Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

You guys are hilarious. This thread is full of a wide variety of different sorts of evidence for US plans, not dissimilar to Napolean or Hitler, to attack Russia. The evidence is in their own first strike policy, in the kinds of weapons they continue to develop and deploy in Europe, in the transparent lies they tell about these weapons, in their endless violations of treaty obligations, in their contemptuous attempts to police the whole world, jackboot style, in their inciting of conflict in Ukraine, in their 1000 or more military bases OUTSIDE the territory of the USA, in their attempt to dictate to the whole world their barbaric view of right and wrong, in their President who sees nothing wrong with extra-judicial killing, even of their own citizens, from aerial and drone atrocities, to their revolting torture chambers, outside all norms of international law in Guantanama, etc, etc, etc,  and all you do is shove your fingers in your ears and yell, "What plans? We don't need no stinking plans!"

Webgear, get your head out of the ground. We both know that the US, and its vassals in NATO (or whatever you want to call those states that follow US-diktat) by virtue of membership in the agressive military alliance, continues to have AN OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE FIRST STRIKE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

This sort of policy can't be defended except by Russophobic arm-waving in which noisy statements to the effect that "the Rooooooooooooooooooskies can't be trusted!" and other Xenophobic claims. No other country claims the right to use violence, without the consultation of other states or the UN, at its own discretion, besides the current regime in the USA.

And they have had these policies for decades. Official policy of the legitimacy of first strike nuclear war. The haughty hubris of an Empire beyond common sense.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So what?

That's no different that Russia.

i call BS. The US withdrew from the ABM Treaty so they could develop a "missile shield" and conduct a first strike. Why else did they do that?

The U.S. Army Operating Concept

Quote:

With US politicians and the American media engaged in an increasingly acrimonious debate over the strategy guiding the latest US war in the Middle East, the United States Army has unveiled a new document entitled the Army Operating Concept (AOC), which provides a “vision of future armed conflict” that has the most ominous implications. It is the latest in a series of documents in which the Pentagon has elaborated the underlying strategy of preventive war that was unveiled in 1992—that is, the use of war as a means of destroying potential geopolitical and economic rivals before they acquire sufficient power to block American domination of the globe.

The document was formally released at this week’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, an annual event bringing together senior officers and Defense Department officials for a series of speeches and panel discussions, along with a giant trade show mounted by arms manufacturers to show off their latest weapons systems and pursue lucrative Pentagon contracts.

Yeah, that's right. "preventative war" ... which is a euphemism for first strike on other countries that MAY, at some imagined point in the future, become "potential" rivals to the unchallenged dominance of the globe by the lidless eye of Sauron, the Great Satan, the Empire, the hegemon, the one-and-only USA. ooh rah.

So which countries, anyway? Russia, certainly, is targeted for "elimination" yes, but who else?

Why, everyone, that's who. Anyone.

Quote:

At the outset, the AOC states its “vision” for the coming wars to be fought by the US Army. In language that recalls former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s invocation of the “unknown unknowns,” the document asserts: “The environment the Army will operate in is unknown. The enemy is unknown, the location is unknown, and the coalitions involved are unknown.”

The only logical explanation for this paranoid scenario is that the US military views every country beyond its borders as a potential enemy. Starting from the premise that the environments, the enemies, the locations and the coalitions involved in future conflicts are unknown, the US Army requires a strategy for war against all states and peoples. This strategy is derived from the unstated, underlying imperative that US imperialism exert hegemony over the entire planet, its markets and resources, and that it be prepared to militarily annihilate any rival that stands in its way.

All those who oppose the Emperor must DIE!"

So, what does it all mean?

Quote:

In the case of a confrontation with another nuclear power, they encompass the implementation of a first-strike doctrine of mass annihilation. In regard to the subjugation and domination of other areas of the globe, they call for massive ground operations to quell popular resistance and enforce military occupation.

This is OFFICIAL US MILITARY DOCTRINE BY AUTHORIZED AND HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS, war contractors, those who stand to make enormous profits from war, and so on.

Getting back to who this is all really aimed at ...

Quote:

Significantly, after more than a decade of the so-called “global war on terror, “ when countering a supposedly ubiquitous threat from Al Qaeda was the overriding mission of the US military-intelligence apparatus, “transnational terrorist organizations” are rather low on the Army’s list of priorities.

First and foremost are “competing powers,” a category that includes China, followed by Russia. In the case of China, the document evinces serious concern over Chinese “force modernization efforts,” which it says are aimed at achieving “stability along its periphery,” something that the US military is determined to block. China’s military efforts, it states, “highlight the need for Army forces positioned forward or regionally engaged,” and for “Army forces to project power from land into the air, maritime, space and cyberspace domains.”

Based on recent events in Ukraine, the document accuses Russia of being “determined to expand its territory and assert its power on the Eurasian landmass,” precisely US imperialism’s own strategic goal. Only a powerful deployment of US ground forces, it argues, can deter Russian “adventurism” and “project national power and exert influence in political conflicts.”

From there, the paper proceeds to “regional powers,” in the first instance, Iran.

These are advanced preparations for fighting World War 3 by official and authorized spokespersons for the US military. Of course, the kind of horrific war envisioned by the military run amok would require re-introduction of the military draft.

And resistance?

Quote:

The implementation of this doctrine of total war is wholly incompatible with democratic rights and constitutional government within the US. It requires the ruthless suppression of any political opposition and all social struggles mounted by the American working class.

Within the US ruling establishment and its two political parties, there exists no serious opposition to carrying the militarization of life within the so-called “homeland” to its ultimate conclusion. CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A DEAD LETTER, WITH POLITICIANS ROUTINELY BOWING TO THE GENERALS ON MATTERS OF POLICY, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. (caps added for emphasis)

The tail wags the dog. Literally. The USA is, like Canada, effectively a fake democracy.

Planning for World War 3. Business as usual.

US Army drafts blueprint for World War 3

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

The Russians, and everyone for that matter, have the same crap.

Let's see some documentary evidence of this claim. Should be easy, right? 

lol. This oughtta be good. I'm getting popcorn.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

That still isn't proof of an absolute for certain planed invasion of Russia in the near future you are claiming in the OP.

That is a concept of operations research document for contingency plans for different types of wars the USA might encounter in the future.

The Russians, and everyone for that matter, have the same crap. There is no guarantee they will be used. 

"A proof for absolute certain" is a kind of confession, when it comes to events in political life, that no evidence is good enough. So I'm not surprised you've given up the quest to substantiate your claim.

There is a continuity in military doctrine from the Soviet era in Russia to the present era. Perhaps it is the Russian character, I don't know. They too have a messianic component in their thinking about themselves, like the Americans, but it seems to revolve around saving the world from evil rather than imposing their views on everyone else.They are quite proud of this role and then can point to successful examples: Napoleon, Hitler, and so on. Some commentators treat the current Cold War II as another chapter in that long history.

In all their discussion about nuclear deterrance, it was invariably a defensive ideology. And that made sense; it was, after all, the USA which deliberately provoked an arms race to bankrupt them. And, while other factors were significant, this factor was very important ... as all sides acknowledge today. The US "success" in foreign policy is ... in an arms race whose end result would have been nuclear war. Any honest person can see that, comment on that, and think about the implications.

Nothing has change in regard to the Empire. Dominance of the globe, forever, is still the avowed aim. We have had an historical period, since the destruction of the Soviet Union, of a single hegemon, the lidless eye of Sauron, in which country after country has seen the "beneficial" effect of this Empire: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, again Iraq, Libya, attempts with Syria then and now, Iran in the crosshairs of the Great Satan, Ukraine, and so on. All of this is tiresomely obvious. The failed states are everywhere.

When US dissidents like Noam Chomsky says, in the UN, as he did the other day, that while the US Empire cannot be expected to obey international law, it should obey its own laws, the stormy applause from the General Assembly truly represents the collective humanity. The USA truly is a monster.

See Noam dissent!

But that is not all. Even the Russian President, just yesterday or so, talked about the Russian bear.

The bear has no interest in ruling the world. None. He is happy with being the dominant creature in the Taiga, where he belongs.

See for yourself ....

"The bear won't ask for permission but neither is it interested in ruling the forest elsewhere."

In the following, Putin notes that while the West accepts the independence of Kosovo as routine and obvious, the same principles are jettisoned by those same countries that feign incredulity about the independence of Crimea ...

V.V.Putin wrote:

In this connection I always recall what the sages of the past said. You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed, the Ox is not.
We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be allowed something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does not intend to move to any other climatic zones – it will not be comfortable there. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either. I believe this is clear.

Why can't the USA and its Emperors (oops - I mean Presidents!) do the same? Why does the US President make public speeches in which he reserves the right to use violence anywhere and everywhere "US interests" are affected? Why does the US military and its contractors put such enormous effort into the planning for WW3 and the annihilation of humanity?

Why is this such an evil Empire?

Tariq Ali - on the US ... the first and last Global Empire

"For the first time in US history, the US President has the authority to order the death of an American wherever he or she is. Therefore, President Obama has the authority to order a drone attack wherever Edward Snowden is staying. Legal. Also legal to spy on the whole world, on the rest of the world. All legal under US law."

A German magazine called this "soft totalitarianism". This is the harshest statement from a European magazine that is part of the media system of Europe and the US. For the Germans, familiar with the Stazi, some of them say, simply, "This is worse than the Stazi." For the Stazi spied on their own. But they did not, could not, spy on the whole world.

fyi - there is a very amusing exchange between some State Department spokespeople and an AP reporter that relates to these claims of "Russian aggression" against NATO.  The reporter basically challenges the claim, points out that it is NATO that is aggressive, as measured by its continual expansion towards Russia, and challenges the State Dept mouthpiece to disprove his claim. The exchange is priceless.

Quote:

"I will speak on behalf of the volunteer battalions, because I have more information...Today we are ready not just to defend [Ukraine], but to invade the Russian Federation, break into it with reconnaissance detachments and sabotage groups," the leader of the Dnepr-1 battalion Yury Bereza said on Sunday during the 'Shuster Live' TV show.

"Ukraine's volunteer battalion leader, who is now also an MP, said on a Ukrainian television show that the battalions are ready to "intrude" into Russia. He spoke about intended terrorist acts before being cut off by the show's host."

That ain't no Wayne and Shuster show!

Hard evidence: US trains terrorists to attack Russia

Quote:

The first group of fighters from volunteer (Ukrainian junta) punitive battalion Donbass started training yesterday at the training center in the town of Zolochiv, Lvov region, under the leadership of American instructors.

American Military Advisors Train Radicals for Clandestine Operations in Russian-Speaking Territories

Yeah, state terrorism from the "freedom loving" USA. ooh rah.

Is that the Pravda that John McCain got hopelessly confused about, or the other one? In any case, that piece is from June. They may have been anticipating the August attack on Novorossiya and possibly up to and beyond - with NATO goading - right across the Russian border. There was, in fact, some evidence of Ukrainian shelling (some OSCE people got bombed) of Russian targets ... a subject that got zero play in the Western press. Imagine that.

A more longer term strategy seems more likely. If Washington can't evoke a color revolution, then they work on the alternative. War. And I think they will.

You're not seriously looking for an exact prediction, are you? That would be sharing the hubris of the neo con puppet masters, don't you think?