and the EU.

But Obama’s effort was quite strange.  Like the entire U.S. anti-Ukraine, anti-Russian effort, it seemed to have little relationship to the truth.   To the very anti-Putin interviewers he feigned dismissiveness of Russia.  (If he was not lying and believes this stuff, we are really in deep trouble, because his ignorance could well reap the whirlwind for the human race.)  Among other things he claimed that: “Russia doesn’t make anything. Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. … The population is shrinking.” A few graphs will make clear that this is way off the mark.   The implication is that Russia is failing economically.  So let us look at Russia’s GDP, especially under Putin.  We can see it at a glance here:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_m8454b80

It is clear that the period of the drunkard Yeltsin, so cherished in the West, was a disaster for Russia and that Putin reversed it.  Russia’s growth continues, interrupted only by the global financial disaster made in the good ol’ USA on Wall St where so many of Obama’s backers reside.  (Should we call them the Wall St. oligarchs?) So much for general economic well being.  How about “making things” as Obama put it?  That is a very non-technical and imprecise way of speaking, surely no accident for President Teleprompter.  Thus it is subject to much interpretation, backtracking and denial if need be?   But how about the more technical term “industrial output”?  How has Putin’s Russia fared in this regard.  Quite well as can be seen here which depicts Year on Year (YoY) Industrial Growth:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_m5ffdbf4f

 

Now what about population? Indeed population did fall as the U.S. preyed on Russia after the crackup of the Soviet Union. But it has now stabilized and even ticked up a bit as can be seen here:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_663e2d9

The myth of declining population is dealt with here and the population situation is summed up in the following paragraph wherein Obama’s other claim in his interview that there is no immigration into Russia is also debunked:

The population hit a historic peak at 148,689,000 in 1991, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, but then began a decade-long decline, falling at a rate of about 0.5% per year due to declining birth rates, rising death rates and emigration.[9]  The decline slowed considerably in the late 2000s, and in 2009 Russia recorded population growth for the first time in 15 years, adding 23,300 people.[10][11] Key reasons for the slow current population growth are improving health care, changing fertility patterns among younger women, falling emigration and steady influx of immigrants from the ex-USSR countries. In 2012, Russia’s population increased by 292,400 people.[12]  As of 2013, Russian TFR of 1.707 children per woman[5] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people. Taking into account immigration, the population grew by 294,500 people.[13]   (Emphasis, jw)

Again one has to worry about Obama’s notions.  If he is so out of touch with reality in that famous bubble of his, we are in deep trouble.  And if he is simply lying, then we have to worry that the U.S. elite feels so contemptuous of the people of the world. In the latter case our elite may mistakenly think that they can get away with anything by peddling the wildest of lies.  Either way, the imperial elite may be led to miscalculate badly about its actions, a potential threat to humanity’s survival.

But Obama did not stop at trashing Russia. As a follow-up he had a few words of warning to China where the tone of dismissal was replaced by condescension and threat. Here is that part of the interview:

The Economist: Because that is the key issue, whether China ends up inside that system or challenging it. That’s the really big issue of our times, I think.

Mr Obama: It is. …..One thing I will say about China, though, is you also have to be pretty firm with them, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. They’re not sentimental, and they are not interested in abstractions. And so simple appeals to international norms are insufficient. There have to be mechanisms both to be tough with them when we think that they’re breaching international norms, …… And what is true for China then becomes an analogy for many of the other emerging markets. (That means you, BRICS. And does this characterization of the Chinese not border on racist stereotyping of Asians of the sort that was last so common during the War on Vietnam? jw)

Watch out China. The message is that you better obey and fit into the “international system” in the way prescribed by President Wall St. And do not look to Russia if you decide to be disobedient – it is a basket case. And in case there is any doubt about the big plan for the21st Century, Obama also says in the interview:

Mr. Obama: Well, look, there’s no doubt that a robust, interventionist foreign policy on behalf of certain principles, ideals or international rules is not a tradition that most countries embrace. And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that.

“Blood and treasure.” Got that. (And you may be sure that the blood will not be shed by the daughters of Obama or Bush II or Hillbillary – or their fellow rulers.) The strategy of the Empire is bribes when they work and war when they do not. This is the world that the U.S. elite has planned for us all. Is it one that we want? Is it one that humanity can live with and survive with?

NOTE.  As I finished up this piece, RT.com published a corrective on Obama’s warped view of Russia here.  The headlines read:

Russia doesn’t make anything” – WRONG

Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow” – WRONG

Life expectancy around 60 years old” – WRONG

We are not supposed to read RT.com here in the West.  It is considered unfashionable or naive at best and downright subversive at worst.  But, dear reader, should we not read it, compare it to the Western outlets and decide for ourselves who is telling the truth?

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com He writes for Antiwar.com, CounterPunch.com and The Unz Review.

More articles by:

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com. He is a founding member of “ComeHomeAmerica.US”.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 24, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
A Letter From Iowa
Jim Kavanagh
Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Camp by the Lake
Chuck Churchill
The Long History of Elite Rule: What Will It Take To End It?
Robert Hunziker
A Climate Time Bomb With Trump’s Name Inscribed
Andrew Levine
Trump: The King
James Graham
From Paris, With Tear Gas…
Rob Urie
Why the Primaries Matter
Dan Bacher
Will the Extinction of Delta Smelt Be Governor Gavin Newsom’s Environmental Legacy?
Ramzy Baroud
In the Name of “Israel’s Security”: Retreating US Gives Israel Billions More in Military Funding
Vijay Prashad
What the Right Wing in Latin America Means by Democracy Is Violence
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Biden’s Shameful Foreign Policy Record Extends Well Beyond Iraq
Louis Proyect
Isabel dos Santos and Africa’s Lumpen-Bourgeoisie
Nick Pemberton
AK-46: The Case Against Amy Klobuchar
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Promtheus’ Fire: Climate Change in the Time of Willful Ignorance
Linn Washington Jr.
Waiting for Justice in New Jersey
Ralph Nader
Pelosi’s Choice: Enough for Trump’s Impeachment but not going All Out for Removal
Ted Rall
If This is a Democracy, Why Don’t We Vote for the Vice President Too?
Mike Garrity – Jason Christensen
Don’t Kill 72 Grizzly Bears So Cattle Can Graze on Public Lands
Joseph Natoli
Who’s Speaking?
Kavaljit Singh
The US-China Trade Deal is Mostly Symbolic
Cesar Chelala
The Coronavirus Serious Public Health Threat in China
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Must Remain Vigilant and on Guard Against US Hybrid Warfare
Robert Fantina
Impeachment as a Distraction
Courtney Bourgoin
What We Lose When We Lose Wildlife
Mark Ashwill
Why Constructive Criticism of the US is Not Anti-American
Daniel Warner
Charlie Chaplin and Truly Modern Times
Manuel Perez-Rocha
How NAFTA 2.0 Boosts Fossil Fuel Polluters, Particularly in Mexico
Dean Baker
What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace With Productivity
Mel Gurtov
India’s Failed Democracy
Thomas Knapp
US v. Sineneng-Smith: Does Immigration Law Trump Free Speech?
Winslow Myers
Turning Point: The new documentary “Coup 53”
Jeff Mackler
U.S. vs. Iran: Which Side are You On?
Sam Pizzigati
Braggadocio in the White House, Carcinogens in Our Neighborhoods
Christopher Brauchli
The Company Trump Keeps
Julian Vigo
Why Student Debt is a Human Rights Issue
Ramzy Baroud
These Chains Will Be Broken
Chris Wright
A Modest Proposal for Socialist Revolution
Thomas Barker
The Slow Death of European Social Democracy: How Corbynism Bucked the Trend
Nicky Reid
It’s Time to Bring the War Home Again
Michelle Valadez
Amy Klobuchar isn’t Green
David Swanson
CNN Poll: Sanders Is The Most Electable
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Our Dire Need for “Creative Extremists”—MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Robert Koehler
FBI, King and the Tremors of History
Jill Richardson
‘Little Women’ and the American Attitude Toward Poverty
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail