History is full of Anglo-Saxons arranging wars for their interests, and shifting unprofitable ones over to the world, for instance in the Suez Crisis of 1956.
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is of US and UK’s making as both turned Ukraine into a security threat to Russian-speaking Ukrainians, and Russia, through public meddling by Victoria Nuland, John McCain, and Joe Biden’s family. While Washington and London have benefited from this conflict, including through Biden’s robbing of Ukraine, and sales of weapon and overpriced gas to Europe, its profitability is waning, prompting efforts to turn it over to China as Jake Sullivan’s statement in Beijing shows.
Hiding the US Interest behind the World’s
The US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan’s statement in Beijing on Aug 29, 2024 shows Washington trying to hide its insular interest behind the world’s. It depicts the Biden administration’s pressuring China to adopt Washington’s interest vis-à-vis challenges in Ukraine, Gaza, and South China Sea. Sullivan delivered the speech after a series of meetings with Chinese officials including President Xi Jinping, and revealed Washington’s ruling class now blaming China for Russia-Ukraine conflict, in stark contrast to 2004, 2014, 2017 and 2019 when it was boasting of supporting Ukraine’s war to among other things overextend and unbalance Russia. Things must have changed to make the west’s ruling elites to shift from creating a conflict in the past to seeking to pass the same to China and the world now. This article evaluates how the American position, as stated during Sullivan’s visit to China, shows established Anglo-Saxons’ tradition of starting wars for profit, and shifting them to the world when such are no longer profitable.
Jake Sullivan’s while in Beijing would read, “We remain deeply concerned about China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base and its impacts on euro-Atlantic security”. This position shows Washington shifting responsibility to China, as it attempted earlier through the Ukraine Peace Summit. Both efforts conceal Washington’s responsibility, and attempt to shift its war due to dwindling profits, contrary to what it foresaw while curating the conflict in the past. Noteworthy, the destabilizing and overthrowing of Ukraine’s democratic government in 2014 was the foundation of the US creating a proxy war to drain Russia. The 2019 Rand Corporation’s report titled overextending and unbalancing Russia builds on an Ukraine with nationalist government, and fighting its citizens of Russian descent, which it conveniently labeled as rebels. Such a reality could never have arose if the Euromaidan Coup, which the US directly supported through Victoria Nuland and John McCain, never occurred. The Rand report details many geopolitical opportunities the US would gain by giving more weapons to Ukraine. The report does not show the US consulting the world on whether to proceed through such a risky path or on sharing the benefits of unbalancing Russia with others. Washington’s current stand stems from a realization that it cannot win its proxy war, in a week where the much vaunted F-16 joined a long list of other ‘Game Changing’ weapons that have been destroyed, leaving Kiev’s forces on the ropes. Washington now seeks to cut its losses by getting China and the world to intervene to pressure Russia to stop defending its self, for the west’s puppets in Kiev to achieve their master’s goals.
Cutting Losses and Passing the failing Enterprise to the World
Washington’s turning to the world through China and previously in Ukraine’s Peace Summit in Switzerland’s is a tired ploy plucked from the British Empire’s Handling of the Suez Crisis of 1956. Such a plan is engaged whenever war turns sour for Anglo-Saxons and its benefits dwindles. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, like Egypt-UK, France, and Israel war of 1956, started with Anglo-Saxons crafting to maximize dividends in resources and geopolitical leverage through proxies. In both instances, the instigators, the US and UK, never complain when their plans are turning a profit. For the current case in Eastern Europe, sources in Washington repeated how peeling Ukraine away from Russia would yield immense geopolitical dividends, including expanding the west’s military and economic cartels of NATO and EU respectively. Such sources ignored the inherent risks for Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russia. They also outlined no benefits for China, or countries attending Ukraine’s Peace Summit, making Washington’s attempts to drag them into its proxy war two-faced.
The wests’ Destabilization of Ukraine in 2004 and the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s democratic government with the participation of Victoria Nuland and John McCain was profitable and was hence celebrated. Nuland was seen motivating protestors with cookies, and also handpicking leaders for Ukraine: so much for democracy. Meanwhile, McCain and Lindsey Graham even foresaw a war as they promised that the Ukrainians’ war was US’, and committed to lobby Washington to join the future war, which can well be the existing one. McCain may have viewed Ukraine’s Euromaidan as the Arab Spring, which he had cheered would spread to Moscow and Beijing. He may have foreseen Ukraine’s nationalists repeating what Libyan terrorists in Mistrata did as they successfully fought and overthrew Gadhafi with western assistance. Also, he may have thought of the Syrian scenario, where terrorists, -America’s moderate Rebels-nearly took Damascus. Such an eventuality would give Anglo-Saxons benefits such as cutting Russia’s gas supply to Europe, breaking the historical Russia-Ukraine economic ecosystem, and potentially dividing and plundering Russia. Americans were already enjoying some benefits, for instance Joe Biden having his son on the board of Ukraine’s energy company Burisma. Top members of Biden’s administration also benefited through other shady financial relations, including in Ukraine’s Bio labs, benefits that were being enjoyed exclusively by the US until they started diminishing.
Like the Suez Before
The British Empire before was likewise enjoying the benefits of colonialism and proxy war against Egypt until it turned sour in the 1956 Suez crisis. It was extracting profits and geopolitical leverage from Egypt’s Suez Canal, but could not even fund the African country’s infrastructure, especially the Aswan Dam. Instead, the brutish colonialist preferred using Suez Profits for its insular interests and strengthening the Israeli puppet state. Consequently, the frustrated Egyptian leadership nationalized the Suez Canal to gain capital for development, which prompted the British and France to set Israel to invade Egypt and pave the way for their regaining the Suez. Everything went as the Anglo-Saxons had planned until the Soviet Union stood for Egypt. In a classical display of hypocrisy, the British Empire shifted its war to the world through the UN to cut its losses, and convened the Suez Canal Crisis group, and the hitherto British war was turned over to the UN by the US president Eisenhower. This international body henceforth argued that the Suez Canal was a crucial waterway for international trade, despite 85% of the channel’s traffic belonging to the UK. As seen, Anglo-Saxons have a time-tested behavior of shifting their failing wars to the world. Another example was in Iraq, when the US allowed a UN mission after ravaging the Middle Eastern country, despite having done it without UNSC authorization. Washington’s active efforts to shift its responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine conflict to China and the world shows that the former seek to cut its losses in the war, which is not turning out as expected.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa, exclusively for the online magazine «New Eastern Outlook».
