alternative news


September 11, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

There's a slowly growing  discussion out there that Russia may be next on the list for the worn-out playbook called "regime change":

Has the U.S. Targeted Nuclear-Armed Russia with Regime Change?

In this context, it is perhaps worth recalling that the recent apparent hacking of JP Morgan is being spun by some sources as a Russian cyber attack (a point on which I remain highly skeptical given the Western media's increasing tendency to blame various failures in the Western system on Mr. Putin and those always-evil-never-to-be-trusted-Russians):

Stolen JPMorgan data rerouted to Russia: Bloomberg

As the first article observes, "The U.S. has, of course, already carried out regime change in Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chile, Haiti and many other countries.  The U.S. was also instrumental in the recent regime change in Ukraine."

And as it also notes, there is a growing consensus in foreign circles that Russia is next for the program of "regime change":

"New Republic writes:

"'There are now voices in Moscow saying that these sanctions are an attempt to force regime change in Russia.'

"Richard Becker – of the American anti-war group Answer Coalition – says:

"'Their (US and NATO) clear aim is to surround Russia, to weaken Russia in the long run [and] to bring about regime change in Russia…'

"DNA India argues:

'Washington’s obvious plan is to get troublesome Putin out of the way. The expectation is that once Russians feel the crunch they will turn against the president.


'Regime change has become the latest buzzword against rulers the West dislikes. It was Iraq’s Saddam Hussain at one time, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi at another time and now it is Russia’s Putin. The Russian leader may not be an easy prey.'

"Former Indian ambassador M.K.Bhadrakumar theorizes that it is Russia’s sheltering of Edward Snowden which is the motivation for the U.S. push for regime change in Russia:

'The US is undoubtedly in a punishing mood. What accounts for it? Can’t be Syria. Can’t be Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Can’t be the Arctic, can’t be BRICS.

'Yes, it has to be the unprecedented humiliation and damage caused to the US’ global standing and foreign and security policies by the Edward Snowden affair, which Washington believes was masterminded from the Kremlin. It’s payback time for the CIA.'

"Former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry wrote in April:

'Now that the demonization of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is in full swing, one has to wonder when the neocons will unveil their plan for “regime change” in Moscow, despite the risks that overthrowing Putin and turning Russia into a super-sized version of Ukraine might entail for the survival of the planet.'

A little word to the wise here: a destablized Russia - for that would be what any regime change would result in - would be far worse to deal with than the current one. But there's another problem: that's no likely to happen. And there's yet a third problem, and it's something I've been warning about for some time, and it's something that, given the current relationship between "the Russian mafia" and the various Latin American drug cartels, should give anyone contemplating such a course of action reason to stop and consider the implications very carefully: covert operations and "regime change" is a game two can play.

From the Russian point of view, the first article points out, in its own implicit way, why such a course of covert action might be one the Russians might ponder: the USA's constant meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, its broken promises not to expand NATO - really  broken when one considers the recent statements to the effect that the USA needs bases in the Baltic states - all of it, and most especially Washington's post-9/11 role as a principal de-stabilizing geopolitical factor, have to have the policy mandarins in Moscow and Beijing and New Delhi worried. Indeed, as I put it in last week's News and Views from the Nefarium, the BRICSA bloc has but one overriding uniting factor, and that is the determination to resist this no-limits USA unipolarism.  So what if, in addition to those BRICSA discussions about international financial clearing and their need for their own independent institutions and mechanisms for it, and if in addition to their discussions for their own development bank, there are even more private and secret discussions on "regime change" in the West. This wouldn't simply be a matter of replacing one president or Congress with another, but rather, realizing the deeper structures of power behind them.

And that's the point: the BRICSA nations, largely led by Russia in this respect, have already recognized those structures, and are taking steps to free themselves from them. That's the "soft" regime change. The "hard" regime change...well, that's another matter entirely. But you can bet your bottom reminbi they're talking about that too.  They would, in fact, be bereft of their senses if they did not have such contingency plans.

As I say, it's a game two (or more) can play.

See you on the flip side...

(Thanks to Mr.T.W. and Mr. V.T. for these articles!)