United States Wants War With Russia
Written by davidswanson Tag: Peace and War
. davidswanson's blog
By David Swanson, American Herald Tribune
After provoking Russia for decades, the United States government has
apparently concluded that the Russians are all saints and decided to
escalate the provocations with confidence that nothing will go wrong, or go
nuclear. Either that or the U.S. government truly wants World War III.
I wouldn't treat a diseased rat the way the United States treats Russia. The
Russian government has exercised such incredible restraint that the United
States has apparently decided it can get away with being even nastier, a
move that is now openly described by Washington insiders as being driven by
weapons profiteering:
"'This is the "Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling" set in the Army,' the senior
Pentagon officer said. 'These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10
feet tall. There's a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose,
and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint
the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at
the same time. What a crock.'"
In fact, the United States spends well over 8 times what Russia does on
militarism, not counting "Homeland Security" or Energy or State or Veterans,
etc. The world still contains enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life
if just a small fraction of them are used, and 93 percent of them belong to
Russia and the United States.
Why aren't the nukes gone, when Gorbachev was willing to give them up?
Because Reagan was unwilling to give up a stupid, non-functioning, and
fraudulent technological defense against a threat that would not have
existed if he had. That technology is back in the movie theaters and back in
the news: Star Wars.
The Cold War continued. The Soviet Union broke up. Germany reunified. And
the Cold War still continued at the Pentagon. The Warsaw Pact went away.
NATO expanded. When Germany reunited, the United States promised Russia that
NATO would never expand eastward. NATO then added the Czech Republic,
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Slovenia, Albania, and Croatia to its membership. Since the U.S.-facilitated
coup in Ukraine, and against the desires of the Ukrainian people, NATO has
been pushing for a partnership with Ukraine, as well as with Georgia.
Imagine if Russia had promised not to expand the Warsaw Pact and then added
to its membership Greenland, Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico.
If Russia claimed to have done all that to protect itself from Iran, how
many U.S. pundits would treat that as a serious, non-laughable claim? And if
Russia made a deal with Iran under which more stringent inspections than
ever endured by any nation would verify that Iran had no threatening
weapons, and if Russia bragged about this deal, but if Russia went right on
expanding the Warsaw Pact, would the United States take that as the harmless
gesture of friendship that NATO depicts its actions as?
NATO has also been "looking for a purpose" and rushing off to wage wars in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. The United States and some of its NATO
allies are waging wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria,
Somalia, and Yemen. In a number of those places, drone wars and proxy wars
have been turned into U.S. ground wars, perfectly primed for major
expansion. Yet, the United States speaks of its actions as "defensive,"
describes Russia as aggressive, and falsely accuses Russia of invading
Ukraine, a mythical act that Hillary Clinton determined made Vladimir Putin
the equivalent of "Hitler."
Now the United States has sent ships to the Black Sea, sent tanks to
Georgia, planned a huge military "exercise" in Poland, opened a "missile
defense" site in Romania, which Russia calls a "direct threat" (and a
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and begun
building another "missile defense" site in Poland. There's a video online of
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the new site in
Romania, describing it as a "team effort" involving Romania, Poland, Spain,
Turkey, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. Stoltenberg's stilted
speech claims repeatedly that "Missile defense is for defense. It is
defensive." Stoltenberg claims the "missile defense" missiles are too close
to Russia to intercept Russian missiles, which misses the point that Russia
views the U.S. missiles as offensive, not "defensive."
Even CBS News finds it impossible to take NATO's nonsense completely
seriously:
"U.S. officials say the Romanian missile shield, which cost $800 million, is
intended to fend off missile threats from Iran and is not aimed at Russia.
But NATO decided in January 2015 to set up command-and-control centers in
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria by the end of 2016
-- at least partly in response to challenges from Russia and Islamic
extremists and to reassure eastern partners."
What challenges? Essentially the 10-foot giants landing in the U.S. rear and
on both flanks simultaneously -- in other words: money to be made.
Read this further bit from CBS News carefully:
"President Obama and other NATO heads of state and government met in
September and ordered an overhaul of the alliance's capabilities and defense
posture, called the Readiness Action Plan, or RAP, to take into account
Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and purported military
interference in eastern Ukraine."
The key word there is "purported." It's been years now since the weekly
announcements that Russia had invaded Ukraine, something it obviously never
did. And of course the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the U.S.
state department facilitated a violent coup in Ukraine that installed a
government significantly made up of Nazis. CBS can't bring itself to comment
on whether or not there is any evidence of the "purported military
interference," so it just calls it "purported" and hopes that not too many
people know what that word means.
Russia, believe it or not, is expressing some annoyance. As Jonathan
Marshall recounts: "Moscow spokesmen have warned that Romania could become a
'smoking ruins' if it continues to host the new anti-missile site;
threatened Denmark, Norway and Poland that they too could become targets of
attack; and announced development of a new generation of intercontinental
ballistic missiles designed to penetrate the U.S. missile shield."
Russian planes have come near U.S. ships and planes in recent weeks,
although U.S. reports have generally failed to focus on the fact that those
ships and planes were quite near Russia's borders. These near misses at
starting a war between the world's major nuclear militaries present a far
greater threat than is generally imagined, because most U.S. citizens have
zero interest in starting World War III and so don't think about it, but the
U.S. government and NATO want blood. NATO's new commander says he wants to
be ready to fight Russia immediately.
Donald Trump blurted out the common sense solution of abolishing NATO but
quickly backed off and reversed himself, as on so many other topics. Hillary
Clinton has wholeheartedly supported NATO's expansion from the beginning,
when she was First Lady. Bernie Sanders generally accepts whatever the
military is doing, so as not to rock the boat, which still might leave him
the best of the three on foreign policy, as he so obviously is on domestic.
But a great deal can happen in 8 months. A lot can happen before anyone new
is elected. And with all eyes focused on the election, it's more likely than
ever to do so. And what could happen makes climate change seem manageable by
comparison.
. Home
. About
. Search
/ /
Let's Try Democracy
Writings by David Swanson.
NEW: War Is A Lie: Second Edition
Check out my new book:
/warisalie
. Books
. Article Topics
. Talk Nation Radio
. Donate
. Projects
. Social Media
You are here:
Home > Blogs > davidswanson's blog
May
19
United States Wants War With Russia
Written by davidswanson Tag: Peace and War
. davidswanson's blog
. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
. /forward?path=node%2F5151 Email this Blog entry
.
/print/5151?link_id=4&can_id=dbd88d9da7b223f10c638d62e10ee4b4&source=email-t
op-12-reasons-the-good-war-was-bad-hiroshima-in-context-2&email_referrer=top
-12-reasons-the-good-war-was-bad-hiroshima-in-context-2&email_subject=top-12
-reasons-the-good-war-was-bad-hiroshima-in-context Printer-friendly version
By David Swanson, American Herald Tribune After provoking Russia for
decades, the United States government has apparently concluded that the
Russians are all saints and decided to escalate the provocations with
confidence that nothing will go wrong, or go nuclear. Either that or the
U.S. government truly wants World War III.
I wouldn't treat a diseased rat the way the United States treats Russia. The
Russian government has exercised such incredible restraint that the United
States has apparently decided it can get away with being even nastier, a
move that is now openly described by Washington insiders as being driven by
weapons profiteering:
"'This is the "Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling" set in the Army,' the senior
Pentagon officer said. 'These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10
feet tall. There's a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose,
and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint
the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at
the same time. What a crock.'"
In fact, the United States spends well over 8 times what Russia does on
militarism, not counting "Homeland Security" or Energy or State or Veterans,
etc. The world still contains enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life
if just a small fraction of them are used, and 93 percent of them belong to
Russia and the United States.
Why aren't the nukes gone, when Gorbachev was willing to give them up?
Because Reagan was unwilling to give up a stupid, non-functioning, and
fraudulent technological defense against a threat that would not have
existed if he had. That technology is back in the movie theaters and back in
the news: Star Wars.
The Cold War continued. The Soviet Union broke up. Germany reunified. And
the Cold War still continued at the Pentagon. The Warsaw Pact went away.
NATO expanded. When Germany reunited, the United States promised Russia that
NATO would never expand eastward. NATO then added the Czech Republic,
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Slovenia, Albania, and Croatia to its membership. Since the U.S.-facilitated
coup in Ukraine, and against the desires of the Ukrainian people, NATO has
been pushing for a partnership with Ukraine, as well as with Georgia.
Imagine if Russia had promised not to expand the Warsaw Pact and then added
to its membership Greenland, Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico.
If Russia claimed to have done all that to protect itself from Iran, how
many U.S. pundits would treat that as a serious, non-laughable claim? And if
Russia made a deal with Iran under which more stringent inspections than
ever endured by any nation would verify that Iran had no threatening
weapons, and if Russia bragged about this deal, but if Russia went right on
expanding the Warsaw Pact, would the United States take that as the harmless
gesture of friendship that NATO depicts its actions as?
NATO has also been "looking for a purpose" and rushing off to wage wars in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. The United States and some of its NATO
allies are waging wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria,
Somalia, and Yemen. In a number of those places, drone wars and proxy wars
have been turned into U.S. ground wars, perfectly primed for major
expansion. Yet, the United States speaks of its actions as "defensive,"
describes Russia as aggressive, and falsely accuses Russia of invading
Ukraine, a mythical act that Hillary Clinton determined made Vladimir Putin
the equivalent of "Hitler."
Now the United States has sent ships to the Black Sea, sent tanks to
Georgia, planned a huge military "exercise" in Poland, opened a "missile
defense" site in Romania, which Russia calls a "direct threat" (and a
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and begun
building another "missile defense" site in Poland. There's a video online of
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the new site in
Romania, describing it as a "team effort" involving Romania, Poland, Spain,
Turkey, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. Stoltenberg's stilted
speech claims repeatedly that "Missile defense is for defense. It is
defensive." Stoltenberg claims the "missile defense" missiles are too close
to Russia to intercept Russian missiles, which misses the point that Russia
views the U.S. missiles as offensive, not "defensive."
Even CBS News finds it impossible to take NATO's nonsense completely
seriously:
"U.S. officials say the Romanian missile shield, which cost $800 million, is
intended to fend off missile threats from Iran and is not aimed at Russia.
But NATO decided in January 2015 to set up command-and-control centers in
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria by the end of 2016
-- at least partly in response to challenges from Russia and Islamic
extremists and to reassure eastern partners."
What challenges? Essentially the 10-foot giants landing in the U.S. rear and
on both flanks simultaneously -- in other words: money to be made.
Read this further bit from CBS News carefully:
"President Obama and other NATO heads of state and government met in
September and ordered an overhaul of the alliance's capabilities and defense
posture, called the Readiness Action Plan, or RAP, to take into account
Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and purported military
interference in eastern Ukraine."
The key word there is "purported." It's been years now since the weekly
announcements that Russia had invaded Ukraine, something it obviously never
did. And of course the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the U.S.
state department facilitated a violent coup in Ukraine that installed a
government significantly made up of Nazis. CBS can't bring itself to comment
on whether or not there is any evidence of the "purported military
interference," so it just calls it "purported" and hopes that not too many
people know what that word means.
Russia, believe it or not, is expressing some annoyance. As Jonathan
Marshall recounts: "Moscow spokesmen have warned that Romania could become a
'smoking ruins' if it continues to host the new anti-missile site;
threatened Denmark, Norway and Poland that they too could become targets of
attack; and announced development of a new generation of intercontinental
ballistic missiles designed to penetrate the U.S. missile shield."
Russian planes have come near U.S. ships and planes in recent weeks,
although U.S. reports have generally failed to focus on the fact that those
ships and planes were quite near Russia's borders. These near misses at
starting a war between the world's major nuclear militaries present a far
greater threat than is generally imagined, because most U.S. citizens have
zero interest in starting World War III and so don't think about it, but the
U.S. government and NATO want blood. NATO's new commander says he wants to
be ready to fight Russia immediately.
Donald Trump blurted out the common sense solution of abolishing NATO but
quickly backed off and reversed himself, as on so many other topics. Hillary
Clinton has wholeheartedly supported NATO's expansion from the beginning,
when she was First Lady. Bernie Sanders generally accepts whatever the
military is doing, so as not to rock the boat, which still might leave him
the best of the three on foreign policy, as he so obviously is on domestic.
But a great deal can happen in 8 months. A lot can happen before anyone new
is elected. And with all eyes focused on the election, it's more likely than
ever to do so. And what could happen makes climate change seem manageable by
comparison.
