Washington Launches Its Attack Against BRICS  … Washington is now disposing of the reformist President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff … In Brazil, Washington has used corruption insinuations to get President Rousseff impeached by the lower house. Evidence is not necessary, just allegations. It is no different from “Iranian nukes,” Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Assad’s “use of chemical weapons,” or in Rousseff’s case merely insinuations. -Paul Craig Roberts

In several articles in March, we focused generally on the new Cold War between Washington DC, Brazil and the BRICS. Paul Craig Roberts has now written an article that expands on the Washington attacks and puts it into a more broad-based Latin American context.

Here is one of our articles, “West vs. BRICS: The New Cold War.” We wrote another one as well, hypothesizing that DC was undermining Brazil’s Olympics to put pressure on the regime. You can see that article here.

Roberts focuses not just on Brazil, but also Argentina, Ecuador and other countries in the Americas. In Argentina, he believes DC used that country’s indebtedness to undermine the leadership of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

In Ecuador, he believes DC is pressuring Britain not to release Julian Assange. Washington, he claims, is working on regime change and a new regime might remove Assange from Ecuador’s embassy, where he has stayed for the past years.

More from Roberts:

The Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, notes that Rousseff “hasn’t been accused of anything.” The American-backed elites are simply using impeachment to remove a president who they cannot defeat electorally.

In short, this is Washington’s move against the BRICS. Washington is moving to put into political power a rightwing party that Washington controls in order to terminate Brazil’s growing relationships with China and Russia.

This is correct. It’s a new kind of  Cold War. China, Russia and now Brazil are all engaged in overt or covert hostilities with Washington in one way or another.

In Russia, there are obvious military hostilities, though DC and Russian troops have not collided. That may happen next.

Chinese hostilities tend to be of a more economic nature. China just created its own gold fix based on the yuan rather than the dollar. It’s not convertible into dollars either.

Russia, China and Brazil have all participated in creating an alternative to the International Monetary Fund that will provide funding to developing countries on more lenient terms.

When it comes to Brazil, Roberts is clear that what comes next will be more of the same, but DC will exercise control that it does not have now.

The great irony is that the impeachment bill was presided over by the corrupt lower house speaker, Eduardo Cunha, who was recently discovered to have stashed millions of dollars in secret Swiss bank accounts (perhaps his pay-off from Washington) and who lied under oath when he denied having foreign bank accounts.

Roberts conclusion is that DC simply won’t tolerate South American governments that are independent of Washington. It’s not a matter political or economic policy so much as it is a matter of power. DC wants subservience.

Roberts sees this mostly as a South American issue. We see DC’s attacks on Brazil in the context of a larger strategy having to do with a larger dialectical strategy.

Please note, what we pointed out in March:

• Russia, China and Brazil use Western-style central banking economies. Western elites were instrumental in installing these systems in all three countries.
• The global strategies these countries use to oppose Western power and influence – such as the creation of a BRIC-IMF – are also Western in design and intent.
• Finally, even the name “BRICS” was developed in the West by a Goldman Sachs banker.

The larger war – DC versus the BRICS – is unfortunately part of a larger, deliberate dialectic. Having created the BRICS as a counterweight to Western economic superiority, Western elites have now engaged the BRICS in hostilities.

The outcome will be a kind of evening-out that advances internationalization. Without a fundamental clash, no compromises can be made. Further globalism languishes.

Conclusion: Our conclusion, at the time: We suggested that you not “pay attention to the noise” or appeals to  patriotism. This upcoming globalist enterprise masquerading as a Cold War with the BRICS is nothing more than part of a pre-planned struggle. It is one that will subside into a compromise that will advance internationalism. It happened with the USSR and China as well in previous decades, from what we can tell.