New York Times Reveals Americas Weapons-Makers Drive Trump-Impeachment by Eric Zuesse!
(2020-01-03 at 15:45:26 )

New York Times Reveals Americas Weapons-Makers Drive Trump-Impeachment by Eric Zuesse

A remarkably non-propagandistic news-report, in the New York Times, by Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, included powerful evidence that the impeachment-effort against United States President Donald Trump is motivated, in part if not totally, by a desire by United States Senators and Representatives - as well as by career employees of the United States Departments of Defense, State Department, and other agencies regarding national defense - to increase the sales-volumes of United States-made weapons to foreign countries.

Whereas almost all of the contents of that article merely repeat what has already been reported, this article in the Times states repeatedly that boosting corporations such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman, has been a major - if not the very top - motivation driving United States international relations, and that at least regarding Ukraine, Donald Trump has not been supporting, but has instead been trying to block, those weapons-sales - and creating massive enemies in the United States Government as a direct consequence.

The article, issued online on Sunday, December 29th, is titled "Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion", and it quotes many such individuals as saying that President Trump strongly opposed the sale of United States weapons to Ukraine, and that,

In an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that [Ukraine’s current President] Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption. "They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people," Mr. Trump said, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

In other words, Donald Trump, allegedly, said that he did not want "terrible people" to be buying, and to receive, United States-made weapons (especially not as United States aid - free of charge, a gift from United States of Americas taxpayers).

The article simply assumes that Donald Trump was wrong that "they are all terrible people."

Indeed, Donald Trump himself has sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of United States-made weapons to the Royal Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and he refuses to back down about those sales on account of that familys having been behind the widely-reported torture-murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and on account of their effort since 2015 to starve into submission - by bombing the food-supplies to - the Houthis in adjoining Yemen, and on account of their using United States weapons in order to achieve that mass-murdering goal.

Consequently, even if Donald Trump is correct about Ukraines Government, he would still have a lot of explaining to do, in order to cancel congressionally authorized United States weapons-sales to Ukraine but not to Saudi Arabia.

However, a very strong case can be made that he is correct about Ukraine - even if he is wrong about the Sauds. Clearly, the standard line in the United States-and-allied media, that the February 2014 overthrow and replacement of Ukraines democratically elected Government was a -democratic revolution-, instead of a United States coup, is based on blatant lies, and the United States-imposed coup-regime there is still in force, and has been perpetrating an ethnic cleansing in order to be able to remain in power.

In fact, the current Ukrainian President, Volodmyr Zelenskiy, is the self-described "business partner" of, and was brought to power by, the brutal Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, who helped the -former- “Social Nationalist (National Socialist or Nazi) Arsen Avakov, plan and execute on 2 May 2014 the burning-alive inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, of dozens or perhaps over a hundred people who had been printing and distributing leaflets against the coup.

For the New York Times, in its -news--report - even this article that is less prejudiced than most of mainstream United States -news--reporting is - to simply presume that Donald Trump had no valid reason for asserting what he did against Ukraines present (the Obama-installed) Government of Ukraine, constitutes merely anti-Trump (and pro-Obama) propaganda, on their part, and it would be more appropriate in an editorial or op-ed from them than in an alleged news-article, such as here.

However, the actual news-value in that article is real. They quoted from "a piece in the conservative Washington Examiner saying that the Pentagon would pay for weapons and other military equipment for Ukraine, bringing American security aid to the country to $1.5 billion since 2014." This was an anti-Democrat, pro-Republican, newspaper and article, saying:

Kurt Volker, the United States special representative for Ukraine, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a Tuesday hearing. "I think it is also important that Ukraine reciprocate with foreign military purchases from us as well, and I know that they intend to do so."

The assistance comes at a pivotal moment for Ukraines newly minted president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a popular comedian who won a landslide victory in April. Mr. Zelensky has made ending the Russian-backed insurrection in Ukraines eastern Donbas region his top political priority.

The Times, in order to appear nonpartisan, was there citing, as authority, the anti-Trump appointee by Trump, Kurt Volker, who said "it is also important that Ukraine reciprocate with foreign military purchases from us as well, and I know that they intend to do so."

In other words: Mr. Volker was saying that Ukraines Government would follow through with Americas war against Russia, next door to Ukraine, and that therefore, United States taxpayers should pay for Ukraines purchases of United States-made weapons, such as from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

He was saying that milking United States taxpayers to boost those United States corporations profits is good, not bad.

He was saying that Ukraine is on United States taxpayers dole, as if the Obama-installed, rabidly anti-Russian, Ukrainian Government is a charity-case which is the United States Governments business (and not merely those private stockholders business), and that therefore, Donald Trump should continue Mr. Obamas policy toward Ukraine, of using Ukraine in order ultimately to place on Ukraines border with Russia, missiles against Moscow, right across that border. This is what the New York Times is presenting in a favorable light.

Then, the New York Times "news"-report said:

For a full month, the fact that Mr. Trump wanted to halt the aid remained confined primarily to a small group of officials.

That ended on July 18, when a group of top administration officials meeting on Ukraine policy - including some calling in from Kyiv - learned from a midlevel budget office official that the president had ordered the aid frozen.

"I and the others on the call sat in astonishment," William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, testified to House investigators. "In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened."

In other words: the Times further attack against Donald Trumps intention not to provide this United States taxpayer boondoggle to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, United Technologies, and other United States weapons-making corporations - a boondoggle so as to continue free supply to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime of United States-made weapons against Russia - is that career United States national-security personnel support and want to continue Mr. Obamas war against Russia.

Then, the Times reported further:

"This is in Americas interest," Mr. Bolton argued, according to one official briefed on the gathering.

"This defense relationship, we have gotten some really good benefits from it," Mr. Esper added, noting that most of the money was being spent on military equipment made in the United States.

Americas war against Russia is designed to enrich investors in United States "Defense"-contractors.

Is it not clear, then, what was actually behind 9-11-01, and behind Americas invasion of (instead of merely Special-Forces operation regarding) Afghanistan in 2001, and invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011, and of Syria in 2012-now, etc., and coup against Ukraine in 2014?

The Times article closes with this impeach-Trump line:

But then, just as suddenly as the hold was imposed, it was lifted. Mr. Trump, apparently unwilling to wage a public battle, told Mr. Portman he would let the money go.

White House aides rushed to notify their counterparts at the Pentagon and elsewhere. The freeze had been lifted. The money could be spent. Get it out the door, they were told.

The debate would now begin as to why the hold was lifted, with Democrats confident they knew the answer.

"I have no doubt about why the president allowed the assistance to go forward," said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "He got caught."

In other words: Donald Trump yielded to the threat of being impeached. Donald Trump, the sales-person who had sold the Saud family hundreds of billions of dollars worth of United States weaponry, recognized that unless Russia is going to be the main target of United States weaponry, Donald Trumps own Presidency will be in jeopardy.

United States foreign policies are a vast sales-promotion scheme, for Americas billionaires, who crave to control Russia, above all.

Donald Trump will not buck them. Instead, he is continuing Mr. Obamas policy on Ukraine.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.