John Bolton Accidentally Explains Why US
Policy On Russia And China Is Wrong
By Caitlin Johnstone
July 18, 2023:
Information Clearing House-- Professional
psychopath John Bolton has an article out with
The Hill titled “America
can’t permit Chinese military expansion in Cuba”
which inadvertently spells out exactly what’s
wrong with the way the US empire keeps amassing
heavily armed proxy forces on the borders of its
large Asiatic enemies.
Citing a Wall
Street Journal report from last month in
which anonymous US officials claim that Havana
has entered negotiations with Beijing for a
possible future joint military training facility
in Cuba, Bolton argues that the US must use any
amount of aggression necessary to prevent this
facility’s construction, up to and including
regime change interventionism.
“The potential of significant Chinese facilities
in Cuba is a red-flag threat to America,” Bolton
writes, arguing that such activities “could well
camouflage offensive weapons, delivery systems
or other threatening capabilities.”
“For example, hypersonic cruise missiles,
already harder to detect, track, and destroy
than ballistic missiles, are natural candidates
for installation in Cuba, a prospect we cannot
tolerate, along with many other risks, like a
Chinese submarine base,” he adds.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
All of which are arguments that could be made
pretty much note-for-note by Russia and China
about the ways the US has been threatening
their security interests with war machinery
in their immediate surroundings.
Arguing that the US is “bound by no commitment
limiting our use of force,” Bolton advocates
“Revoking diplomatic relations with Cuba;
increased economic sanctions against both China
and Cuba; and far stricter implementation of
existing sanctions” as an immediate response to
this reported development, advocating regime
change interventionism as an ultimate solution
to Cuba’s disobedient behavior.
“Had Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy acted more
forcefully and effectively against Castro, we
might have avoided many perilous Cold War
crises, sparing us decades of strategic concern,
not to mention the repression of Cuba’s people,”
Bolton writes, adding, “With Beijing’s threat
rising, we should not miss today’s moment
without seriously reconsidering how to return
this geographically critical island to its own
people’s friendlier hands.”
Bolton notes that Guantanamo Bay “remains fully
available to us today” for any operations the US
should choose to avail itself of to topple
Havana.
Any time there’s the faintest whisper of a
foreign power setting up a military presence in
Washington’s neck of the woods, hawks
immediately begin pounding the drums of war and
exposing the hypocrisy of the US empire’s
insistence on its right to form military
alliances and amass proxy forces on the doorstep
of its geopolitical rivals. Empire apologists
always dismiss Russia and China’s claims that US
military encroachments on their surroundings are
an unacceptable security risk and say that no
nation has a right to a “sphere of influence”
which its enemies are forbidden to enter, yet we
can plainly see that the US reserves a right to
its own sphere of influence from its own
doctrines and behaviors.
Earlier this year Senator Josh Hawley ominously
asked an audience, “Imagine a
world where Chinese warships patrol Hawaiian
waters, and Chinese submarines stalk the
California coastline. A world where the People’s
Liberation Army has military bases in Central
and South America. A world where Chinese forces
operate freely in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Ocean.” Which is exactly what
the US military has been doing to China.
The single dumbest thing the US-centralized
empire asks us to believe is that the military
encirclement of its top two geopolitical rivals
is a defensive action,
rather than an act of extreme aggression. The
idea that the US militarily encircling Russia
and China is an act of defense rather than
aggression is so in-your-face transparently
idiotic that anyone who thinks critically enough
about it will immediately dismiss it for the
foam-brained nonsense that it is, yet because of
propaganda that is the mainstream narrative in
the western world, and millions of people accept
it as true.
The point of highlighting hypocrisy is not that
being a hypocrite is some special crime in and
of itself, it’s to show that the hypocrite is
lying about their motives and behavior, and to
dismantle their arguments defending their
positions. If the US would interpret a Chinese
military presence in Cuba as an incendiary
provocation, then logically the far greater
military presence the US has amassed on the
borders of Russia and China is a vastly greater
provocation by that same reasoning, and the US
knows it. There exists no argument to the
contrary that doesn’t rely on baseless “well
it’s different when we do
it” assertions.
Demanding that Russia and China tolerate
behavior from the US that the US would never
tolerate from Russia or China is just demanding
that the world subjugate itself to the US
empire. Those who argue that Russia should have
tolerated Ukraine being made
into a NATO asset or that China should just
accept US military encirclement because
something something freedom and democracy are
really just saying the US should be allowed to
rule every inch of this planet completely
uncontested.
If what you really want is for the US to
dominate every inch of this planet completely
uncontested, don’t try and tell me that your
actual concern is for the people of Ukraine or
Taiwan or anywhere else. Don’t piss on my leg
and tell me it’s raining. Just be honest about
what you are and where you stand.
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Registration is not necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.
See
also
Search
Information Clearing House
The views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)