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

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.

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.

[/quote]

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

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.

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.

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 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".

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.