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

699 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Christopher Black: NATO’s War On Russia: The Winds Howl Before The Storm

Quote:
But the most dangerous of all is their invasion of Syria to protect and assist their ISIL or Daesh proxy forces. The presence of US, British, French, Canadian, Israeli and other forces in Syria is of course illegal and constitutes the crime of aggression. There are no excuses or justifications for the crime of aggression. Their aggression also constitutes a complete repudiation of the UN Charter, which requires all disputes to be settled peacefully, and forbids the use of force for any reason outside the parameters of the UN mandate.

Canada is part of this barbaric aggression. And the moribund "peace movement" is silent.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well he blamed it on a "radically changed environment". It's right there in the lede, so it's not like the paper is trying to cover it up. Most likely they put it there because, as you cited Rev, it is reported in the piece.

So I expect they did notice.

But as reported, Russia withdrew from the agreement. However you want to dance around it, that is what happened.

I suppose he could always give it back to Ukraine if he doesn't know what to do with it.

Jeez, talk about dancing around.

The difference being that when the USA abrogated the treaty, there wasn't a NY Times story telling us the US was failing to comply with the conditions of said treaty.

And, as the story stated, Russia will continue to turn the plutonium into mox while the USA is the country that 'doesn't know what to do with it'.

And then there was that throw away line about Russia 'interfering in the domestic politics of Western democracies'. Gee, does the USA ever interfere in other countries domestic politics? Nope, never. There's one thing we know for certain is that the USA fully respects the domestic politiics of countries around the world, democratic or not.

And if you don't believe me, just ask the NY Times.

 

NDPP

Putin Signs Decree Suspending Russia-US Deal on Plutonium Disposal

https://www.rt.com/news/361411-russia-suspend-plutonium-deal/

 

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

Well, although Russia alleges that the U.S. isn't honouring the treaty (not the same as pulling out of it) , this move isn't actually about that.

Putin said why he suspended the agreement yesterday, and gave conditions whereby they would rejoin the plutonium accord. It has to do with sanctions over Ukraine, and the stationing of U.S. troops. There is a condition in the bill he submitted to the Duma about the U.S. having a clear disposal plan, but evidently that is neither the whole reason, nor is it the only condition for rejoining.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-nuclear-idUSKCN1230YN?il=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-nuclear-lawmaking-idUSKCN12...

http://tass.com/politics/903792

And actually the facility in New Mexico is a disposal site. It is a change from the original, but it is not just for storage.So if there is a question about the plan, that would be it. He could have just picked up a newspaper.

https://www.abqjournal.com/721397/energy-boss-wipp-to-reopen-by-end-of-y...

NDPP

edit: dp

6079_Smith_W

So to spell it out, plutonium is now a bargaining chip for sanctions and troop withdrawl, with a little ransom money thrown in.

 

kropotkin1951

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So to spell it out, plutonium is now a bargaining chip for sanctions and troop withdrawl, with a little ransom money thrown in.

Another of your infamous "balanced" posts about Russia.  I can't for the live of me figure out why the tone of conversations is so bad around here and why people accuse you of being biased and closed minded about anything to do with Russia. It must be a side effect of the Russian state paying people to post on babble. Babble's favourite conspiracy theory as I like to call it. 

6079_Smith_W

But the reference to "hostile U.S. actions" No problem there?

Again, if you browse up I didn't bring this up to smear Russia at all, but rather to point out something serious has happened which will have an effect on that doomsday clock - which is what we were talking about. 

Perhaps you don't think breach of a plutonium agreement is relevant to the conversation. I do.

And in fact I posted an article which lay out parts of the dispute.I made no comment about "bad Russia". I said that they pulled out of the treaty. What would you have me say? "Something happened, and if you go to page five of the NYT you'll see what I am refering to"?

That's all I said about Russia's actions. But evidently some here do to get into the meat of this issue, so here we are.

I feel this is an escalation. If this was about nothing other that compliance with the agreement then there would not be extra conditions that have nothing to do with this nuclear waste.

(and really, it is not clear that anyone here was NOT in compliance with the spirit, because both sides seem to be proceding with destroying the plutonium)

6079_Smith_W

You know, k.  if you want to know what I was actually complaining about,here we are having a conversation about a treaty that threatens nuclear stability, and instead of talking about who is to blame for what and what are the possible ways out of this you are focused on how biased and closed minded I am, and that I dare to even talk about it.

Do you think I care what you think of my motive, and do you think anyone here hasn't heard that complaint a million times?

I would much rather you direct your anger where it properly belongs. You think I am wrong? Don't throw cheap insults; tell me why you think I am wrong. That's what NDPP just did. I'd much rather hear a real argument I disagree with than the usual smears and distractions that mean nothing at all.

It is dumb and boring.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, k.  if you want to know what I was actually complaining about,here we are having a conversation about a treaty that threatens nuclear stability, and instead of talking about who is to blame for what and what are the possible ways out of this you are focused on how biased and closed minded I am, and that I dare to even talk about it....

But it was you that posted that piece of drivel from the NY Times, was it not? What did that contribute to the conversation?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

40 million Russians prepare for US nuclear attack.

Duran wrote:
More than 40 million people will take part in the nationwide nuclear preparedness exercises in Russia between October 4th and 7th, according to the director of the Department of Civilian Defense, Oleg Manuilo.

More than 200,000 emergency specialists and 50,000 units of equipment will be involved in the exercises.

All civil defence systems will be set to readiness status, and all of the regional municipalities will check communications and medical assistance readiness.

6079_Smith_W

Which conversation are you talking about, the one I was contributing to, or the one we find ourselves in now?

My intent was to establish that they pulled out of the treaty. And they have.

If you want to quibble about some of the slant, fine. We could just as easily do that about the TASS piece I posted, or NDPP's piece from RT.

That doesn't make it drivel, and it doesn't change its accuracy regarding the main points (even though it confirms my initial comment that someone was sure to step in and make that claim).

 

iyraste1313

refer to my post on Syria...Russia preparing anti US cruise defence missile systems in Syria? What will the USA do if their missiles are shot down, trying to protect their mercenary allies in Syria?

nationwide nuclear preparedness exercises...damn right!
While we play with our devices..pooh poohing the threats?

Where is the sense of outrage and call to action here!!??

NDPP

Dangerous New 'Group Think' For War With Syria/Russia  -  by Robert Parry

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/05/dangerous-new-group-think-w...

"Not since the eve of the US invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly - and openly - for the US government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia."

 

SeekingAPolitic...

I think this comes down to giant game of international chicken.  The only reason assad is still viable because Russia made clear that their national interest is keep the current syrian government power.  If it was not  for Russia we would have total choas in syria, every faction with a stake would fighing each other (I will concede that is already in situation that could be called unsettled currnetly). 

If Assad falls then syria will destroyed as a political entity and be balkanized.  I think a united syria is good thing for the stability of the region. 

I wish I know the true state of affairs between Russia and US both are going over top with propaganda.  What is actually the main reason for the conflict besides the obvious clash of interests.  I am in the camp that both sides are powers that should treat each other with respect.  My message for these powers is to make a deal.  I wish that we lived in a world where big powers would not bully smaller nations but we have deal with this reality.  You have to practical about these things.  We live in a world were the power of the gun decideds issues rather the UN.  Its a depressing situation. 

I would say that war between US and Russia is far away.  But what worries me at the moment that Russia is actually preparing for the of a massive conflict.  From the 40 million people drill, sanctions(which Putin use politically to say that Russia is besieged and we must sacfrice for mother russia), to Russia's to start to militarize society.  I remember seeing a couple articles about a summer camps that have set up for children in Russia.  I am sure how popular these camps are.  But 14-18 go those paramilitary camps where they taught to use military weapons and filled with nationalist bs.  What would make think that war is immenient is that the duma votes to move to a war economy.  At that point is would mean that Russia is all in.

While all these things are happening in Russia, we told kim k. was robbed and how dreadful it was.  Again in my judgement the US is not mentally ready for a real war.  Until that changes(Obama goes on tv tells the public we have sacfrice for the good of the Syrian people) I dont think US will actually make and military moves that could spark war.  In the US 43 million people are on food stamps and there would be much more if not the decision by congress to cut benefits and eligibity for SNAP.  The general population has no interest in helping thses 43 million people, but are ready to sacfrice for a nation that most people dont actually know that it exists.  I just dont see it.

Other course there could be an accident that starts the war, but it would an accident not planed policy.

 

NDPP

Reaping the Whirlwind: Kerry, Al Nusra, Russia and Syria

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/06/reaping-the-whirlwind-kerry-apolo...

"Thus, following a clear succession of events, in which marked progress towards a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict was abruptly shattered by the United States, the US has announced that not only has it suspended talks with Russia on Syria but blames the whole conflict on Moscow..."

 

Russian Options Against A US Attack on Syria

http://thesaker.is/russian-options-against-a-us-attack-on-syria/

"Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as 'the world's indispensable nation,' 'the leader of the free world,' 'the city on the hill' and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense? Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are."

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:
I think this comes down to giant game of international chicken.  The only reason assad is still viable because Russia made clear that their national interest is keep the current syrian government power.  If it was not  for Russia we would have total choas in syria, every faction with a stake would fighing each other (I will concede that is already in situation that could be called unsettled currnetly). 

If Assad falls then syria will destroyed as a political entity and be balkanized.  I think a united syria is good thing for the stability of the region.

The Syrian Arab Army supports Assad, they have laid down their lives to defend their country, and, still, they would not have survived without the able assistance of: Hezbollah, the Iranian military, and the Russian AF.

So you are quite wrong to idenfity only the Russian AF. It is also disgustingly disrespectful to those who have given their lives to defend their country.

Quote:
I wish I know the true state of affairs between Russia and US both are going over top with propaganda.  What is actually the main reason for the conflict besides the obvious clash of interests.  I am in the camp that both sides are powers that should treat each other with respect.

I agree with identifying interests but I don't agree with the way you have brushed this aside. A compromise between the the US regime and Russia, for example, could only work long term if it was based on the common interests of those countries. There's nothing wrong with that. It's realistic, as you put it.

Qatar, along with its regional allies in Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, wanted to transport their oil/gas from the Gulf to ports that service European markets (Cehan, I think). Their close ally the USA, supports this, and the US also supports isolating Russia and Iran from these markets. So a destabilized, destroyed Syria suits the US and its regional allies just fine.

Russia, and their competitor Iran, also wants access to these markets. And they want a stable Syria to do so.

There is another "elephant in the room". Israel, that brutal regime, wants weak states around it. Hezbollah is perhaps the only military force regionally which has stood up to Israeli barbarity, ethnic cleansing, etc., and won. The Israeli leaders are apoplectic with rage - even more so than usual. So a destroyed Syria also serves their purposes; no supplies for Hezbollah (an elected minority in the Lebanese Parliament fyi) and Israel dominate its neighbour Lebanon.

After that, long term, Israel wants to destroy Iran. But first - destroy Syria.

Quote:
Other course there could be an accident that starts the war, but it would an accident not planed policy.

I cannot agree with this naiive remark. "Accidents" happen all the time. The US, along with its NATO and other supplicants [Denmark, UK, and Australia] "accidently" bombed the SAA for an hour, killing 62 and wounding 100 soldiers. The Daesh and other terrorists had moved in, coordinating with the US, and took over the space once the US stopped their bombing. Perfect timing. Some "accident".

When the US bombed Yugoslavia in the 1990's, they "accidently" bombed the Chinese Embassy, killing Chinese nationals. IMHO, this was not an "accident". It was a warning.

If a country carries out an enormous military build-up, flys sorties along the border of countries far away from its own borders, turns the transponders of their aircraft off and tests the defences of its rivals, funds, trains, helps and supervises terrorists that attack other countries, then an "accident" is simply part of the overall plan.

 

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

WW3 is already being fought in Syria.

A short piece that does a good job of identifying the countries involved and their goals.

Quote:
Syria is the crucible in which all of the major world powers are fighting and each is fighting for a specific ideology in addition to the more utilitarian matters of control over territory and the economic enrichment which this implies....

If the war in Syria is not yet a World War in terms of geographical scope or because Russia and the US have not yet had direct engagement, it is a World War in terms of the volume and geo-political weight of the countries involved.

The Second World War officially began on 3 September 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany after Germany invaded the Second Polish republic. But for eight months, there was no actual war fought between Germany and the Anglo-French alliance. It was called the ‘phoney war’ for this reason. Many thought it would quietly resolve itself quietly, but then of course Hitler invaded France and the Benelux countries in April 1940.

Far from a phoney war, the war in Syria is very real and it already has the characteristics of a semi-self-contained World War.

In this sense it’s not a matter of when a World War will start, it’s a pressing issue of when and how it can stop.

 

You will not see in the Western MSM, except mostly by those targeted for hatred, denunciation, McCarthyism and all the rest of the generous gifts of Western civilization these days, anything remotely resembling a sober concern for the situation the world is in right now.

Despicable.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:
The difference being that when the USA abrogated the treaty, there wasn't a NY Times story telling us the US was failing to comply with the conditions of said treaty.

And, as the story stated, Russia will continue to turn the plutonium into mox while the USA is the country that 'doesn't know what to do with it'.

And then there was that throw away line about Russia 'interfering in the domestic politics of Western democracies'. Gee, does the USA ever interfere in other countries domestic politics? Nope, never. There's one thing we know for certain is that the USA fully respects the domestic politiics of countries around the world, democratic or not.

And if you don't believe me, just ask the NY Times.

Here is some follow-up. The Russians have listed the conditions under which they would resume their participation in that agreement and in arms reduction generally with the US regime:

Quote:
1.  A reduction of military infrastructure and the number of the US troops stationed on the territory of NATO member states that joined the alliance after September 1, 2000, to the levels at which they were when the original agreement first entered into force.

    2. The abandonment of the hostile policy of the US towards Russia, which should be carried out with the abolition of the Magnitsky Act of 2012 and the conditions of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, which were directed against Russia.

   3.  The abolition of all sanctions imposed by the US on certain subjects of the Russian Federation, Russian individuals and legal entities.

   4.  The compensation for all the damages suffered by Russia as a result of the imposition of sanctions.

    5. The US is also required to submit a clear plan for irreversible plutonium disposition covered by the PMDA.

 

In other words, not a chance in hell as long as the US continues with its reckless, barbarous, war-like policies. As The Saker notes, rather amusingly, it's the same approach of V. Nuland, or the new Philipines President, towards the EU. lol.

Source: The Saker

SeekingAPolitic...

I think this comes down to giant game of international chicken.  The only reason assad is still viable because Russia made clear that their national interest is keep the current syrian government power.  If it was not  for Russia we would have total choas in syria, every faction with a stake would fighing each other (I will concede that is already in situation that could be called unsettled currnetly). 

 

If Assad falls then syria will destroyed as a political entity and be balkanized.  I think a united syria is good thing for the stability of the region.

 

The Syrian Arab Army supports Assad, they have laid down their lives to defend their country, and, still, they would not have survived without the able assistance of: Hezbollah, the Iranian military, and the Russian AF.

So you are quite wrong to idenfity only the Russian AF. It is also disgustingly disrespectful to those who have given their lives to defend their country.  

==========================================

Lets be honest here the only thing that keeps the jackals at bay is Russia.   If the Russians walked away this whole thing would collaspe in months. 

I remember when the whole chemicals incident happen and syria gave up its chemical weapons.  It was Russia that blunted the momentum to attack by the Western powers.   The whole Saddam playbook was ready to go, new hilter, weapons of mass destruction, threat to its neighbours(gulf cartel), Isreal ready to annex the Golan heights, Turkey and Edergoans dream of a new ottoman empire, neutralize a ally of Iran.  At that point the country would torn apart.  Russia stopped that plan.  Iran and Lebonan contribtion was worth big doughnut. 

Today we have the whole bombing allepo war crimes thing.  Again the only thing keeps the west at bay is Russia.  Washington is looking at its possible actions right now.  I think they have concluded that russia will defend its interests and thats makes things too costly for washington. 

What these things have in common is that these are modern cases for casas belli.  But russia is saying no.  The russians are not dieing for Syria they laeve to the Iranians, Syria, and Shia allies.  But what Russia does is provides a very height barrier to engage in regime change.  Russia most important contribtion is that they provide political power.  The power players that want to tear apart Syria.  They not flying to Iran, or Lebanon to discuss the future of Syria.  They are talking to Russia asking, bribing, bullying to stop it from supporting Syria.  This should be a clue as who decides the fate Syria.

===========================================================================

I cannot agree with this naiive remark. "Accidents" happen all the time. The US, along with its NATO and other supplicants [Denmark, UK, and Australia] "accidently" bombed the SAA for an hour, killing 62 and wounding 100 soldiers. The Daesh and other terrorists had moved in, coordinating with the US, and took over the space once the US stopped their bombing. Perfect timing. Some "accident".

When the US bombed Yugoslavia in the 1990's, they "accidently" bombed the Chinese Embassy, killing Chinese nationals. IMHO, this was not an "accident". It was a warning.

If a country carries out an enormous military build-up, flys sorties along the border of countries far away from its own borders, turns the transponders of their aircraft off and tests the defences of its rivals, funds, trains, helps and supervises terrorists that attack other countries, then an "accident" is simply part of the overall plan.

==============================================================================

Perhaps I should provide greater distinction to my comment.  Syrias future without Russia would be choas and dismemberment.  As to US openly starting www 3 over syria and planning to attack Russia as a policy is nonsense.  The US wants cheap and quick wars and niegther apply to russia.  Both these countries can reach thier respective homelands with weapons, I personally  don't think US can subdue Russia.  Even if by some miracle the US had presence on the ground in proper Russia and threaten the existence of the state Russia will always have nuclear weapons.  Plus China would interven if the Russians were on the ropes, China knows that its next if Russia is neutralized.  Why would US risk this on the fate of Syria.

 

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:
Perhaps I should provide greater distinction to my comment.  Syrias future without Russia would be choas and dismemberment.  As to US openly starting www 3 over syria and planning to attack Russia as a policy is nonsense.  The US wants cheap and quick wars and niegther apply to russia.  Both these countries can reach thier respective homelands with weapons, I personally  don't think US can subdue Russia.  Even if by some miracle the US had presence on the ground in proper Russia and threaten the existence of the state Russia will always have nuclear weapons.  Plus China would interven if the Russians were on the ropes, China knows that its next if Russia is neutralized.  Why would US risk this on the fate of Syria.

Military and public figures in the US have been, and continue to, discuss attacking Syria directly. They're doing this right now.

2. There is a great deal of planning, scenarios, and so on, that goes into military efforts. The US is no different from other militaries in this regard; they just waste enormously more resources than other countries with their bloated military budget.

3. "Cheap and quick" ? But Afghanistan is now the longest occupation in US history. Their plans to overthrow Assad began back in 2000, or thereabouts, when it became clear that Assad would not be part of a Qatari plan to move oil, gas, whatever, throught Syria to Turkish ports in Cehan, etc. That is when the "regime change" meme on Syria began. 

Before that, truth be told, Syria was used by the US regime as a torture site, etc. The Americans "loved" their pal, Assad. Canada's own Maher Arar can tell that story.

4.

Quote:
As to US openly starting www 3 over syria and planning to attack Russia as a policy is nonsense.

The US would attack Russia because the latter stands in the way of un-ending dominance of Planet Earth by the regime in Washington. It is official military doctrine of the US regime and there is plenty written about it. Look up Wolfowitz Doctrine and related materials.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Do We Really Want Nuclear War with Russia?

Robert Parry wrote:
Through an endless barrage of ugly propaganda, the U.S. government and the mainstream American press have put the world on course for a potential nuclear showdown with Russia, an existential risk that has been undertaken cavalierly amid bizarre expressions of self-righteousness from Western institutions.

This extraordinarily dangerous moment reflects the insistence of the Establishment in Washington that it should continue to rule the world and that it will not broach the possibility of other nations asserting their own national interests even in their own neighborhoods.

Rather than adjust to a new multi-polar world, the powers-that-be in Washington have deployed a vast array of propaganda assets that are financed or otherwise encouraged to escalate an information war so aggressively that Russia is reading this onslaught of insults as the conditioning of the Western populations for a world war.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Lame Duck Obama throws in the towel.

Quote:
The U.S. climbdown in the face of a Russian warning to shoot down American aircraft in case of a U.S. attack on Syria, marks the inglorious end to Barack Obama's Presidency....

In reality he has retired in all but name. He has lost control of his own Pentagon, lost control of his own policy advisors, and lost control of Hillary Clinton who is in danger of running out of countries, individuals and concepts to declare war upon.

Today however, Obama’s government has climbed down from the brink of total war with Russia after bottling under pressure.

A continued stream of threats to actively target Syrian troops engaged in a life and death struggle with Islamic terrorism, led Russia’s Ministry of Defence to state quite plainly that any jets firing on Syrian troops will be shot down by Russia.

Obama clearly did not want to turn his blood soaked legacy into a legacy clouded in radioactive dust, and consequently America has publicly withdrawn plans to attack the forces of the Syrian Arab Army.

This however ought to be viewed with a measure of scepticism.

Oh well. At least he won't turn the world into thermonuclear ash. That's probably a good thing. Pity he can't get ANOTHER Nobel Prize.

You know. To accompany the first, richly deserved Nobel Prize he received.

6079_Smith_W

Question:

Well, there never was a decision to go to those lengths, so I'm not sure how it is a climbdown.

So what is the real point here, that the U.S. has decided to avoid conflict, while leaving the option on the table?

Or is the important thing spinning this as an "inglorious climbdown", and that the fear of nuclear catrastrophe which presumably would also have been his fault.

Seeing as the other option by him and congress would have resulted in howls about him starting world war three, seems to me any option is being spun not by whether it is a good choice or not, but by how it can make him look bad.

 

NDPP

Nuclear Poker

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/nuclear-poker/

"The only way to save al-Qaeda is to start war with Russia. And this is actually the choice the US administration is about to make. Why the war? For the fun of it..."

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

So Russia won WW3?...LOL

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

A Nazi-like "scorched earth" policy from the Obama regime.

Quote:
Washington continues to destroy relations with Moscow by conducting a “scorched earth” policy that may affect international stability, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova told reporters.

During the press-conference on Thursday Zakharova said that the spreading of “lies”, threats of “further sanctions” and an increasing military presence near Russian borders Washington continue “to destroy Russian-American relations.” ...

On October 7, US State Secretary John Kerry called for an international “war crimes” probe over Russia’s campaign in Syria. Just a day later, US intelligence officials accused the Russian government of being behind a series of hacks which targeted the Democratic National Convention and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“What we hear on a daily format – it's just a lie, for example, about ‘Russian hackers’, who have not been seen by anyone,” the Russian FM spokeswoman elaborated. “The average … American citizens are being dinned into a perception that Russia is an enemy.”

Maybe the next regime will be better. Let's hope so.

Quote:
...while portraying Russia in a rather negative light, western media is ignoring the country’s humanitarian assistance in Syria.

“Relief supplies are being distributed in the provinces of Aleppo and Daraa: bakery products, sugar, flour, rice, tea, meat and canned fish. It is a pity that we do not see these images on CNN. Probably, they are not interested”.

Yup. Not interested. That's because they think that the only good Russian is a dead one.

Literally.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

RT is losing it as bad as you are... they are telling Russians to get ready for nuclear war. What's the point if everyone is going to die or be sucked into the world of Fallout?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
RT is losing it as bad as you are... they are telling Russians to get ready for nuclear war. What's the point if everyone is going to die or be sucked into the world of Fallout?

 

When some monstrous regime, thousands of kilometers away, carries out troop movements on your borders, installs ABM facilities next door and lies about their purpose, installs puppet regimes in neighbouring countries, sponsors terrorists and threatens those who fight the terrorists, etc., etc., etc., and does all the garbage accompanied by a shrill, venomous campaign of hate against your citizens and your public figures, then it's time to batten down the hatches and prepare to rip 'em a new asshole if they're stupid enough to attack your country.

Good on the Russians for standing up for their own sovereignty, their own path in this world, and not taking that Yanqui shit with every mouthful. It helps everyone else and, as we see with Syria, it may just prevent the barbarous Americans from destroying yet another country, killing millions, displacing millions more, wallowing in their odious military profits, and gloating about it as an act of "freedom".

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

NBC News: US CIA is preparing a cyber strike against Russia

... because nothing says "USA USA!" like an act of war.

Quote:
The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Stephen Cohen: Warmongering in Washington, Preparation for War in Moscow

Quote:
Cohen argues that we should be “shocked” less by Donald Trump’s sex talk or by Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds as secretary of state than by the entire political-media establishment’s indifference to Washington’s drift toward war with Russia. Since the breakdown of the Obama-Putin agreement to cooperate militarily against terrorists in Syria, which Cohen blames primarily on the Obama administration, Washington has escalated its warfare rhetoric against the Kremlin and Russian President Putin in particular. The man with whom the Obama administration proposed to partner with in Syria only two weeks ago is now denounced as a “war criminal” for Russia’s fight against terrorists in Aleppo, which was to be “liberated” by the now aborted US-Russian military alliance.

The Washington Post was more specific, publishing a leaked account of how Putin might be arrested outside of Russia and put on trial. But the first victim might have been Secretary of State Kerry, who negotiated and advocated the proposed alliance and who now must level against Russia the same charges of “war crimes,” dealing a devastating blow to his own reputation. Putting another nail in the coffin of its jettisoned cooperation with the Kremlin, the White House officially accused the Putin leadership of trying to undermine the American electoral system through systematic hacking, even though it presented no real evidence for the allegation. Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to base their coverage of US national security in this regard solely on unrelenting vilification of Putin, not on US national interests. Any talk of partnership with Russia, as still advocated by Donald Trump, is traduced as “insanity” (Rachel Maddow on MSNBC).

On and on and on and on and on it goes.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Joe Biden on Meet the Press (aired tomorrow) outlines undefined actions against Russia should Russian President Putin "do something" to stop the coronation of H Clinton as President of the USA.

Eric Zeusse spells it out:

President Obama Threatens President Putin with Nuclear War

Quote:
Whatever Biden’s assignment here actually was from Obama, one thing about it is clear: this President is determined that Hillary Clinton be his successor, and Obama will target anyone who gets in his way if he doesn’t win his way on this. And Obama wants the American public to know that this is how he feels about the matter.

This Biden-interview is really intended, in that sense, to be a threat aimed at America’s voters, telling them, telling each one of us: Vote for Hillary Clinton, or else! He’s not telling us what that “or else!” is going to be — and maybe he himself has no accurate idea of how far it will ultimately cycle and go. Ultimately, whatever he thinks it would be, might not turn out to be the last step in this cycle of escalation

iyraste1313

Anonymous posted:

"I rotate through Diego Garcia every 6 weeks to pull maintenance on uplink equipment as a private contractor.

Something big is going on, the island has more aircraft than anytime in the last 9 years. They have blocked off some access roads and are now parking aircraft on the road. Barriers have been set up around the aircraft areas. Temporary barracks and hangers are popping up everywhere. A tent city full of AF and Navy maintenance personnel has also been set up.

I have never seen B1s and B2s there at the same time. Actually I have never seen more than 1 there at a time.

Security is nuts I had to show my id at least 8 times a day

My coworker is former AF and said they are like that when nukes are around. We counted over a dozen air refueling tankers on the ground. The airfield had a take off or landing every 15 minutes, very busy. When we flew out we waited in line for quite a while. We never had to wait in the past.

The Navy had the docks full of ships and 6 to 8 more were moored just off shore. We watched many pallets of bombs being off loaded from one ship.

There were a bunch of B-52's coming in that were painted flat black. I have not seen that before.

So are we headed to war again?"

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Doug Henwood, editor of Left Business Report ..

"Fun times!"

SeekingAPolitic...

Did anyone hear anything about russian duma or putin giving a excutive order to rationalize the economy for war. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1981794/putin-to-send-russian-warships-int...

the article from retired navy officer saying that russian economy on war footing. I am doubtful because it takes months to gear a civil economy to war economy.  This would include rationing but has any heard anything like that.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:
Did anyone hear anything about russian duma or putin giving a excutive order to rationalize the economy for war.

Nope. Please bear in mind that, while the sabre-rattling from the US continues, fake news is also happening. For example, there was a fictitious report that Russian authorities had directed state employees with children schooling outside Russia to bring their kids back to Russia.

The story was fiction. So keep your bullshit detector on "full".

Carry on.

 

6079_Smith_W

Which story was fiction?

 

NDPP

CrossTalk on Russia-US Relations - 'Inevitable Clash?'

https://youtu.be/rsGg8e4vD6Q

"This gets beyond nonsensical. This is crazy."

iyraste1313

russia-carrierBy Jay Syrmopoulos

Yesterday, Russia’s flagship, and only aircraft carrier — the Admiral Kuznetsov — left the port of Severomorsk en route to the eastern Mediterranean off the Syrian coast, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The carrier will bolster the Russian anti-terror campaign in Syria and serve as a hedge against U.S. aggression, and is to be escorted by the battle cruiser Peter the Great, the Vice-Admiral Kulakov destroyer, the anti-submarine vessel Severomorsk, and four other naval vessels from Russia’s Northern fleet.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well that's a breath of anti-terrorist fresh air.

I was just thinking about how annoying it was that all the western imperialist lackeys constantly post their war porn pics on here every time Yanqui death machines leave harbour to slaughter people somewhere in the world.

It's such a shame that they are driving the forces of freedom to take steps like this. Sure is a beautiful boat though. Dontcha love the way the tip curls up like that, and that cute little red star?

Same thing for those massive, tall air defense systems at #156 over in the War in Syria thread:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1583582#comment-1583582

Sure makes you feel safer and anti-imperialist, doesn't it?

 

NDPP

CrossTalk Bullhorns: Into the Abyss

https://youtu.be/Utjq965jrkc

"In the waning days of the Obama administration, Russia-US relations stare into the abyss. What can we expect over the next few months?"

iyraste1313

Did The White House Just Declare War On Russia? 

Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

This past week, America’s oldest continuously published weekly magazine, the Nation, asked the question: has the White House declared war on Russia?

....thankfully, in our territory, there are encouraging signs of life in the antiwar movement and willingness to take some serious measures......

what is critical is to separate ourselves, Canada, from the NATO madness...which means Trudeau and his Government legitimacy must be challenged!
How to do so, is a need here to strategize!.....

Cody87

Relevant, feel free to ignore the second half which is pro-Trump (starting at 2:30)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfnhbsCyKuM&feature=youtu.be

Mr. Magoo

The title might also be a little pro-Trump.

YouTube wrote:
Donald Trump: A Chance For Peace #NoWarVoteTrump

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The title might also be a little pro-Trump.

YouTube wrote:
Donald Trump: A Chance For Peace #NoWarVoteTrump

You can ignore the title too, if it offends you.

Mr. Magoo

Given the title, I think I'll just ignore the whole thing.

Not because it "offends" me.  But because if you want me to sit through an ad, there better be a TV show wrapped around it.

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Given the title, I think I'll just ignore the whole thing.

Not because it "offends" me.  But because if you want me to sit through an ad, there better be a TV show wrapped around it.

Given your superb ability to pick apart an argument, I was rather hoping you would be able to rebut the piece. However, I understand. It can be very uncomfortable to entertain contrary viewpoints, especially when they are persuasive. Best not to watch and avoid any potential feelings of self-doubt.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Given the title, I think I'll just ignore the whole thing.

Not because it "offends" me.  But because if you want me to sit through an ad, there better be a TV show wrapped around it.

Given your superb ability to pick apart an argument, I was rather hoping you would be able to rebut the piece. However, I understand. It can be very uncomfortable to entertain contrary viewpoints, especially when they are persuasive. Best not to watch and avoid any potential feelings of self-doubt.

Well, this comment finally convinced me to waste 5 minutes of my life and watch the video. If Trump were not a pathological liar, and if Rev Pesky were not right about the non-partisan nature of American foreign policy, it might be slightly persuasive. In reality, Trump's words are worthless, whatever they may be, and no president really changes foreign policy very much.

The first part, about how warlike HRC has proven herself to be is, in my opinion, quite true, but not in any sense news. I suspect that almost all babblers have known about this aspect of her record for a long time. If they, like me, have come to the reluctant conclusion that Clinton is still a better choice than Trump, it is certainly not because they imagine her to be anything but a neo-con warmonger. The real mistake is to imagine that Trump, or any Republican (especially Mike Pence), would be better than Clinton, in this or any other way.

Mr. Magoo

Was it uncomfortable entertaining contrary viewpoints, Michael?  Are you having feelings of self-doubt?

Anyway, one of the commenters was kind enough to summarize the video for those who don't care to watch:

Quote:
Kissinger is the leader in the background of american politics for the last 30 years. Make some research and you will see, he will not lose this game, he will make hillary president. Even if you vote Trump, he will not win because the sistem is rigged as we saw with Bernie. I hope Hillary dies as quickly as possible because i doubt there is an evil person in politics as her. Die Hillary.

"Die Hillary" is, of course, just the German term for "The Hillary".

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was it uncomfortable entertaining contrary viewpoints, Michael?  Are you having feelings of self-doubt?

Laughing

Pages